Definitely good points. After all, a big reason why bronze swords were designed the way they were, was the limitations of bronze. Also I really like this kind of technical discussion! Also, we know that whether the arming sword is better than the rapier is irrelevant, since nothing can come close to... THE SPADROON!
In my opinion, the depth of the blade is an important factor to remember when considering blade width. Just to clarify the terms, we have length which needs not clarification, and width being the distance from edge to edge or edge to back, and depth being the distance from flat to flat which we can call thickness. The katana is a significantly thicker on that plane compared to other swords which enables it to maintain rigidity for how thin it is along its width, but that thickness hinders cutting a little because the material it cuts needs to be pushed farther apart to allow the blade to pass through. I suspect that if you wanted a thinner sword from flat to flat so material doesn’t need to be pushed as far apart, you would need to increase the blade’s width to return some of the structure to the blade even though it would be more floppy due to being thinner, it would still be stronger than if it was more narrow from edge to back, which would give us thinner but wider blades, much like the falchion.
@@HansGruber006 It seem to me, that was an undeserved reply. As for the response thing, anybody that has a TH-cam account has a channel. If everybody used it to reply to each others, than what is the use for comments? Why don't you pass your reply on your channel?
I think you need much better quality steel for broad and thin blades than for thick blades. So better material-technology made thinner blades possible not narrower ones. And the Katana follows the same rule. Because the back of the Katana is out of lowcarbonsteel, it is like it would be made of lowerquality steel over all.
estranho konsta I believe he was referring to longform vs shortform replies. Where comment section is good for shortform when you are able tomake a video for longform responses.
I love this analysis! Steel is difficult to make and work, and our ancestors were good metal shapers. They weren't making swords willy-nilly. Their shape was very careful and deliberate. It's not for fashion, so much as effectiveness in its time, with its tech.
Very interesting topic! At the moment, i'm extrapolating it to even earlier swords (iron age and bronze age), especially their blade geometry. I'm thinking the leaf shape of some bronze swords looks like a compromise between piercing and cutting power, with a much softer material. EDIT: Please do more videos like this, it's a highly fascinating topic!
What do you think of the various blade shapes of the gladius? Some have a fairly blunt taper while others have 1/3 of the blade tapering to a relative sharp point.
There are various variations of leaf shapes, some as you said are quite pointy. I wonder how the relative soft material (bronze) did perform if it accidentally hit armor when trying to pierce unprotected body parts. You see, what interest me the most is the difference in construction between advanced steel swords that can flex and ancient swords that where constructed with rigity in mind. As you said some where quite pointy, while others where rather broad, some had a ridge to add more ridigity, which is quite a contrast to the later fuller on steel blades. (did iron age swords had fullers? i'm not sure about that) They where obviously trying to create piercing oriented and cut oriented weapons, but they looked quite different to later (spring steel) designs. I find this aspect of construction really fascinating if you consider what kind of sollutions the came up with, just because of the different characteristic of material they had at hand. I wonder how different swordfight techniques must have been in ancient times, compared to medieval and later techniques.
@@nealsterling8151 i'm not sure about iron age swords in general, but early examples that i'm aware of were often very like the bronze ones used by the same culture before, and it took a while for them to develop a distinctive shape. (the same is true in axeheads, sometimes they had decorative elements that in predecessor forms were utilitarian but became obsolete because of advanced hafting methods.) bronze swords also can have ridges down the middle of the blade to improve rigidity - again iron age swords following the pattern would make sense. well-made bronze isn't necessarily inferior to iron as a material, but it probably also should be taken into account that complex blade geometry is easier to make in bronze casting.
"...which is quite a contrast to the later fuller on steel blades." It is a contrast, but the effect is basically the same. A central fuller/groove creates a pair ridges. A bronze sword with a central ridge could also be described as having a pair of fullers/grooves either side of the mid-line. Swords are created with ridges because ridges increase RIGIDITY, without adding much mass. Rigidity is important for both thrusting and cutting performance.
There are many factors which determine the design of any given sword and as always, Matt you presented this information in an excellent manner. To understand sword design we must understand the greater context.
This is very useful for me. I'm currently working on a tycoon style video game about growing a humble blacksmith shop into a prestigious weapons factory. Set in a fictional medieval-esque environment and incorporating plenty of historically accurate details along with some, shall we say, historically plausible fiction. This kind of thinking will help me to improve the tech-tree and progression.
Amazing video as always! I think the rapiers have thin and narrow blade because the plate armor wasn't the most common choice during that period. People probably thought that wearing full plate armor is meaningless when your opponent could draw his flintlock pistol and finish the combat. So rapiers evolved to a form which concentrate their mass on to handle that gives them accuracy on blade. Thanks for the video Sir Matt Easton!
Material availability will almost always dictate weapon form. If all you have is wood, you probably have a weapon shaped like a baseball bat, or a stick with a knobby end. Bronze age swords were short. Victorian age muskets were smoothbore, because of black powder fouling. As materials change, so does form.
It's also worth noting (though Matt did touch on it) that every sword design is a compromise: to gain in one area or quality, you have to sacrifice in another area. The key is finding an acceptable balance of qualities.
