If anyone's ever had grappling lessons in traditional martial arts and wondered "why are there so many counters to wrist grabs? No one's just going to walk up and grab my wrist like that!" Well, this is why. Most of your "unarmed" training is actually intended for armed combat. The idea of fighting without a weapon is an afterthought in most traditional systems and I think that's an idea that's gotten lost over time.
Proably where the idea that traditional martial arts are crap comes from. The idea that most people would walk around unarmed for most of human history is kinda weird so martial arts systems reflected that reality and worked around pretty much everyone having a weapon.
@PJDAltamirus0425 even today, I think the idea of fighting without weapons doesn't make much sense. If your life is in danger, even if you don't have a weapon, you grab something. There's always something hard or heavy or sharp in reach that will give you a huge advantage. If you aren't in serious danger, if it's a situation where someone could say "a weapon is escalating too much, it's inappropriate" then you shouldn't be fighting in the first place, you can find a way to exit that situation. And even if you somehow don't have a weapon and can't access one, you must assume your opponent has a weapon even if they haven't shown it yet. So if you aren't training for sports, you're either training for practical defense or historical interest. In both of those instances, it only makes sense to train with weapons and view strikes and grappling only as a compliment to armed combat.
Strongly agree. A young martial artist I used to chat with told me that his instructor tried to tell him that an unarmed person was more dangerous than an armed person. I replied that never, not once, on any battlefield in the world did an army say to themselves; 'this enemy is really dangerous, we need to drop our weapons and get them in a guard.'
I understand why people would point it out though. Many Martial Arts scams show only the compliant lesson but make it look like that's how the technique would work every time.
In new Spain, there were soldiers who usually patrol areas where they could be attacked by arrows and spears so they would have shields and body armor made out of leather.
¡Sí, Señor, the Vaqueros! The Vaqueros, and that general time period in Spanish Mexico, and the 1779 punitive expedition against the Comanche by Juan de Anza, would be an absolutely epic subject for Matt to cover! Actually, in that same year (1779), George Rogers Clark captured the fort at Vincennes from the British here in the present-day state of Indiana. That would also be an amazingly rich topic for Matt to discuss in terms of HEMA. Either way, there were lots of swords, tomahawks, large knives, muskets, pistols, and rifles!😁 No shortage of scalping either!
A similar thing happened in indian colonies where some soldiers would obtain maille shirts because they protected well enough from melee weapons and probably some arrows, despite making gunshot wounds worse (spalling, fragmenting and such)
I would think that a blow from the edge of a buckler, while probably not fatally injurious, could probably break a wrist, fingers, or possibly an arm. Even if there’s no actual damage it might cause the saber guy to release their grip.
@@scholagladiatoria A buckler strike is also just a punch with a hard material, it doesn't provide the same striking power as, let's say, a larger round shield or a thyreos if we go way back.
You're missing the point. A naked fist can also punch and break shit (even if the chances of it breaking something in your opponent is lower.) However, a buckler *cannot grab shit*, which makes the grab a qualitative advantage.
@@Rasbiff How would this factor in, in case of a gauntlet shield (without the extra fluff of course)? You'd still have some comparable defense like with a buckler and you can still grab. I think these could (taking it back in time a bit more) for archers, perhaps be decent. On the same arm as what they use to hold the bowstaff and gaining cover in between shots. cavalry could use it too. Edit: 🤦♂ wait ..., the gauntlet shield hand can also still hold a revolver/pistol or we are going with older versions a hand crossbow..
Since George Silver came up in this video, let's see what he had to say about sword alone vs. sword & buckler: "That all manner of double weapons, or weapons to be used with both hands, have advantage against the single rapier or single sword, there is no question to be made." Silver espoused many controversial opinions & realized they were contentious, spilling ink to defend them. He considered the idea that double weapons like sword & buckler have the advantage over single sword as so widely accepted he didn't to explain or argue for it. Also note that Silver didn't explain his sword & buckler system in much detail, but he did write to fight with sword & dagger almost the same as with sword alone, but using the dagger to put aside the opponent's sword when convenient & stabbing if the opponent got too close. Some La Verdadera Destreza systems take a similar approach to rapier & dagger. Silver said to fight sword & buckler the same as his sword & dagger, but with that the buckler could defend against both blow & thrust alone.
you can actually hold a dagger in hand with many bucklers particularly ones attached to forarm like conquistadors but yeah a shield IS a weapon its not armour, its meant to be used as a weapon. the guy he was practicing against wasnt used to 2 handed fighting he was just fighting 1 handed holding a buckler up with other hand
The invention of firearms kinda makes this statement false. Basically untrained warriors.......with firearms did a lot of damage to well trained warriors. 😁
Apart from a few enthusiasts - did a lot of people in the 19th century in the armies of Europe care about the ability to fight with swords? Then even duels were held with pistols! I think that most of them learned what they were supposed to know by statute (=minimum minimarum) and nothing else! Well, of course, except for the cavalry
@@MrBottlecapBillFirearms still require training. You need to know how to aim, how to hit moving targets, how to shoot when stressed, how to maintain distance from melee weapons, how to reload, how to count shots, and how to use cover. Not every context of firearms vs melee is that simple. A completely untrained gunman can still die in a battle against spearmen.
@@MrBottlecapBillvery true, the same thing was said of bowman and crossbow during the middle ages here in Europe, a particular Pope even tried to ban their use. But like all things the armour and weapons and techniques changed and they became another thing that give you an advantage. We overstate how effective guns are and how trained you need to be to use them effectively, a unit of marines can deal with 10x their number of untrained gunman because the gun gives you a big advantage but not a fight stopping one
The thing about European sabre was to wear it comfortably as all around self-defence weapon. Polish nobles used shields well into XVIIth century, but only on a battlefield, while saber had to be worn at all times as self-defence weapon and status symbol.
14:00 In the military we have a saying that tracer rounds work two ways. Yes it makes a great way of seeing where your rounds are landing so you can adjust your aim but it also lets the other guy see where the rounds are coming from. I'd suggest that having a grip on your opponents weapon arm works two ways as well. It lets you control his arm but it also connects you to him so he can pull you off balance or even throw you to the ground if you don't react fast enough. So a useful idea but maybe not the significant advantage you seem to think it gives.
If the odds are heavily in favour of you being significantly larger and stronger than your opponent (for instance European officer vs. Afghan tribesman), it's going to skew the calculation a bit.
When you hold your opponents arm, that doesn't mean they are holding (and controlling) your arm. Any Judoka knows this. You can pull your sword-arm back but he can pull it much harder then you can. I would be thoroughly impressed if a guy was able to throw a person holding his sword arm, while holding a buckler, how is he supposed to throw you? Except for bull-rushing you and then you have an uncontrolled tumble to the ground and it is a coin-flip for who would come out on top... I think you under-estimate the effect of holding an arm...
@@Kholdaimon We may have to agree to disagree on the idea your opponent can pull harder with his arm than you can using your body. Maybe it's my background in boxing but you get a lot more power torquing your body than just throwing with your arms. Add in footwork and it would be very easy to pull someone off balance if they weren't expecting it and got fixated on maintaining their grip. Of course, as you say, it could end up with a scramble on the ground but, in that case, whoever has a friend close enough to stab or just kick the other guy in the back of the head is going to win the fight.
@@KholdaimonI have to at least partially disagree. As a wrestler one of my favorite little tricks was to use an opponent's wrist control against them much like the OP suggests. When someone would grab my wrist, I would circle to the opposite side (thus inducing a step forward on the wrist control side), throw my arm out, taking his arm with it, and shoot for a single or double leg takedown. It was very effective. The key here is that if there is a point of attachment, both of the attached bodies have a say in where that attachment goes. The grabber can choose to release, but there is a reaction time to consider. Until the grip is actually released the control can be considered at least partially mutual. If the motion of the grabbee is sufficiently violent and sudden the grabber can find themselves both displaced and their grip broken. I in no way disparage your experience as a judoka, but I think that the gi might be coloring your opinion as to the firmness of grips on the arms. I know that in my limited experience playing judo as a grappler with a wrestling background I was shocked at how hard it was to unstick someone's hands from you, and how much more controlling a grip could be when they have a handful of your gi. Anyway, this wall of text is tall enough, cheers!
@@stonecoldscubasteveo4827 I disagree, at the time of grabbing the wrist the arm is extended and closer to the opponent than to yourself. As you probably know, you are stronger when exerting strength closer to your body. And I am assuming that the opponent wears something with sleeves, as shown in the examples. Yes, if the opponent has no sleeves then keeping hold of a wrist is a lot harder, especially when wet due to rain or sweat. In judo, if your opponent holds your sleeve, and you don't hold your opponent's sleeve, you are in trouble. Especially if your weight is already forward on the side of the held-arm. But we aren't necessarily talking about holding on to the wrist for multiple seconds, just long enough to keep his weapon unavailable to defend your counter-attack. When someone grabs your sleeve or wrist of your attacking arm while your weight is on your front-leg, you are not in a position to break that grip quickly. We can come up with ways of countering an arm-grab with wrestle or judo-techniques, but does the opponent know those techniques? Is he expecting to use those techniques? Can he even use those techniques while holding his buckler? I don't think the vast majority of sword-fighters will know how to handle getting their arm grabbed or at least don't have the reaction in-grained enough to do it in a split-second.
Also worth bearing in mind in a lot of scenarios an officer is just going to be using their sword to buy time for someone else to step in. It's a similar principle in modern hand-to-hand on the battlefield, 90% of it is literally you grapple, immobilize and orientate them so that you're immediate number 2 can put some rounds through them. It's not fancy but it's pragmatic. Life or death one on ones do happen, have happened and always will happen but that's generally when things have gone completely tits up.
I think most of battles in history at least before gunpowder worked this way Your opponent tries to attack you you parry and your buddy next to you attacks him while the opponent is still focus in you I might be mistaken but I think many modern systems are giving a lot of attention to such Scenarios
@@Pavlos_Charalambous I honestly cringed when I got a notification for a reply to this expecting the same shit I usually get. But no.... Someone will a brain, fuck me it's refreshing. People generally harp on far too much about individual prowess when war and combat are team-based you're a cog in a big machine. It's one reason why things like shields don't translate well in team based computer games either, "but you get less kills hurr hurr" yeah but you get more and no one is hurting you because they're focused on something else...It's called cooperative for a reason.
also a shield is a weapon, mat just hasnt been hit by one properly if you smash someone in solar plexes or head with a buckler with force, they are going down unless they have a big gut plate or full face helm you can easily break ribs with the rim of a buckler cop one in teeth youll lose your teeth cop it in skull without a skullcap and you could get a fractured skull bring it down hard on a wrist you break the wrist ext shields arent armour, almost every culture in history considered them a weapon apart from modern times
Actually one cool thing you can do with a shield/buckler is that if you slant it and angle it right, it can actually either absorb/deflect bullets, especially with the type of guns they had back then. They actually pointed that out in one of Fan dabby dozy's videos where they shot at the scottish bucklers with french pistols/flintlocks and the bullets would literally bounce/ricochet off the brass on the bucklers at certain angles.
Would you trust your life in the ability to slant your buckler perfectly every time a bullet comes to you to the exact position where it deflects bullets? I’m sure it can be done but why would anyone put that out to the test in the middle of combat? I know that I can catch a punch when someone is standing still drilling it with me, I wouldn’t actually try it in a fight…
@@katinmazniv4714Its because of the times back then. They were showing how, although the army of Highlanders during the battle of Culloden were poor and largely used melee weapons, they had a lot of success in surviving British musket fire by getting into a slanted buckler position like that to survive the initial volley's before smashing into them to deliver a devastating blow to the British armies forces.
In my last sparring on saturday i was fighting buckler and sword vs long sword and I actualy got in a situation where, for a spilt second, i saw the oportunity to grab the hilt of my opponent with the buckler hand. All i could do was push him against my chest and hold him there, whilst simultaniously hitting him on the head with my sword. And he was very much uncompliant. The grabbing of the wrist or hilt in single handed saber fighting is very much more common, happens all the time.
There's counterplay for anything but that doesn't negate the fact that one person's in an advantageous position. That's true in everything from fencing to wrestling to football to video games. A fight's never over until it's over but once the arm is grabbed, the sabre user has a big advantage. That's balanced by the fact that it's not easy to do: grappling is generally harder than just hitting the opponent, _unless_ they have a much longer weapon or a shield.
once the arm is grabed the buckler user can eitehr hit them in face with buckler or dagger they have in hand with buckler or they can also drop buckler and grapple. its not like 1 guy has 1 hand other has 2 they both have 2 hands if youve used both yours to immobilize one of theres they still have other one which has a big piece of iron in it 1 way or another unless they decide to drop it BUT the sword arm shouldnt BE grabed because if you have a buckler you should lead with buckler not sword, scotts sword & targe drill went like so. advance with pistol and targe, start to charge, fire pistol, throw pistol drop to 1 knee block opponents strike with targe as you draw draw sword and lunge upwards/forwards in the examples shown the guy is fighting 1 handed with a targe in his off hand hes not fighting 2 handed or using targe to effect, a shield is classified as a weapon for good reason its not armour it was never considered armour its meant to be used offensively & defensively consider if it was a differnt weapon to a buckler, like a axe, would he have appeared to be fighting 2 handed or 1 handed?
@@hamasmillitant1just as you think the person with the buckler can just drop it and move on to stabbing or grappling, so can the person who has: A- a free sabre hand B- “control” of opponent’s hand C- speed. One of the first things you learn to deal with in boxing, is the right hand straight. It’s the most used weapon on the street, you learn from the first lesson what to do against it, and yet people get KNOCKED OUT by a straight right hand in professional boxing… You currently have the advantage of knowing the whole “play” the sabre guy wants to do without even seeing him in front of you. Some moves are easy to parry/defend/exploit yet you still get him with them, it might be deception, fake, feint, tell and many more… You can’t say “if he does this then I just do this” because you have no information! Imagine seeing a man standing with a sword pointed at you, you know he wants to harm you but you don’t know how he’ll attack until he does… if he attacks first, he can already think of ways you would try to counter because he knows what you would counter to, you don’t even know what is the first attack, and he will counter your counter… fighting isn’t about Being Faster, it’s about being smarter. The punch you won’t see coming is the punch that’s gonna put you on the ground, not the hard punch you saw coming from a mile away. It you can react to the attack so can the attacker. If you can drop your shield for a dagger, he can disengage and create distance (just like someone who is versed in combat might do) It’s not turn based combat, it’s legit combat where you both think and act at the same time! What if by the time you drop your shield you are already stabbed? 101 things can spontaneously happen in combat, learn basic principles and then you’ll be able to apply them on individual actions and see how you progress. Your argument can be dismantled with your own reasoning…
Matt Easton aka Captain Context strikes again! :) Thank you for more in depth explanations, insight an demonstrations into historical and martial reality and going above and beyond of what most content creators are feeding the Utube watching public which mostly if not being entirely wrong, merely skids over the surface of these remarkably interesting hoplological topics. Thank you for your continual work over the years and past months that I was only lurking, not commenting for some time. Still I watch every video you put out for us as it gives new perspectives to my own development as personal defence minded person and fellow hoplologist. As I live under very decent set of laws, thanks be to Our Lord, that allows me to carry daily any bladed implements except for obvious practicality limitation of car/public transportation as well as broad selection of concealed carry firearms across the years, I often wonder what and optimal selfdefense tool for blocking and riposte might look like in worst case scenario of unchecked advance and attack with bladed implement - might that look like RA/Windlass/Easton IX.144 'Wakefield' Falchion in umbrela sheath? defensive, offensive and convenience in one package to go with some microcompact for more remote threats? :) Anyways, God bless you and yours, Matt! +][+
Something people just see to never get about combat is that having the advantage is rarely a guarantee of success. Actual combat is a combination of factors including weapon, defences, skill and luck, but also time, distance, surprise. Unless there's a colossal gap, usually in multiple factors, it can be overcome with the right combination of other factors, including luck. Also, an officer's primary weapon isn't his sword, or even his pistol. It's his unit.
Yeah, and I can imagine in a close fight (rooms, jungle full of trees) the "show a low width long arm" tactic is a lot less adventagous then on an open, even place.
Very true. Until people actually try "strange" combinations. Then they appreciate that it is all about probabilities and that these probabilities are not as skewed as some would imagine. Probably the most telling examples are: single rapier versus single dagger and single rapier against two daggers.
In my video, although it is in Japanese, I made a summary of the saber stance. Nomads, Middle East, Indians, Mongols, Eastern Europeans. The stance was extracted from historical materials, dates, and miniature paintings. I have a video of it somewhere on my channel. Your channel provides information about very good sabers. I've been watching this channel on a different account for over a few years now. Saber-wielding characters are now able to increase the resolution as much as they like. I am now a saber OTAKU. thank you!😁
Thanks for the wonderful video. I come from archery. It seems that many cultures used small shields also together with bows (and swords if the enemy comes close). See e.g. the famous kalkan shields that could be worn in many different ways to favor different purposes (e.g. combination with bow vs. different combinations with sword). Or the Persian separ which could also be used with a bow in the same hand. The separ is basically buckler size. If you leave the straps a bit looser, you can hold a bow or dagger (and I assume also a gun) in your shield hand. So it seems that using a gun in addition is not necessarily something only available to the non-shield wielder. When you have the straps looser, you also get more possibilities to grapple and can do roughly the same things as with a completely free hand (plus shield punches). Not sure about Indian shields, but since they also were used with e.g. daggers (right?), I assume they can basically perform likewise.
Thank you very much for this very valuable follow up to a very interesting topic. I am glad smarter people than me are asking good questions to you. Cheers!
Another aspect that I don't see commented on (although I haven't read all the comments), is that if you grab the arm and pull (like Judo or Akido), the other person will be off balance and not able to throw as solid a blow as they could if they were balanced. Also, if you grab the weapon arm and move (or pull them) so you are on the "outside", they would have to punch through their own arm to hit you. Again, as Matt Easton said, there are attacks, riposts, counters, and so on.
To be fair, warfare evolves in response to needs. Indian warfare evolved primarily to face Persian warfare, while European warfare evolved to face mainly internal and Arabic warfare. Had Indians and Europeans faced each other in the Middle Ages, both cultures would have adapted their technology accordingly. They faced each other only in the Industrial era, where English and Spanish came with ships and it caused the Marathas to greatly focus on coastal fortification and cannons.
Thanks Matt, i recall an account from John Shipster from the Anglo Gurkha war where he fought a Nepalese Sword and buckler officer .Shipster survived by striking the man in the neck.
I think an advantage of a fist held buckler versus a shield strapped to a forearm is the ability to drop it. Say someone grabs your sword arm, drop the buckler and grab their sword arm as it is inevitably coming in to take immediate advantage of your stalled sword.
With Single saber vs sword and shield I would say that one advantage of single saber is that you don't have to fiddle around with either your sword or your shield in order to grab your gun many of the people in India would have quite likely had guns as well however having both a sword and shield in addition to a gun would have given somebody more stuff that they would have had to fiddle around with in order to use the gun.
The dangers around having your sword arm grabbed is presumably why in Persian style treatise they are also sometimes shown as holding both the buckler (separ) and a dagger, with blade pointing down, both in the left hand. Also, even if just holding the Separ, without dagger, it is possible to grab with that same hand due to the type of handle these often had. Wouldn't have been as easy as a bare hand, but still also an option. Razmafzar on TH-cam will probably have plenty of examples.
didn't the Scottish Highlanders also sometimes do a similar thing with their swords and bucklers? have the hand holding the buckler also hold a dagger?
The sword and shield way of fighting was mostly practiced by Rajput's and other north western warriors in India against the Afghan, Mughal and Turks. As you move south in the late 16th century around the time's of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, you'll see one handed swords with long blades which they obviously learnt from the Portuguese and French colonizers to use against them and which also increased the reach of maratha cavalry when fighting against the mughals who had height advantage. The older shields were heavy with wooden, leather lining to protect against more heavier swords and maces carried by the larger Afghan, mughal army. There were also spears with ropes tied at the end to increase it's range against the more taller mughals who had more arms reach. So yeah different situations gave birth to different martial arts and weapons. I've seen shields made with crocodile leather and wood to reduce weight and absorb more shock in the Maratha war museums now they were more obviously used against more heavy weapons than sharper, thrusting ones like swords and spears.
A lot of ahistorical assumptions over here. The height differences, the 'obviously learnt from Portugese' etc are classic assumptions repeated a thousand times by biased historians and just accepted as true. Otherwise, an insightful comment. My take is: Since in the pre Shivaji maharaj era, the Marathas used to be generals for the sultans, their style was more heavy cavalry centric. The innovations that Shivaji Maharaj and his mavlas brought adapted the marathas to a more light and improvisatory warfighting style which only started to really change in the time leading up to panipat 3, where they were transitioning to a mix of party heavy cavalry and drilled eurostyle infantry. Unfortunately, Panipat 3 happened when that transition was not yet complete, hence the loss in a battle they would have otherwise won.
All good points, though I think it's also worth mentioning that the person with the buckler actually has the advantage in closer measure. Even if a blow to the face or arm doesn't free their own weapon arm, they're now close up and not without options by any means, especially against such a long sword. I'd think the saber user would want to take advantage of the grapple quickly, and if unsuccessful in ending the right, retreating to make use of their greater reach.
If the situation presents it, the person with the blucker can dispense with it and grab and control the opponent's sword arm too. btw, the shield/buckler could be used to free the sword hand by given a breaking bone blow at the arm doing the grab.
In the split second there is already a sharp blade going for the buckler user after the parry. In the time he dropped his buckler and countergrappled he would be stabbed or cut several times. If he tried to strike the grappling hand he would be struck the same time with a sword in the head. A broken arm at the worst for a split head. A good deal.
Between the lack of opportunity to reload and the poor accuracy of those guns, I myself would *only* shoot at point-blank range and when there's no way not to.
There was a reason single handed shooting was so heavily favoured. And yes there was lots of practice though I not sure how much official, gun clubs were widespread and the training was common enough that Americans typically practiced in the same way despite far less frequent resort to the sword (which would be difficult considering that the vast majority of gun owners didn't even have one let alone lug it around with them). It maybe saw so use in the civil war though Americans were notorious among foreign observers for plinking else other into attentional hell rather than driving the foe off with steel and a lesser number of casualties (which might seem contradictory by the vast majority of charges ended with one side legging it and being mopped up by cavalry or at least thrown into disorder for long enough for decisive action to be undertaken).