Not sure what you mean about the muskets. But they were smoothbore because they hadn't made rifling yet. Muzzleloading rifles still used black powder, even the first cartridge guns used black powder.
This is an incredible summation of swords, so far as I've gleaned from watching you and other sword nerd youtubers. Thanks for this great video, and all your others too.
I'd also like to point out that among civilians, rapiers were in demand for being well-suited for self-defense, so it makes sense that rapier cuts aren't as potentially fatal as other swords. A law-abiding citizen would be in deep trouble if they got someone killed. A duel would normally end with the winner being the first to draw blood from their opponent (and nothing more), something the rapier is sufficiently capable of.
This is pretty much what I was looking for when I searched for your channel originally. Thanks for the content and for being awesome! All hail scholorgladitoria!
It should also be remembered that from Ancient times to perhaps the Renascence it was common for people in various disciplines to try to keep secrets from the broader world about improvements they had discovered for as long as possible. This means that a Smith who figured out how to produce a better metal for his swords would not likely to share what he knew with anyone not directly apprenticed to him and even might save key information to only pass on once he was ready to retire. This slowed advancement and innovation which compounded when a plague swept through killing off the smith in this instance before he could pass on his knowledge. This would explain one offs that seem to be made before the time frame for which they are expected.
Love the long, complicated, highly detailed videos. Thanks, Matt! I agree with your premise, but I don't think that detracts from the same idea that different sword designs trickled to the top for certain contexts. Considering things like costs, intended opponents, how you intend to fight, how often the sword will be worn, how often the sword will be carried, how often you intend to replace a sword, in what cases you are allowed to wear a sword, if you intend to sell the sword, how long you want the sword to stay at relatively peak function, what swords are people selling/can you get second hand... I don't think it's a coincidence that in times of experimentation and conflict, like the 14th century, we see tons and tons of variety in designs; both as they're felt out for what's best, but as different people need/want different things.
Best video in a long time, in my opinion! I was so f'ing excited for the Poitier to make an appearance, it's among my very favorite of your collection! I was becoming worried that perhaps you didn't have it anymore. As sword fanciers living in the 21st century, we enjoy the luxury of no longer needing to rely on the functionality of a particular sword. Living in the 21st century also means that we have the technology to have a medieval-style arming sword made from steel far superior to that of any 17th century rapier. Therefore, I see no reason why we can't make aesthetics as important of a consideration as function! And when it comes to the ultimate in swordliness, and everything that the sword symbolizes(at least from the Western/Christian perspective), nothing surpasses the arming sword. Whether it be "Excalibur", or the one-handed swords from the time of Charlemagne, or the 14th-15th century originals that the Poitier is based on, which existed right alongside the longsword's period of service, the arming sword epitomizes swordliness in the Western psyche, and this is because of its simple, brutal beauty. I own the Albion "Burgundian". Like the Poitier, it may be able to cut quite well, but is more oriented toward the thrust.
I've been looking for videos of test cutting with rapiers, and I simply haven't been able to find many. I think we need to do some serious research test cutting with accurate recreations on various materials and get some proper results on their performance. I see a lot of people saying rapiers can't cut, and rapiers can cut, but no actual testing of exactly how well they do. I think we need to get some stats on how sharp rapiers probably were from surviving examples, get some swords made with those kinds of edges and actually slice and cut with them and see what we get. There are plenty of tests of other kinds of swords, though few of them are systematic, but this area is woefully lacking, at least in publicly available material.
a good point, i hear alot of people complain about the design of tanks and planes as well as blades. people who have not considered the limits of materials and manufacturing techniques. i shall refer them to this video.
You can cut meat with a blade as thin as a sheet of paper. A thin and wide blade will be easy to push into soft targets and it essentially aligns the blade for you. However, such blades are too whippy and as soon as there's some resistance it all gets lost in bouncing and vibrating. With a heavy, stiff blade you can chop like an axe, even when it's blunt, but that makes it sluggish and less effective against meat (but better at breaking bones). A Katana is that thick because it was no spring steel and needed to be super stiff. A falchion may hit just as hard, but can afford a thin, wide blade. Against unarmored opponents, both are a bit of an overkill, but as soon as we talk about gambesson and leather, things change...
I feel like adding broadness to the blade is an easy way to add mass-per-length without making the blade more thick (and increasing the cut friction). If you imagine the sword to be made out of unbending diamond, then you can assume that all of the energy of the strike will be transferred into the cut, in which case mass-per-length is irrelevant, and the inertia of the entire object should be considered. On the other hand, if you imagine the blade to be a pool noodle, then only the mass directly behind the cross-section of impact will be absorbed into the cut, while the rest will be dispersed in the overall "wobble" of the noodle. I assume that an iron bar is somewhere between a pool noodle and a diamond, and that part of the kinetic energy of the object will be lost to the wobble/bending and part of it absorbed into the cut-work at the blade cross section. I also assume that the softer the material you work with is, the most energy will be lost to bending or wobble, and the more incentive you have to have the mass of the blade directly behind the cutting edge. As metallurgy improved and steels got harder without being brittle, it became feasible to store part of the mass of the blade closer to the fulcrum of the hand-held weapon (making it more nimble for thrusts and defensive action) while also transmitting the kinetic energy of that part of the blade to the cut. To be clear they always had the possibility to make really hard blades (pig iron) but they would have been incredibly brittle, and since you could make a softer iron blade that was just wider and had the same cutting power, then you would just do that. Only when metallurgy got better did you start seeing mail-piercers (even though mail had been around forever).