@@vorynrosethorn903 They were more notorious with observers for generally shitty marksmanship. The problem was they all had the fancy new rifled muskets, but no school of musketry to teach them to estimate range, etc. Engagements still tended to be at smoothbore range, with the exception of small numbers of self-taught marksmen anything further out was usually just making noise in the general direction of the enemy lines. With something like the 53 Enfield being 50 yards off in your range estimation means you miss a barn door every time, if you range it right you hit every time.
As far as parrying & grabbing the wrist goes, I did it a lot when sparring in George Silver's style before my sparring partners shifted their approach. The opponent has to basically walk into the technique for it to be effective.
@@valandil7454 Yes, but in Silver's system, you're ideally supposed keep your distance & avoid grips. Grabbing the wrist is what you can do when your opponent gets closer than they should. If both people are fencing Silver we'll, it's not supposed to happen much.
@@mysticonthehill The technique is very potent under the right circumstances. It probably would come up more in a military context than a dueling context, as 19th-centuey battlefield encounters often would have encouraged haste rather than caution. Against a committed cut that comes in close, blocking & grabbing the wrist is great.
I’ve found sword and buckler super effective against longsword, for reasons that make sense in context implied in this video. But then there’s grappling, the first and last thing in physical discourse from the dawn of life to the end of time. ❤
Granted i've never done HEMA before (unfortunately) but I'm quite a good left handed sabreur (if i don't say so myself 😉). As i've fenced since I was a child. I can imagine having access to a buckler offering quite a few advantages. For example, parrying with a buckler would allow you to Riposte from an unorthodox/unexpected line of attack. Plus considering how common simultaneous or near simultaneous touches are in fencing (and I'm guessing swordplay in general). Access to any type of armour that gives you the ability to to"take/tank" a hit (for want of better words) could make all the difference in a real life situation...
I am german, Brittas boyfriend, a pure theoretic in martial arts, fencing and firearms. ( 10 shot .22 lr pistol, 5 shot .22 lr target rifle, 5 shot . 38 Special, 5 shot . 357 Mag, 3 shot .45 muzzleloader rifle, 3 shot .36 muzzleloader pistol, 2 hours Krav Maga, 3 hours two hand Stick fighting, 15 minutes fencing, a brawl in a train), but 41 years of reading magazines about weapons and Military History in german language and visiting dozens of museums and castles, no military service for reason of bad eyes ( which doesn' t matter in necessarity of Volkssturm). A note to pistols, used as military sidearms. With exeption of few french and belgian revolver Modells, military revolvers had been a US and british thing. But there was a difference. US percussion revolvers had been usually in .36 ( socalled Navy) or .44 ( socalled Army), british percussion revolvers had usually .450 to .476, in few cases, special order . 577(!). In case of revolvers US ones had .44 or . 45, british ones had .450, .455, .476 and in case of private order even .577. In case of early non Revolver pistols for cartridges US Navy used for a short time a single shot Remington Rolling Block pistol in . 50, while some britisch officers used two or four Barrel Lancaster pistols in .455, .476 or .577, or their Howdah pistols, the Supermagnums of those days. This means british officers of colonial days wanted a firearm with , punch' , not Match accuracy.
Thanks Captain context for another interesting post. I would assume that after firing all five rounds, if of course the barrel was not to hot to handle, would be used as a club?
The shield is also a weapon, the edge or rim is used to knock out the opponent's hand or body. The Indian shields sometimes had a spike at the centre and a knife like a spike at the edge to injure the opponents
I would consider my primary weapons to be arming sword (alone) and arming sword and buckler, both in the KdF tradition. My experience is that if you put two fighters of equal skill against one another - one with arming sword, one with arming sword and buckler, and each with swords of similar length - then the sword and buckler will dominate, no question. It almost feels like cheating. Grabbing the blade rarely works because: a) your opponent is transferring control of your sword to their buckler hand and is keeping their own blade in motion to stab YOU, or b) your opponent is expecting the grab manouevre and you just end up losing your off-hand. The reason I mention sword length is because this changes the calculus. If the fighter with the single sword has a reach advantage (i.e. with a rapier or longsword), then the fight becomes much more even and the single sword wielder can play a different game. However, if the single sword user has a reach DISadvantage, well, then it's "good night, Irene" for the single sword wielder, barring a miracle. I suppose the calculus also changes if your sword and buckler opponent uses a cutting style that nullifies any reach parity (i.e. shows a bias towards draw cutting against someone with a more thrust-centric style of fighting). I like any topic where sword and buckler is mentioned!
To be honest, the best way to fight off people armed with edged weapons in those days was to use a rifle - a more powerful cartridge - more chances to shoot at a distance - with a bayonet there is more advantage in hand-to-hand combat. Moreover, I am not sure that it is so easy to get under the influence of adrenaline from a single-action revolver, on a target moving at you without aiming from a non-dominant hand. Although a hit does not guarantee an immediate stop of the enemy. Black pouder, you know! So in a dispute between a revolver and a saber against a sword and a buckler - I choose a rifle and a bayonet!
The Sweedish Caroleans are the counter-point to that. They won a lot of impressive victories by giving every infantryman a sword and keeping a lot of pikes on the battlefield after most of Europe was relying on gunpowder weapons. Their basic trick was to stop at an inconvenient range for their foes, draw out a volley, and then charge. In the end, the problem was their troops required more training than most, and their manpower ran out. Because they're Sweden, and they were fighting Russia and a bunch of other European powers at the same time.
I guess that the 'grab' does not even need to be perfect, it really only needs to block/slow down the weapon arm long enough for you to deliver a blow with your weapon.
Matt, This makes me curious to what degree we kinda combine the 2 by using a gauntlet shield and sword/sabre. (without the unnecessary fluff of course) It would have similar-ish blocking abilities to buckler and similar-ish grabbing abilities to fighting with an empty hand. I also think that it would work decently for archers, put the gauntlet shield on their bow arm, they pull the string with the other and they can give themselves cover in between shots, I would also imagen it being decently usable on horseback. (of course since the sword is a back up weapon, the archer or perhaps mounted archer would have a weapon which could easily be a sword/sabre) What do you think?
Finally got my ribaldo from LKChen and I'd take on any sabre or tulwar guy quite happily. Good job Matt. I'll be using buckler with it, more than likely.
Have you ever read Harry Harrison's Hammer & Cross books? His central character, especially in the first book, keeps coming up with outstanding mele, dueling weapons.
Hi Matt, it is always a pleasure to watch your videos. Talking about Asian swords, I wonder if you are interested in anti-sword weapons? I know sai "铁尺"，or jitte "十手" (a variant of sai in Japan), and Chinese double hooks. These weapons are designed to lock opponent's sword, and they can do damage like other weapons, they seem to be used by bodyguards. Are these weapons realistic and reliable? If they were, why are they not in popular demand?
I guess it's like the sasumata - it's a specialized weapon that might be very good in one thing, but a lot worse (compared to other options) in most other situations.
" Are these weapons realistic and reliable? If they were, why are they not in popular demand?" Because you must be skilled and invest many time to practice. Japanese Police Forces used Jitte/Jutte against criminals and in some Samurai Ryuha they are practiced.. In Europe special daggers were used.(Swordbreakers) and in China butterfly knives or Sai and sword breaking rods(iron ruler) were also used for this purpose etc. .
How much advantage two implements give you also depends a lot on experience. It takes more training to get passable with sword and buckler. With time, you can learn to move the two in concert, partially negating the need to split your brain power between them. A single sabre is relatively easy to use. Especially the ones with big hand guards.
I love the fact you counter argue statements of people without making people come off as assholes, some youtubers with tattoes, black nails, ponytails and love of love cuts shirts do that and whine and wonder why he catches fack all the time and have been called unmanly. You are certainly super classy :)
If I had a choice, I'd want a buckler, but in Kung Fu we use the sword with hand to hand techniques and I can see dropping the buckler in certain situations. I'll also note most sabers have more hand protection so you can punch just like a buckler can.
I just really wish Pietta or Uberti made a reproduction of the Beaumont-Adams revolver, I would love to own and shoot one, but historical originals are expensive and basically non existent here in the US.
Yeah unless we're part of a unit of trained police officers or military we only have a few legal reasons for owning a firearm here in Britain - use, training or trade of antique firearms for historical research You guys trade in antiques, but modern firearms are everywhere over there and you still use them for self defence right? We Brits can't be allowed to own modern firearms...we can't be trusted 🙄
@@valandil7454 I thought black powder firearms were still allowed in Britain? Here in the US black powder guns aren't even classified as firearms, you can order a 1860 colt revolver on the internet or through a catalogue and have it dropped at your front door through the postal service. No background checks or registrations like with modern firearms. I'm over in Michigan, USA. Firearms for defense are widely used. There is a law called "castle doctrine" " individuals have the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect themselves against an intruder in their home." So it protects you from legal repercussions if you use firearms ( or any weapon) in defense of your own home. Outside in public you have to much more careful legally, and you need to be in fear for your life, but open carry slinged rifle/shotgun or pistol on a belt holster is legal to all in public. Concealed carry of a pistol is also legal with a license ($100 fee)
Compliant demonstration partner considerations aside, seeing how the match up sorts out with _Buckler Guy_ using *Roland Warzecha* dual presentation of the shield/buckler & sword bound together out front against _Sabre Guy_ would be interesting, if not entirely period correct. Double strikes are the bane of engaging sparring bouts in sustained tactical exchanges simulating fear for life & limb, people want to see the problem solving aspect from the other side thought through too if time allows. Curious about half-swording improvisations with sabre in (too) close with an opponent like _Buckler Guy._
As someone who practices Filipino martial arts, I'd rather not lay out my off-hand just for the opponent to take advantage. Yes my off-hand is performing an important task of re-directing or stopping the opponent's main hand, but the opponent knows where it is committed. Similar concept in BJJ is grabbing the opponent's collar can also mean offering up that grabbing arm for a possible wrist lock or arm bar.
If you would rather not grab the opponent's weapon arm, so that you can have free reign with your weapon arm, then that's your choice. But it is a common technique across the world for many centuries and also used in FMA.
I see a loads of comments from 'gun' perspective arguing - falsely - that firearms somehow magicaly makes melee weapons moot - on the contrary. How do I know? Well we tried and we tried a lot with the guys over the years in various scenarios and sweet and simple of it is IF gunman is unaware from where the attack will come from (unchecked, unaccounted threat) only things that saves him is the distance from 'shivman' - long blades (beyond the length of your forearm lets say) are top at parrying any melee assailant and are quick to action to buy you a time and/or distance to bring your firearm to bear so you are able to engage and stop the threat. We are talking meters (15,12-6m) for gunman to be able to stop the threat effectively without getting hit by shivman. that is far away and almost no mugger/attacker will give you such space to respond. +][+
I think that hit with a rim of shield to windpipe is underestimated. Even if it s miss, hit to chin is very nasty. Two interesting questions: 1) why people didn't use dagger after revolver got out of ammo? It is easy to carry, useful for defense and even more for offense, especially giving more reach. 2) considering saber length and distance, buckler could just deflect arm with saber, what are actually options for person with saber? There is no much time or distance for fakes and multiple movements.
Question for ya Matt, what diameter Dhal is that you have? Punjabi roots nailed it with that Dhal, just trying to decide what diameter I want to go with. If I remember correctly in your video about it they only had two or three sizes when you mention it’s size and now there are quite a few
The thought occurs that most Indian sword & buckler users would carry a long dagger in the hand with the buckler. That would bring an extra bit of danger to the fight that might be hard to spot. According to the Indian fencing instructors I've seen, that is the point. (A sharp point at that.)
While that may have been done occasionally, it can certainly have not been common, because we have hundreds of written accounts, photos, paintings and more from this period, and I have never seen reference to it even once. In the standard and very popular sword and buckler competitions that were described by British observers, they used a stick in one hand and a buckler in the other - daggers are not mentioned.
@@scholagladiatoria as it is taught today, I assumed that it was used historically as well. It seems an obvious addition to the buckler although having tried it, it requires a small hand grip on the dagger, I couldn't hold my dirk & a buckler and as I've mentioned in previous posts I have big hands. Sadly my fencing days are behind me now as I recently had to trade my right leg for my life. Too bad Long John Silver never wrote a fencing treatise for the one legged man. ;-}
@@scholagladiatoria I will definitely do that. Things are so recent that I still have to wait for my leg to heal enough that I can safely wear a prosthetic. After that I have no intention to allow the lack of a leg to stop me.
One of the previous-video commenters here: "Huge advantage to using a compliant opponent" - agreed, when doing technique demonstrations you don't want your opponent to freeplay as a "barbarian" doing his best to kill you (as opposed to originally developing the techniques, when that's exactly what was needed). You do, however, want him _scripted_ to do something reasonably realistic. Think sport: you might want to show your football (UK or US) defense countering a play run by prearrangement with the practice squad. You would never show "Here's what our play looks like if [half] the practice squad just stands there unresponsive," because they never would, thus that doesn't really demonstrate anything.
6:45 wasn't there a small chapter in some niche british manual/memoir with tips and tricks for asian colonies advising doing just that if the officer shot all the bullets?
The bucklers in 1.33, however, appear to be much smaller and more of a flattened cone shape, so hitting them can be harder to defend and more painful (sort of like a large brass knuckle). I even wonder what such a buckler looks like from the legal point of view in different places and countries. Is it a dangerous tool for the police / court, like a knife or brass knuckles?
A small aside and I'd love your opinion, as the size of the shield increases so does the advantage of the shield and sword user up to a point, when it becomes too big and cumbersome in melee combat.
Imo what answers this question better is if you have a saber going against a sword and buckler, then should you pick up a buckler if you have the option
Haha you got me good with that intro I think if I'm sword and buckler guy, I will let the wrist be grabbed, block the saber with the shield and go for a groin kick.
Couldn't the man with his weapon arm grabbed more easily attack the arm of the person grabbing them? At the very least isn't that a sort of "bind" like engagement, and wouldn't the person who is being grabbed still be in range to use their blade? I'd love to see this expanded on more. I am a great enjoyer of bucklers, sabers, and passing footwork. Isn't it traditional for the people of that area to practice draw cuts, wouldn't the person holding the weapon arm be at danger of receiving a draw cut?
Grabs using a glove of some sort or with the bare hand? Were chain mail gloves a thing in the 19th and earlier centuries to do what you suggest.? Thank you, always a pleasure.
Was counter cutting to the exposed hand discussed in George Silver's manual? If the tulwar user was careless and left their sword hand exposed during a cut, a quick backstep could give the saberist a free cut to the opponent's hand. I acknowledge it is easier with the lighter Olympic sabers, but was wondering if the techniques' roots stepped back to this time period.
I think the reason we were all triggered by the grabbing is most of us normal people have been taught fanciful grabs during self defense classes against weapons that we've seen debunked since then on TH-cam. In my case it was karate class, defense against a katana.
TH-cam's too full of frauds and people just trying to push their own ideas as truth, going to actual schools and learning and sparring are where you learn how this stuff actually works. Never just take someone's opinion you read or heard online, it's a good chance to go find out for yourself, I'm sure even Mr Easton would encourage you to do the same, prove to yourself that what he's saying's right 🙂
Unarmed grabbing is certainly crap, but paired with a sword it works in full speed sparring. You can also push away the blade with your hand. Risky against sabres but very useful against rapier stabs.
@@jonasbarkaI do Jujutsu and we're taught to just redirect the weapon and focus on the person because grappling gives them more of a chance to use it so essentially yeah. But if you notice all these grappling techniques are just for a moment they don't hang on, that does work
@@valandil7454 Unarmed you need to be *really* good no matter how you do it. But samurais were professionals and not everyone they encountered would be a master with their weapon, so it makes sense to have it in the system.
@@jonasbarkait wasn't just the Samurai class that knew how to fight but you're right it's as true today as it was then, there aren't very many people capable of it. I've only had to do it once (a knife I'm from London) and not panicing then getting it right without the large possibility of getting hurt was on my mind. I managed, he was hurt and cops picked it him but it took me hours on the tube home to calm down 😐
Follow up question: assuming you are not naturally ambidextrous, but armed with sabre and pistol. Do you train to use the sabre with your main hand and the pistol with your off hand or the other way round? In your demonstrations you had the sabre in your right hand the pistol in your left. But your explanation, that the sabre was very strongly intended for parrying, while the pistol did its job, it seems more logical to carry the parrying tool in the off hand, like you would with a shield, and the main offensive weapon, the pistol, in the main hand.
In one of your previous videos you were talking about how a lot of indian swordsmen would have had a lot more training than a many of their british opposites. I'm guessing a sword and buckler in the hands of an expert would be a lot scarier to an inexperienced british officer with an empty pistol than they would be to you. I suppose it wouldn't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things though. If your riflemen gun down a bunch of expert swordsmen the war is still won. If you had the prospect of a duel you were unprepared for maybe just fall back and regroup.
even if the gunshots do not kill a single shot on target with centre mass is enough to tip the scales significantly in favour of the shooter as the one shot is now quickly loosing blood due to internal bleeding.
I have seen the fight with buckler and stick as a game called gatka. Believe me, it's impossible to defend against a person having sword and buckler keeping in view the speed and skill of person. It's so fast that in one blow, it can cut a person having a single sword. This game is called gatka in Indian language. Pls see the gatka and then decide if a sabre can defend against the sword and buckler.
"Believe me" isn't compelling evidence to counteract the thousands and thousands of hours in competition and sparring that shows repeatedly that single sword can defeat sword and buckler.
@@anotherhistoryenthusiast5874 There are mutiple fight scenes with sword and buckler, they swing sword faster than stick. The buckler is not only used to stop sword blow but can be used to punch opponents. If a person attacks with a swords and oppnent will easily stop it using his buckler and in response his sword will cut opponents neck. One strike will decide the fight. I am dead sure no fighter can face a fighter with buckler. Those fighters are not like a common man but they have years of experience of swinging swords. Brits losts many battles against those swords men until they started using fire arms. No sword or buckler can stop a person with pistol. Firearm was the deciding factor in later battles and helped Brits to defeat her opponrnts.
@@anotherhistoryenthusiast5874 If you dont believe, see videos on youtube? You can see by yourself how fast they swing it? No person with a single sword can even come closer?
It has to be noted that the buckler fell out of use in Europe for reasons. Each time an attempt was made to reintroduce small shields they disappeared again because no sound system could be found that overcame the disadvantages that using one introduced.
What's the evidence for this? The big disadvantage of a shield comes not in use but from having to carry it around all the time. In a fight, while bucklers & especially larger shields may get in the way somewhat, the benefits outweigh the costs.
? The buckler has been featured in almost every culture and period where people have carried swords for self defense. Usually the reason the buckler falls out of fashion is because most people stop carrying swords all together or because it's rather heavy to carry around and they don't bother with it in civilian life. In medieval Europe it had a 500 year service life, that's a very long time for a fashion to persist.
Granted i've never done HEMA before (unfortunately) but I'm quite a good left handed sabreur (if i don't say so myself 😉). As i've fenced since I was a child. I can imagine having access to a buckler offering quite a few advantages. For example, parrying with a buckler would allow you to Riposte from an unorthodox/unexpected line of attack. Plus considering how common simultaneous or near simultaneous touches are in fencing (and I'm guessing swordplay in general). Access to any type of armour that gives you the ability to to"take/tank" a hit (for want of better words) could make all the difference in a real life situation...
I have heard several discussions about double wielding swords on a general basis, but what about taking a concrete example like Thai sword double wielding? The technique must be effective since it survives.
I wonder when fighting against any pole weapon or even rifle & bayonet, if it is better to have single sword rather than sword & buckler, for the ability to grab the opponent's weapon, parry-grab-riposte?
Depends on region and stature. The Maratha army fought with 'Firangi'(lit. European swords) which were also made a bit longer to counter the Mughal swords. These performed extremely well. One great example is the Bhavani Sword
People easily forget that victory in battles and war comes from proper strategy and tactics. Fighting properly as a group effectively is the way to win.
Though in a very particular instance I honestly think another that evens this out is that the tulwar armed opponent, due to the design of the opponent, stand or not, has to be at a much closer range to actually hit than the saber man. It would be more arguable how much the grab hells if the tulwar man was using a sword that allows him to use more grips than the hammer grip.
If anyone's ever had grappling lessons in traditional martial arts and wondered "why are there so many counters to wrist grabs? No one's just going to walk up and grab my wrist like that!" Well, this is why. Most of your "unarmed" training is actually intended for armed combat. The idea of fighting without a weapon is an afterthought in most traditional systems and I think that's an idea that's gotten lost over time.
Proably where the idea that traditional martial arts are crap comes from. The idea that most people would walk around unarmed for most of human history is kinda weird so martial arts systems reflected that reality and worked around pretty much everyone having a weapon.
@PJDAltamirus0425 even today, I think the idea of fighting without weapons doesn't make much sense. If your life is in danger, even if you don't have a weapon, you grab something. There's always something hard or heavy or sharp in reach that will give you a huge advantage. If you aren't in serious danger, if it's a situation where someone could say "a weapon is escalating too much, it's inappropriate" then you shouldn't be fighting in the first place, you can find a way to exit that situation. And even if you somehow don't have a weapon and can't access one, you must assume your opponent has a weapon even if they haven't shown it yet. So if you aren't training for sports, you're either training for practical defense or historical interest. In both of those instances, it only makes sense to train with weapons and view strikes and grappling only as a compliment to armed combat.
Bro, you just blew my mind about Aikido. Thank you.
Strongly agree. A young martial artist I used to chat with told me that his instructor tried to tell him that an unarmed person was more dangerous than an armed person. I replied that never, not once, on any battlefield in the world did an army say to themselves; 'this enemy is really dangerous, we need to drop our weapons and get them in a guard.'
As we learned in basic: unarmed fighting is only to delay your opponent until you can get back to your weapon
The patience you showed while having to explain why compliance is required for ease of demonstration was absolutely legendary
I understand why people would point it out though. Many Martial Arts scams show only the compliant lesson but make it look like that's how the technique would work every time.
In new Spain, there were soldiers who usually patrol areas where they could be attacked by arrows and spears so they would have shields and body armor made out of leather.
¡Sí, Señor, the Vaqueros! The Vaqueros, and that general time period in Spanish Mexico, and the 1779 punitive expedition against the Comanche by Juan de Anza, would be an absolutely epic subject for Matt to cover! Actually, in that same year (1779), George Rogers Clark captured the fort at Vincennes from the British here in the present-day state of Indiana. That would also be an amazingly rich topic for Matt to discuss in terms of HEMA. Either way, there were lots of swords, tomahawks, large knives, muskets, pistols, and rifles!😁 No shortage of scalping either!
A similar thing happened in indian colonies where some soldiers would obtain maille shirts because they protected well enough from melee weapons and probably some arrows, despite making gunshot wounds worse (spalling, fragmenting and such)
I would think that a blow from the edge of a buckler, while probably not fatally injurious, could probably break a wrist, fingers, or possibly an arm. Even if there’s no actual damage it might cause the saber guy to release their grip.
Yes absolutely it can, and I have taken a lot of bruises from bucklers in my time. But it is nothing compared to a stab from a sword blade. :-)
@@scholagladiatoria A buckler strike is also just a punch with a hard material, it doesn't provide the same striking power as, let's say, a larger round shield or a thyreos if we go way back.
I'm pretty sure that it can break a neck or crack a skull.
You're missing the point. A naked fist can also punch and break shit (even if the chances of it breaking something in your opponent is lower.)
However, a buckler *cannot grab shit*, which makes the grab a qualitative advantage.
@@Rasbiff How would this factor in, in case of a gauntlet shield (without the extra fluff of course)? You'd still have some comparable defense like with a buckler and you can still grab.
I think these could (taking it back in time a bit more) for archers, perhaps be decent. On the same arm as what they use to hold the bowstaff and gaining cover in between shots. cavalry could use it too.
Edit: 🤦♂ wait ..., the gauntlet shield hand can also still hold a revolver/pistol or we are going with older versions a hand crossbow..
Since George Silver came up in this video, let's see what he had to say about sword alone vs. sword & buckler: "That all manner of double weapons, or weapons to be used with both hands, have advantage against the single rapier or single sword, there is no question to be made." Silver espoused many controversial opinions & realized they were contentious, spilling ink to defend them. He considered the idea that double weapons like sword & buckler have the advantage over single sword as so widely accepted he didn't to explain or argue for it.
Also note that Silver didn't explain his sword & buckler system in much detail, but he did write to fight with sword & dagger almost the same as with sword alone, but using the dagger to put aside the opponent's sword when convenient & stabbing if the opponent got too close. Some La Verdadera Destreza systems take a similar approach to rapier & dagger. Silver said to fight sword & buckler the same as his sword & dagger, but with that the buckler could defend against both blow & thrust alone.
you can actually hold a dagger in hand with many bucklers particularly ones attached to forarm like conquistadors but yeah a shield IS a weapon its not armour, its meant to be used as a weapon. the guy he was practicing against wasnt used to 2 handed fighting he was just fighting 1 handed holding a buckler up with other hand
@@hamasmillitant1 didn't many scottish highlanders hold daggers and bucklers in their off hand?
@@MusMasiBuckler with a reserved weapon rocks.
Fights are not won by weapons, they are won by fighters.
With weapons!
The invention of firearms kinda makes this statement false. Basically untrained warriors.......with firearms did a lot of damage to well trained warriors. 😁
Apart from a few enthusiasts - did a lot of people in the 19th century in the armies of Europe care about the ability to fight with swords? Then even duels were held with pistols! I think that most of them learned what they were supposed to know by statute (=minimum minimarum) and nothing else! Well, of course, except for the cavalry
@@MrBottlecapBillFirearms still require training. You need to know how to aim, how to hit moving targets, how to shoot when stressed, how to maintain distance from melee weapons, how to reload, how to count shots, and how to use cover. Not every context of firearms vs melee is that simple. A completely untrained gunman can still die in a battle against spearmen.
@@MrBottlecapBillvery true, the same thing was said of bowman and crossbow during the middle ages here in Europe, a particular Pope even tried to ban their use.
But like all things the armour and weapons and techniques changed and they became another thing that give you an advantage. We overstate how effective guns are and how trained you need to be to use them effectively, a unit of marines can deal with 10x their number of untrained gunman because the gun gives you a big advantage but not a fight stopping one
The thing about European sabre was to wear it comfortably as all around self-defence weapon. Polish nobles used shields well into XVIIth century, but only on a battlefield, while saber had to be worn at all times as self-defence weapon and status symbol.
14:00 In the military we have a saying that tracer rounds work two ways. Yes it makes a great way of seeing where your rounds are landing so you can adjust your aim but it also lets the other guy see where the rounds are coming from. I'd suggest that having a grip on your opponents weapon arm works two ways as well. It lets you control his arm but it also connects you to him so he can pull you off balance or even throw you to the ground if you don't react fast enough. So a useful idea but maybe not the significant advantage you seem to think it gives.
If the odds are heavily in favour of you being significantly larger and stronger than your opponent (for instance European officer vs. Afghan tribesman), it's going to skew the calculation a bit.
When you hold your opponents arm, that doesn't mean they are holding (and controlling) your arm. Any Judoka knows this. You can pull your sword-arm back but he can pull it much harder then you can. I would be thoroughly impressed if a guy was able to throw a person holding his sword arm, while holding a buckler, how is he supposed to throw you? Except for bull-rushing you and then you have an uncontrolled tumble to the ground and it is a coin-flip for who would come out on top...
I think you under-estimate the effect of holding an arm...
@@Kholdaimon We may have to agree to disagree on the idea your opponent can pull harder with his arm than you can using your body. Maybe it's my background in boxing but you get a lot more power torquing your body than just throwing with your arms. Add in footwork and it would be very easy to pull someone off balance if they weren't expecting it and got fixated on maintaining their grip. Of course, as you say, it could end up with a scramble on the ground but, in that case, whoever has a friend close enough to stab or just kick the other guy in the back of the head is going to win the fight.
@@KholdaimonI have to at least partially disagree. As a wrestler one of my favorite little tricks was to use an opponent's wrist control against them much like the OP suggests.
When someone would grab my wrist, I would circle to the opposite side (thus inducing a step forward on the wrist control side), throw my arm out, taking his arm with it, and shoot for a single or double leg takedown. It was very effective.
The key here is that if there is a point of attachment, both of the attached bodies have a say in where that attachment goes. The grabber can choose to release, but there is a reaction time to consider. Until the grip is actually released the control can be considered at least partially mutual. If the motion of the grabbee is sufficiently violent and sudden the grabber can find themselves both displaced and their grip broken.
I in no way disparage your experience as a judoka, but I think that the gi might be coloring your opinion as to the firmness of grips on the arms. I know that in my limited experience playing judo as a grappler with a wrestling background I was shocked at how hard it was to unstick someone's hands from you, and how much more controlling a grip could be when they have a handful of your gi.
Anyway, this wall of text is tall enough, cheers!
@@stonecoldscubasteveo4827 I disagree, at the time of grabbing the wrist the arm is extended and closer to the opponent than to yourself. As you probably know, you are stronger when exerting strength closer to your body.
And I am assuming that the opponent wears something with sleeves, as shown in the examples. Yes, if the opponent has no sleeves then keeping hold of a wrist is a lot harder, especially when wet due to rain or sweat.
In judo, if your opponent holds your sleeve, and you don't hold your opponent's sleeve, you are in trouble. Especially if your weight is already forward on the side of the held-arm.
But we aren't necessarily talking about holding on to the wrist for multiple seconds, just long enough to keep his weapon unavailable to defend your counter-attack. When someone grabs your sleeve or wrist of your attacking arm while your weight is on your front-leg, you are not in a position to break that grip quickly.
We can come up with ways of countering an arm-grab with wrestle or judo-techniques, but does the opponent know those techniques? Is he expecting to use those techniques? Can he even use those techniques while holding his buckler?
I don't think the vast majority of sword-fighters will know how to handle getting their arm grabbed or at least don't have the reaction in-grained enough to do it in a split-second.
Also worth bearing in mind in a lot of scenarios an officer is just going to be using their sword to buy time for someone else to step in. It's a similar principle in modern hand-to-hand on the battlefield, 90% of it is literally you grapple, immobilize and orientate them so that you're immediate number 2 can put some rounds through them. It's not fancy but it's pragmatic. Life or death one on ones do happen, have happened and always will happen but that's generally when things have gone completely tits up.
I think most of battles in history at least before gunpowder worked this way
Your opponent tries to attack you you parry and your buddy next to you attacks him while the opponent is still focus in you
I might be mistaken but I think many modern systems are giving a lot of attention to such Scenarios
Damn right, no rules. Anytime you can make it a 2 on 1, you do it. That’s a relatively easy win.
@@Pavlos_Charalambous I honestly cringed when I got a notification for a reply to this expecting the same shit I usually get. But no.... Someone will a brain, fuck me it's refreshing. People generally harp on far too much about individual prowess when war and combat are team-based you're a cog in a big machine. It's one reason why things like shields don't translate well in team based computer games either, "but you get less kills hurr hurr" yeah but you get more and no one is hurting you because they're focused on something else...It's called cooperative for a reason.
Great cold opening, and thank you for continuing to be Matt Easton.
The assumption here is that the shield is used just in unison with a sword. Often the shield hand also holds a dagger.
also a shield is a weapon, mat just hasnt been hit by one properly
if you smash someone in solar plexes or head with a buckler with force, they are going down unless they have a big gut plate or full face helm
you can easily break ribs with the rim of a buckler cop one in teeth youll lose your teeth cop it in skull without a skullcap and you could get a fractured skull bring it down hard on a wrist you break the wrist ext
shields arent armour, almost every culture in history considered them a weapon apart from modern times
Actually one cool thing you can do with a shield/buckler is that if you slant it and angle it right, it can actually either absorb/deflect bullets, especially with the type of guns they had back then. They actually pointed that out in one of Fan dabby dozy's videos where they shot at the scottish bucklers with french pistols/flintlocks and the bullets would literally bounce/ricochet off the brass on the bucklers at certain angles.
Would you trust your life in the ability to slant your buckler perfectly every time a bullet comes to you to the exact position where it deflects bullets? I’m sure it can be done but why would anyone put that out to the test in the middle of combat?
I know that I can catch a punch when someone is standing still drilling it with me, I wouldn’t actually try it in a fight…
@@katinmazniv4714Its because of the times back then. They were showing how, although the army of Highlanders during the battle of Culloden were poor and largely used melee weapons, they had a lot of success in surviving British musket fire by getting into a slanted buckler position like that to survive the initial volley's before smashing into them to deliver a devastating blow to the British armies forces.
In my last sparring on saturday i was fighting buckler and sword vs long sword and I actualy got in a situation where, for a spilt second, i saw the oportunity to grab the hilt of my opponent with the buckler hand. All i could do was push him against my chest and hold him there, whilst simultaniously hitting him on the head with my sword. And he was very much uncompliant. The grabbing of the wrist or hilt in single handed saber fighting is very much more common, happens all the time.
There's counterplay for anything but that doesn't negate the fact that one person's in an advantageous position. That's true in everything from fencing to wrestling to football to video games. A fight's never over until it's over but once the arm is grabbed, the sabre user has a big advantage. That's balanced by the fact that it's not easy to do: grappling is generally harder than just hitting the opponent, _unless_ they have a much longer weapon or a shield.
once the arm is grabed the buckler user can eitehr hit them in face with buckler or dagger they have in hand with buckler or they can also drop buckler and grapple. its not like 1 guy has 1 hand other has 2 they both have 2 hands if youve used both yours to immobilize one of theres they still have other one which has a big piece of iron in it 1 way or another unless they decide to drop it
BUT the sword arm shouldnt BE grabed because if you have a buckler you should lead with buckler not sword, scotts sword & targe drill went like so. advance with pistol and targe, start to charge, fire pistol, throw pistol drop to 1 knee block opponents strike with targe as you draw draw sword and lunge upwards/forwards
in the examples shown the guy is fighting 1 handed with a targe in his off hand hes not fighting 2 handed or using targe to effect, a shield is classified as a weapon for good reason its not armour it was never considered armour its meant to be used offensively & defensively consider if it was a differnt weapon to a buckler, like a axe, would he have appeared to be fighting 2 handed or 1 handed?
@@hamasmillitant1just as you think the person with the buckler can just drop it and move on to stabbing or grappling, so can the person who has:
A- a free sabre hand
B- “control” of opponent’s hand
C- speed.
One of the first things you learn to deal with in boxing, is the right hand straight. It’s the most used weapon on the street, you learn from the first lesson what to do against it, and yet people get KNOCKED OUT by a straight right hand in professional boxing… You currently have the advantage of knowing the whole “play” the sabre guy wants to do without even seeing him in front of you. Some moves are easy to parry/defend/exploit yet you still get him with them, it might be deception, fake, feint, tell and many more…
You can’t say “if he does this then I just do this” because you have no information! Imagine seeing a man standing with a sword pointed at you, you know he wants to harm you but you don’t know how he’ll attack until he does… if he attacks first, he can already think of ways you would try to counter because he knows what you would counter to, you don’t even know what is the first attack, and he will counter your counter… fighting isn’t about Being Faster, it’s about being smarter. The punch you won’t see coming is the punch that’s gonna put you on the ground, not the hard punch you saw coming from a mile away.
It you can react to the attack so can the attacker. If you can drop your shield for a dagger, he can disengage and create distance (just like someone who is versed in combat might do) It’s not turn based combat, it’s legit combat where you both think and act at the same time!
What if by the time you drop your shield you are already stabbed? 101 things can spontaneously happen in combat, learn basic principles and then you’ll be able to apply them on individual actions and see how you progress.
Your argument can be dismantled with your own reasoning…
Matt Easton aka Captain Context strikes again! :)
Thank you for more in depth explanations, insight an demonstrations into historical and martial reality and going above and beyond of what most content creators are feeding the Utube watching public which mostly if not being entirely wrong, merely skids over the surface of these remarkably interesting hoplological topics.
Thank you for your continual work over the years and past months that I was only lurking, not commenting for some time. Still I watch every video you put out for us as it gives new perspectives to my own development as personal defence minded person and fellow hoplologist.
As I live under very decent set of laws, thanks be to Our Lord, that allows me to carry daily any bladed implements except for obvious practicality limitation of car/public transportation as well as broad selection of concealed carry firearms across the years, I often wonder what and optimal selfdefense tool for blocking and riposte might look like in worst case scenario of unchecked advance and attack with bladed implement - might that look like RA/Windlass/Easton IX.144 'Wakefield' Falchion in umbrela sheath?
defensive, offensive and convenience in one package to go with some microcompact for more remote threats? :)
Anyways, God bless you and yours, Matt!
+][+
Something people just see to never get about combat is that having the advantage is rarely a guarantee of success.
Actual combat is a combination of factors including weapon, defences, skill and luck, but also time, distance, surprise. Unless there's a colossal gap, usually in multiple factors, it can be overcome with the right combination of other factors, including luck.
Also, an officer's primary weapon isn't his sword, or even his pistol. It's his unit.
Importantly: troop/unit: Discipline, Experience, Health, Morale, Motivation, Cohesion; NCO In-Combat Leadership.
But see that requires thinking beyond simply one's mere instincts and we can't in good conscience have that going unchecked now can we?
Yeah, and I can imagine in a close fight (rooms, jungle full of trees) the "show a low width long arm" tactic is a lot less adventagous then on an open, even place.
Some would even say if the officer needed to produce his personal side arms, he had messed up.
Very true. Until people actually try "strange" combinations. Then they appreciate that it is all about probabilities and that these probabilities are not as skewed as some would imagine. Probably the most telling examples are: single rapier versus single dagger and single rapier against two daggers.
In my video, although it is in Japanese, I made a summary of the saber stance. Nomads, Middle East, Indians, Mongols, Eastern Europeans. The stance was extracted from historical materials, dates, and miniature paintings.
I have a video of it somewhere on my channel.
Your channel provides information about very good sabers.
I've been watching this channel on a different account for over a few years now.
Saber-wielding characters are now able to increase the resolution as much as they like.
I am now a saber OTAKU.
thank you!😁
Thanks for the wonderful video. I come from archery. It seems that many cultures used small shields also together with bows (and swords if the enemy comes close). See e.g. the famous kalkan shields that could be worn in many different ways to favor different purposes (e.g. combination with bow vs. different combinations with sword). Or the Persian separ which could also be used with a bow in the same hand. The separ is basically buckler size. If you leave the straps a bit looser, you can hold a bow or dagger (and I assume also a gun) in your shield hand. So it seems that using a gun in addition is not necessarily something only available to the non-shield wielder. When you have the straps looser, you also get more possibilities to grapple and can do roughly the same things as with a completely free hand (plus shield punches). Not sure about Indian shields, but since they also were used with e.g. daggers (right?), I assume they can basically perform likewise.
Thank you very much for this very valuable follow up to a very interesting topic. I am glad smarter people than me are asking good questions to you. Cheers!
Lots of stuff in here I never would have thought of! Great vid!
Another aspect that I don't see commented on (although I haven't read all the comments), is that if you grab the arm and pull (like Judo or Akido), the other person will be off balance and not able to throw as solid a blow as they could if they were balanced. Also, if you grab the weapon arm and move (or pull them) so you are on the "outside", they would have to punch through their own arm to hit you. Again, as Matt Easton said, there are attacks, riposts, counters, and so on.
Thanks for the video ⚔️
To be fair, warfare evolves in response to needs. Indian warfare evolved primarily to face Persian warfare, while European warfare evolved to face mainly internal and Arabic warfare.
Had Indians and Europeans faced each other in the Middle Ages, both cultures would have adapted their technology accordingly. They faced each other only in the Industrial era, where English and Spanish came with ships and it caused the Marathas to greatly focus on coastal fortification and cannons.
Thanks Matt, i recall an account from John Shipster from the Anglo Gurkha war where he fought a Nepalese Sword and buckler officer .Shipster survived by striking the man in the neck.
I think an advantage of a fist held buckler versus a shield strapped to a forearm is the ability to drop it. Say someone grabs your sword arm, drop the buckler and grab their sword arm as it is inevitably coming in to take immediate advantage of your stalled sword.
With Single saber vs sword and shield I would say that one advantage of single saber is that you don't have to fiddle around with either your sword or your shield in order to grab your gun many of the people in India would have quite likely had guns as well however having both a sword and shield in addition to a gun would have given somebody more stuff that they would have had to fiddle around with in order to use the gun.
The dangers around having your sword arm grabbed is presumably why in Persian style treatise they are also sometimes shown as holding both the buckler (separ) and a dagger, with blade pointing down, both in the left hand.
Also, even if just holding the Separ, without dagger, it is possible to grab with that same hand due to the type of handle these often had. Wouldn't have been as easy as a bare hand, but still also an option. Razmafzar on TH-cam will probably have plenty of examples.
didn't the Scottish Highlanders also sometimes do a similar thing with their swords and bucklers? have the hand holding the buckler also hold a dagger?
The sword and shield way of fighting was mostly practiced by Rajput's and other north western warriors in India against the Afghan, Mughal and Turks. As you move south in the late 16th century around the time's of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, you'll see one handed swords with long blades which they obviously learnt from the Portuguese and French colonizers to use against them and which also increased the reach of maratha cavalry when fighting against the mughals who had height advantage. The older shields were heavy with wooden, leather lining to protect against more heavier swords and maces carried by the larger Afghan, mughal army. There were also spears with ropes tied at the end to increase it's range against the more taller mughals who had more arms reach. So yeah different situations gave birth to different martial arts and weapons. I've seen shields made with crocodile leather and wood to reduce weight and absorb more shock in the Maratha war museums now they were more obviously used against more heavy weapons than sharper, thrusting ones like swords and spears.
A lot of ahistorical assumptions over here. The height differences, the 'obviously learnt from Portugese' etc are classic assumptions repeated a thousand times by biased historians and just accepted as true. Otherwise, an insightful comment.
My take is: Since in the pre Shivaji maharaj era, the Marathas used to be generals for the sultans, their style was more heavy cavalry centric. The innovations that Shivaji Maharaj and his mavlas brought adapted the marathas to a more light and improvisatory warfighting style which only started to really change in the time leading up to panipat 3, where they were transitioning to a mix of party heavy cavalry and drilled eurostyle infantry. Unfortunately, Panipat 3 happened when that transition was not yet complete, hence the loss in a battle they would have otherwise won.
Always enjoy your insights
Love to see the moving of the blades! 🙌
Hindi buckler is sometimes used holding a dagger in the buckler hand, which might provide a nasty counter in this "grab" situation.
2:50 I'm wondering *What's the best sword and the best fighting style when you're doing a one-handed sword and pistol combo?*
Exactly, I wonder if there are treatises out there that describe techniques specifically for saber & pistol combo :)
All good points, though I think it's also worth mentioning that the person with the buckler actually has the advantage in closer measure. Even if a blow to the face or arm doesn't free their own weapon arm, they're now close up and not without options by any means, especially against such a long sword. I'd think the saber user would want to take advantage of the grapple quickly, and if unsuccessful in ending the right, retreating to make use of their greater reach.
If the situation presents it, the person with the blucker can dispense with it and grab and control the opponent's sword arm too.
btw, the shield/buckler could be used to free the sword hand by given a breaking bone blow at the arm doing the grab.
In the split second there is already a sharp blade going for the buckler user after the parry. In the time he dropped his buckler and countergrappled he would be stabbed or cut several times. If he tried to strike the grappling hand he would be struck the same time with a sword in the head. A broken arm at the worst for a split head. A good deal.
Casually breaking someones arm with a strike
@@anotherhistoryenthusiast5874 that is if "your bare hands stand a chance against a curved sword" which is a joke.
Eh, that's why a sabre and a steel vambrace on the off hand is one of my favorite fighting styles. It's criminally underrepresented in modern HEMA.
Yes if we don't have a shield/buckler/dhal we use Bazuband exactly that way :)
@@adrianjagmag good choice- too bad it died out here in Europe, it seems very practical to fight with.
Were the officers taught/drilled to shoot off-hand, or was the distance so close (point blank, barrel to chest) to not justify the extra drilling?
Between the lack of opportunity to reload and the poor accuracy of those guns, I myself would *only* shoot at point-blank range and when there's no way not to.
There was a reason single handed shooting was so heavily favoured. And yes there was lots of practice though I not sure how much official, gun clubs were widespread and the training was common enough that Americans typically practiced in the same way despite far less frequent resort to the sword (which would be difficult considering that the vast majority of gun owners didn't even have one let alone lug it around with them). It maybe saw so use in the civil war though Americans were notorious among foreign observers for plinking else other into attentional hell rather than driving the foe off with steel and a lesser number of casualties (which might seem contradictory by the vast majority of charges ended with one side legging it and being mopped up by cavalry or at least thrown into disorder for long enough for decisive action to be undertaken).
If you look at most holsters for cavalrymen at that time, they were designed for use with the left hand. The sword was the primary weapon.
@@vorynrosethorn903 They were more notorious with observers for generally shitty marksmanship. The problem was they all had the fancy new rifled muskets, but no school of musketry to teach them to estimate range, etc. Engagements still tended to be at smoothbore range, with the exception of small numbers of self-taught marksmen anything further out was usually just making noise in the general direction of the enemy lines. With something like the 53 Enfield being 50 yards off in your range estimation means you miss a barn door every time, if you range it right you hit every time.
As far as parrying & grabbing the wrist goes, I did it a lot when sparring in George Silver's style before my sparring partners shifted their approach. The opponent has to basically walk into the technique for it to be effective.
That is my thought too. Their is so much rubbish in the classroom of so many martial arts that is unlikely ever to see affective application.
That's why you need to read your opponent and mix it up, don't repeat yourself, there is no "winning technique" to any fight
@@valandil7454 Yes, but in Silver's system, you're ideally supposed keep your distance & avoid grips. Grabbing the wrist is what you can do when your opponent gets closer than they should. If both people are fencing Silver we'll, it's not supposed to happen much.
@@mysticonthehill The technique is very potent under the right circumstances. It probably would come up more in a military context than a dueling context, as 19th-centuey battlefield encounters often would have encouraged haste rather than caution. Against a committed cut that comes in close, blocking & grabbing the wrist is great.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427I don't think Afghan people practiced Silver.
I would love to see a demonstration of this all happening. It can be Choreographed and then maybe a Non-Compliant duel.
Unless you mean for real then that's easy enough 🙂
Are we going back to the katana vs longsword discussions?
I’ve found sword and buckler super effective against longsword, for reasons that make sense in context implied in this video. But then there’s grappling, the first and last thing in physical discourse from the dawn of life to the end of time. ❤
Granted i've never done HEMA before (unfortunately) but I'm quite a good left handed sabreur (if i don't say so myself 😉). As i've fenced since I was a child.
I can imagine having access to a buckler offering quite a few advantages.
For example, parrying with a buckler would allow you to Riposte from an unorthodox/unexpected line of attack.
Plus considering how common
simultaneous or near simultaneous touches are in fencing (and I'm guessing swordplay in general).
Access to any type of armour that gives you the ability to to"take/tank" a hit (for want of better words) could make all the difference in a real life situation...
Very beautifully explained, there's a counter to every counter. That's how martial arts work
I am german, Brittas boyfriend, a pure theoretic in martial arts, fencing and firearms. ( 10 shot .22 lr pistol, 5 shot .22 lr target rifle, 5 shot . 38 Special, 5 shot . 357 Mag, 3 shot .45 muzzleloader rifle, 3 shot .36 muzzleloader pistol, 2 hours Krav Maga, 3 hours two hand Stick fighting, 15 minutes fencing, a brawl in a train), but 41 years of reading magazines about weapons and Military History in german language and visiting dozens of museums and castles, no military service for reason of bad eyes ( which doesn' t matter in necessarity of Volkssturm).
A note to pistols, used as military sidearms. With exeption of few french and belgian revolver Modells, military revolvers had been a US and british thing. But there was a difference. US percussion revolvers had been usually in .36 ( socalled Navy) or .44 ( socalled Army), british percussion revolvers had usually .450 to .476, in few cases, special order . 577(!). In case of revolvers US ones had .44 or . 45, british ones had .450, .455, .476 and in case of private order even .577. In case of early non Revolver pistols for cartridges US Navy used for a short time a single shot Remington Rolling Block pistol in . 50, while some britisch officers used two or four Barrel Lancaster pistols in .455, .476 or .577, or their Howdah pistols, the Supermagnums of those days. This means british officers of colonial days wanted a firearm with , punch' , not Match accuracy.
Two days ago we got a video from Skallagrim about sword and pistol, and now we get this
Thanks Captain context for another interesting post.
I would assume that after firing all five rounds, if of course the barrel was not to hot to handle, would be used as a club?
The shield is also a weapon, the edge or rim is used to knock out the opponent's hand or body.
The Indian shields sometimes had a spike at the centre and a knife like a spike at the edge to injure the opponents
I would consider my primary weapons to be arming sword (alone) and arming sword and buckler, both in the KdF tradition. My experience is that if you put two fighters of equal skill against one another - one with arming sword, one with arming sword and buckler, and each with swords of similar length - then the sword and buckler will dominate, no question. It almost feels like cheating. Grabbing the blade rarely works because: a) your opponent is transferring control of your sword to their buckler hand and is keeping their own blade in motion to stab YOU, or b) your opponent is expecting the grab manouevre and you just end up losing your off-hand. The reason I mention sword length is because this changes the calculus. If the fighter with the single sword has a reach advantage (i.e. with a rapier or longsword), then the fight becomes much more even and the single sword wielder can play a different game. However, if the single sword user has a reach DISadvantage, well, then it's "good night, Irene" for the single sword wielder, barring a miracle. I suppose the calculus also changes if your sword and buckler opponent uses a cutting style that nullifies any reach parity (i.e. shows a bias towards draw cutting against someone with a more thrust-centric style of fighting). I like any topic where sword and buckler is mentioned!
To be honest, the best way to fight off people armed with edged weapons in those days was to use a rifle - a more powerful cartridge - more chances to shoot at a distance - with a bayonet there is more advantage in hand-to-hand combat. Moreover, I am not sure that it is so easy to get under the influence of adrenaline from a single-action revolver, on a target moving at you without aiming from a non-dominant hand. Although a hit does not guarantee an immediate stop of the enemy. Black pouder, you know! So in a dispute between a revolver and a saber against a sword and a buckler - I choose a rifle and a bayonet!
The Sweedish Caroleans are the counter-point to that. They won a lot of impressive victories by giving every infantryman a sword and keeping a lot of pikes on the battlefield after most of Europe was relying on gunpowder weapons. Their basic trick was to stop at an inconvenient range for their foes, draw out a volley, and then charge. In the end, the problem was their troops required more training than most, and their manpower ran out. Because they're Sweden, and they were fighting Russia and a bunch of other European powers at the same time.
I guess that the 'grab' does not even need to be perfect, it really only needs to block/slow down the weapon arm long enough for you to deliver a blow with your weapon.
Matt,
This makes me curious to what degree we kinda combine the 2 by using a gauntlet shield and sword/sabre. (without the unnecessary fluff of course) It would have similar-ish blocking abilities to buckler and similar-ish grabbing abilities to fighting with an empty hand. I also think that it would work decently for archers, put the gauntlet shield on their bow arm, they pull the string with the other and they can give themselves cover in between shots, I would also imagen it being decently usable on horseback. (of course since the sword is a back up weapon, the archer or perhaps mounted archer would have a weapon which could easily be a sword/sabre)
What do you think?
I would love to try with that thing 😄
@@valandil7454 Finding to buy 1 isn't easy though. Pretty expensive.
@@JugglingAddictPretty much impossible here in Britain, I bet Matt and Todd could get one though 😋
Finally got my ribaldo from LKChen and I'd take on any sabre or tulwar guy quite happily. Good job Matt. I'll be using buckler with it, more than likely.
Have you ever read Harry Harrison's Hammer & Cross books?
His central character, especially in the first book, keeps coming up with outstanding mele, dueling weapons.
Hi Matt, it is always a pleasure to watch your videos. Talking about Asian swords, I wonder if you are interested in anti-sword weapons? I know sai "铁尺"，or jitte "十手" (a variant of sai in Japan), and Chinese double hooks. These weapons are designed to lock opponent's sword, and they can do damage like other weapons, they seem to be used by bodyguards. Are these weapons realistic and reliable? If they were, why are they not in popular demand?
I guess it's like the sasumata - it's a specialized weapon that might be very good in one thing, but a lot worse (compared to other options) in most other situations.
" Are these weapons realistic and reliable? If they were, why are they not in popular demand?"
Because you must be skilled and invest many time to practice.
Japanese Police Forces used Jitte/Jutte against criminals and in some Samurai Ryuha they are practiced..
In Europe special daggers were used.(Swordbreakers) and in China butterfly knives or Sai and sword breaking rods(iron ruler) were also used for this purpose etc. .
How much advantage two implements give you also depends a lot on experience. It takes more training to get passable with sword and buckler. With time, you can learn to move the two in concert, partially negating the need to split your brain power between them.
A single sabre is relatively easy to use. Especially the ones with big hand guards.
I love the fact you counter argue statements of people without making people come off as assholes, some youtubers with tattoes, black nails, ponytails and love of love cuts shirts do that and whine and wonder why he catches fack all the time and have been called unmanly. You are certainly super classy :)
Great video. A question that comes to mind is how good of an idea is it to drop the buckler to free your hand and to grap the other's sabre?
If I had a choice, I'd want a buckler, but in Kung Fu we use the sword with hand to hand techniques and I can see dropping the buckler in certain situations. I'll also note most sabers have more hand protection so you can punch just like a buckler can.
I just really wish Pietta or Uberti made a reproduction of the Beaumont-Adams revolver, I would love to own and shoot one, but historical originals are expensive and basically non existent here in the US.
Yeah unless we're part of a unit of trained police officers or military we only have a few legal reasons for owning a firearm here in Britain - use, training or trade of antique firearms for historical research
You guys trade in antiques, but modern firearms are everywhere over there and you still use them for self defence right?
We Brits can't be allowed to own modern firearms...we can't be trusted 🙄
@@valandil7454 I thought black powder firearms were still allowed in Britain? Here in the US black powder guns aren't even classified as firearms, you can order a 1860 colt revolver on the internet or through a catalogue and have it dropped at your front door through the postal service. No background checks or registrations like with modern firearms.
I'm over in Michigan, USA. Firearms for defense are widely used. There is a law called "castle doctrine" " individuals have the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect themselves against an intruder in their home." So it protects you from legal repercussions if you use firearms ( or any weapon) in defense of your own home. Outside in public you have to much more careful legally, and you need to be in fear for your life, but open carry slinged rifle/shotgun or pistol on a belt holster is legal to all in public. Concealed carry of a pistol is also legal with a license ($100 fee)
Compliant demonstration partner considerations aside, seeing how the match up sorts out with _Buckler Guy_ using *Roland Warzecha* dual presentation of the shield/buckler & sword bound together out front against _Sabre Guy_ would be interesting, if not entirely period correct. Double strikes are the bane of engaging sparring bouts in sustained tactical exchanges simulating fear for life & limb, people want to see the problem solving aspect from the other side thought through too if time allows. Curious about half-swording improvisations with sabre in (too) close with an opponent like _Buckler Guy._
As someone who practices Filipino martial arts, I'd rather not lay out my off-hand just for the opponent to take advantage. Yes my off-hand is performing an important task of re-directing or stopping the opponent's main hand, but the opponent knows where it is committed. Similar concept in BJJ is grabbing the opponent's collar can also mean offering up that grabbing arm for a possible wrist lock or arm bar.
If you would rather not grab the opponent's weapon arm, so that you can have free reign with your weapon arm, then that's your choice. But it is a common technique across the world for many centuries and also used in FMA.
I see a loads of comments from 'gun' perspective arguing - falsely - that firearms somehow magicaly makes melee weapons moot - on the contrary.
How do I know? Well we tried and we tried a lot with the guys over the years in various scenarios and sweet and simple of it is IF gunman is unaware from where the attack will come from (unchecked, unaccounted threat) only things that saves him is the distance from 'shivman' - long blades (beyond the length of your forearm lets say) are top at parrying any melee assailant and are quick to action to buy you a time and/or distance to bring your firearm to bear so you are able to engage and stop the threat.
We are talking meters (15,12-6m) for gunman to be able to stop the threat effectively without getting hit by shivman. that is far away and almost no mugger/attacker will give you such space to respond.
+][+
You can grab with Dal strap style bucklers
I think that hit with a rim of shield to windpipe is underestimated. Even if it s miss, hit to chin is very nasty.
Two interesting questions:
1) why people didn't use dagger after revolver got out of ammo? It is easy to carry, useful for defense and even more for offense, especially giving more reach.
2) considering saber length and distance, buckler could just deflect arm with saber, what are actually options for person with saber? There is no much time or distance for fakes and multiple movements.
Question for ya Matt, what diameter Dhal is that you have? Punjabi roots nailed it with that Dhal, just trying to decide what diameter I want to go with. If I remember correctly in your video about it they only had two or three sizes when you mention it’s size and now there are quite a few
Great video
The thought occurs that most Indian sword & buckler users would carry a long dagger in the hand with the buckler. That would bring an extra bit of danger to the fight that might be hard to spot. According to the Indian fencing instructors I've seen, that is the point. (A sharp point at that.)
While that may have been done occasionally, it can certainly have not been common, because we have hundreds of written accounts, photos, paintings and more from this period, and I have never seen reference to it even once. In the standard and very popular sword and buckler competitions that were described by British observers, they used a stick in one hand and a buckler in the other - daggers are not mentioned.
@@scholagladiatoria as it is taught today, I assumed that it was used historically as well. It seems an obvious addition to the buckler although having tried it, it requires a small hand grip on the dagger, I couldn't hold my dirk & a buckler and as I've mentioned in previous posts I have big hands.
Sadly my fencing days are behind me now as I recently had to trade my right leg for my life. Too bad Long John Silver never wrote a fencing treatise for the one legged man. ;-}
Look up Pursuing the Knightly Arts channel - my buddy doing armoured fighting with a prosthetic leg.
@@scholagladiatoria I will definitely do that. Things are so recent that I still have to wait for my leg to heal enough that I can safely wear a prosthetic. After that I have no intention to allow the lack of a leg to stop me.
It may have been more popular in the medieval age, with the use of armour and then fell out of favour..
One of the previous-video commenters here: "Huge advantage to using a compliant opponent" - agreed, when doing technique demonstrations you don't want your opponent to freeplay as a "barbarian" doing his best to kill you (as opposed to originally developing the techniques, when that's exactly what was needed). You do, however, want him _scripted_ to do something reasonably realistic.
Think sport: you might want to show your football (UK or US) defense countering a play run by prearrangement with the practice squad. You would never show "Here's what our play looks like if [half] the practice squad just stands there unresponsive," because they never would, thus that doesn't really demonstrate anything.
6:45 wasn't there a small chapter in some niche british manual/memoir with tips and tricks for asian colonies advising doing just that if the officer shot all the bullets?
It would be kind of hilarious if the buckler's edge smashed square on the funny bone
The bucklers in 1.33, however, appear to be much smaller and more of a flattened cone shape, so hitting them can be harder to defend and more painful (sort of like a large brass knuckle). I even wonder what such a buckler looks like from the legal point of view in different places and countries. Is it a dangerous tool for the police / court, like a knife or brass knuckles?
A small aside and I'd love your opinion, as the size of the shield increases so does the advantage of the shield and sword user up to a point, when it becomes too big and cumbersome in melee combat.
Imo what answers this question better is if you have a saber going against a sword and buckler, then should you pick up a buckler if you have the option
Incase you've ever wondered what talwar means, its "undercut", basically a weapon with the capability of cutting between armor pieces.
Haha you got me good with that intro
I think if I'm sword and buckler guy, I will let the wrist be grabbed, block the saber with the shield and go for a groin kick.
You can grab a lot harder than normal when they've got a weapon in that hand.
i think the buckler moves with the sword in the same direction and the stance is a crouching one to minimise the bsa
Couldn't the man with his weapon arm grabbed more easily attack the arm of the person grabbing them? At the very least isn't that a sort of "bind" like engagement, and wouldn't the person who is being grabbed still be in range to use their blade? I'd love to see this expanded on more. I am a great enjoyer of bucklers, sabers, and passing footwork. Isn't it traditional for the people of that area to practice draw cuts, wouldn't the person holding the weapon arm be at danger of receiving a draw cut?
When you grab a person's weapon arm, it hugely restricts their weapon arm movement. That's why you grabbed it :-)
@@scholagladiatoria more context is needed.
The Off Hand can be an advantage for grabbing. Like grabbing a bayonet then attacking.
I think your videos are great . Do you recommend any books on fencing and could I defend myself fencing with a cane instead of a blade ,
Grabs using a glove of some sort or with the bare hand? Were chain mail gloves a thing in the 19th and earlier centuries to do what you suggest.? Thank you, always a pleasure.
The Sword Chad is here🗿🗡🔥💯
Was counter cutting to the exposed hand discussed in George Silver's manual? If the tulwar user was careless and left their sword hand exposed during a cut, a quick backstep could give the saberist a free cut to the opponent's hand. I acknowledge it is easier with the lighter Olympic sabers, but was wondering if the techniques' roots stepped back to this time period.
I think the reason we were all triggered by the grabbing is most of us normal people have been taught fanciful grabs during self defense classes against weapons that we've seen debunked since then on TH-cam. In my case it was karate class, defense against a katana.
TH-cam's too full of frauds and people just trying to push their own ideas as truth, going to actual schools and learning and sparring are where you learn how this stuff actually works.
Never just take someone's opinion you read or heard online, it's a good chance to go find out for yourself, I'm sure even Mr Easton would encourage you to do the same, prove to yourself that what he's saying's right 🙂
Unarmed grabbing is certainly crap, but paired with a sword it works in full speed sparring. You can also push away the blade with your hand. Risky against sabres but very useful against rapier stabs.
@@jonasbarkaI do Jujutsu and we're taught to just redirect the weapon and focus on the person because grappling gives them more of a chance to use it so essentially yeah.
But if you notice all these grappling techniques are just for a moment they don't hang on, that does work
@@valandil7454 Unarmed you need to be *really* good no matter how you do it. But samurais were professionals and not everyone they encountered would be a master with their weapon, so it makes sense to have it in the system.
@@jonasbarkait wasn't just the Samurai class that knew how to fight but you're right it's as true today as it was then, there aren't very many people capable of it.
I've only had to do it once (a knife I'm from London) and not panicing then getting it right without the large possibility of getting hurt was on my mind. I managed, he was hurt and cops picked it him but it took me hours on the tube home to calm down 😐
Now we need a katana vs. Talwar video
Off subject I’ve searched and can’t find any vids on the Spanish Belduque?
Follow up question: assuming you are not naturally ambidextrous, but armed with sabre and pistol. Do you train to use the sabre with your main hand and the pistol with your off hand or the other way round?
In your demonstrations you had the sabre in your right hand the pistol in your left. But your explanation, that the sabre was very strongly intended for parrying, while the pistol did its job, it seems more logical to carry the parrying tool in the off hand, like you would with a shield, and the main offensive weapon, the pistol, in the main hand.
In one of your previous videos you were talking about how a lot of indian swordsmen would have had a lot more training than a many of their british opposites. I'm guessing a sword and buckler in the hands of an expert would be a lot scarier to an inexperienced british officer with an empty pistol than they would be to you. I suppose it wouldn't matter all that much in the grand scheme of things though. If your riflemen gun down a bunch of expert swordsmen the war is still won. If you had the prospect of a duel you were unprepared for maybe just fall back and regroup.
even if the gunshots do not kill a single shot on target with centre mass is enough to tip the scales significantly in favour of the shooter as the one shot is now quickly loosing blood due to internal bleeding.
Were pistol lanyards in common use in the context of the sort of combat you're describing?
Do you ever practice boxing with a short knife in each hand ?
I would be interested in a video on why British pistols were five shot.
I have seen the fight with buckler and stick as a game called gatka. Believe me, it's impossible to defend against a person having sword and buckler keeping in view the speed and skill of person. It's so fast that in one blow, it can cut a person having a single sword. This game is called gatka in Indian language. Pls see the gatka and then decide if a sabre can defend against the sword and buckler.
A stick is very light compared to a sword.
"Believe me" isn't compelling evidence to counteract the thousands and thousands of hours in competition and sparring that shows repeatedly that single sword can defeat sword and buckler.
@@anotherhistoryenthusiast5874 There are mutiple fight scenes with sword and buckler, they swing sword faster than stick. The buckler is not only used to stop sword blow but can be used to punch opponents.
If a person attacks with a swords and oppnent will easily stop it using his buckler and in response his sword will cut opponents neck. One strike will decide the fight. I am dead sure no fighter can face a fighter with buckler. Those fighters are not like a common man but they have years of experience of swinging swords. Brits losts many battles against those swords men until they started using fire arms. No sword or buckler can stop a person with pistol. Firearm was the deciding factor in later battles and helped Brits to defeat her opponrnts.
@@AR-fr8br They can swing a 1kg sword faster than a 300g stick? I have no more questions.
@@anotherhistoryenthusiast5874 If you dont believe, see videos on youtube? You can see by yourself how fast they swing it? No person with a single sword can even come closer?
It has to be noted that the buckler fell out of use in Europe for reasons. Each time an attempt was made to reintroduce small shields they disappeared again because no sound system could be found that overcame the disadvantages that using one introduced.
What's the evidence for this? The big disadvantage of a shield comes not in use but from having to carry it around all the time. In a fight, while bucklers & especially larger shields may get in the way somewhat, the benefits outweigh the costs.
? The buckler has been featured in almost every culture and period where people have carried swords for self defense.
Usually the reason the buckler falls out of fashion is because most people stop carrying swords all together or because it's rather heavy to carry around and they don't bother with it in civilian life.
In medieval Europe it had a 500 year service life, that's a very long time for a fashion to persist.
Granted i've never done HEMA before (unfortunately) but I'm quite a good left handed sabreur (if i don't say so myself 😉). As i've fenced since I was a child.
I can imagine having access to a buckler offering quite a few advantages.
For example, parrying with a buckler would allow you to Riposte from an unorthodox/unexpected line of attack.
Plus considering how common
simultaneous or near simultaneous touches are in fencing (and I'm guessing swordplay in general).
Access to any type of armour that gives you the ability to to"take/tank" a hit (for want of better words) could make all the difference in a real life situation...
I see, lately You’re trying to expand your viewer base to India. Clereever!🙂
I have heard several discussions about double wielding swords on a general basis, but what about taking a concrete example like Thai sword double wielding? The technique must be effective since it survives.
I wonder when fighting against any pole weapon or even rifle & bayonet, if it is better to have single sword rather than sword & buckler, for the ability to grab the opponent's weapon, parry-grab-riposte?
You can punch them in the face with a buckler, which is how my nose was broken the fourth time.
Ouch dude wear the mask or a helmet it's what it's for 🙁
Depends on region and stature. The Maratha army fought with 'Firangi'(lit. European swords) which were also made a bit longer to counter the Mughal swords. These performed extremely well. One great example is the Bhavani Sword
People easily forget that victory in battles and war comes from proper strategy and tactics. Fighting properly as a group effectively is the way to win.
Hand to hand Melee is much about groups. Mates have each others back, as the saying goes. You parry and your corporal runs him thru with his bayonet.
Can A sword and its scabbard have a advantage over a guy with a sword and a buckler
Though in a very particular instance I honestly think another that evens this out is that the tulwar armed opponent, due to the design of the opponent, stand or not, has to be at a much closer range to actually hit than the saber man. It would be more arguable how much the grab hells if the tulwar man was using a sword that allows him to use more grips than the hammer grip.