Matt, you're a giant nerd and I love you for it. While watching this vid I had an idea for a follow up vid. You mentioned that massive wide blades were, while excellent at cutting, somewhat impractical in combat. But combat isn't the only thing swords were used for. Executions weren't uncommon in the middle ages, and having a tool to decapitate / dismember cleanly "humanely" was something of a priority to some people. (if I'm not mistaken) Anyways, be interested to see an addendum covering blade geometry of executioners / ceremonial blades as well.
what blade type is the tapered arming sword he's talking about around 17:40 and what complex hilt swords use that blade? He mentions it the first time he picks it up but that blade is a little more impressive than like a Munich sword and would be pretty cool with a complex hilt like it.
On top of all the things mentioned in the video, i think i wider blade also has lesser chances of getting stuck in muscles, ligaments and tendons (when used for cutting) as opposed to narrower blades, which thanks to their geometry have lesser chance of getting stuck when used for thrusting.
If the blade is wider there is more room for the edge to taper, meaning you can have a smaller edge angle and still have much durability. It's also increasing the mass of the blade, obviously. For a moder analogue, think of a kitchen cleaver (very wide, rectangular blade) and how it's used (hard chopping blows).
Very interesting video, I hadn't thought of technology as a limiting factor for why thrust-centric viking swords were so rare. I do feel you may have understated that early arming swords do cut quite a lot better than e.g. a type XV though (I mean they're basically viking swords), and that near the end of the medieval period you see something of a return to wider or at least less heavily tapered blades than what they used to counter plate.
Shad beat me to the point I wanted to make initially but something I want to mention is also the impact of culture and fashion in sword design. The technology to make long narrow blades has been around for much longer than you think, the Avars used narrow curved swords as early as 700-800 A.D. as well as the Sassanid Persians and later Mongols. their blade material varied hugely just like any sword culture, but even then it's totally possible to make narrow blades by compensating with thickness. Another example is the resurgence in wide blades from the 1450's to 1600. The Landsknecht were renowned for using broad cutting swords, but even so they weren't the only ones to do so, with examples like the cinquadea short swords coming into Italian fashion and some variants of German messers and some later basket hilt swords. Even the not so famous 1796 heavy cavalry sword comes off as a modernized Norman style cutting sword outfitted with a selection of points, at a point you mention is dominated by narrower blades. Indians too thought there was value in broad blades as they certainly held onto that aspect with Tulwar design, but again not always as some preferred the persian shamshir style popular with moghul nobles. The Sihks also held the broad bladed khanda in high regard as a traditional weapon of war. Lastly id like to point out that in literature, heavy cutting swords may have fell out of fashion at some point in Europe due to being considered a more brutal and savage weapon than what was considered elegant and gentlemanly later on. Also, that heated debate of cut versus thrust divided swordsmen for a long time. I have no references to back this claim up but I'm sure anyone who has read up on the subject have seen this a few times at least. So I guess it's true that technology plays a part, but sometimes it comes down to what looks good too, and that can change a lot over a 1000 years..... peace Matt
As an amature blade Smith I have noticed that more modern and thinner blades (like the rapier) are also more difficult to forge. Do you think that improving skill over the ages could also be a contributing factor to blade design? Although I do agree that materials would be a more significant factor.
Thank you for the comparisons. Your 11th century arming sword is gorgeous. Perhaps you have already done a video on it, but I would be interested to know more about the edge geometry, ie: how sword edges varied or changed over time, even going back to Egyptian, Greek, Persian, and Assyrian bronze examples. And then how it changed with Roman, Iberian, Celtic, and other Germanic swords. And then the same periods you just went through above. For example, I have often heard that katanas are much fatter blades than sabers, despite their relatively similar dimensions. I always assumed this was due to quality of material, but it could also be that katanas could chop better than sabers (both slash great) because of that extra weight in the blade. And while many arming swords tend to have flatter or hexagonal profiles, katanas tend to have a more triangular profile. And most bronze swords I have seen seem to have a more pointed-oval type of profile.
Really interesting and insightful video. Bit off topic but I have a suggestion I'd really like to hear discussed. People always want to compare the Katana vs longsword, but seem to forget the katana as we know it is really a 16th (ish) century onward design when its often compared to earlier medivel swords. People seem to think the only type of sword ever in Japanese history is the katana and wakazshi, but Japanese swords went through there own developmental process and earlier examples i have seen are straight one handed blades. I'm really not very knowledgeable on the subject and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of information, but i'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on earlier Japanese swords, to at least address this topic, as it never seems to be talked about.
@@XCodes I'm less interested in the difference between curved and straight blades as that in of itself like you say doesn't make much difference, but some of the early swords i've seen have one handed saber like grips and large ball pommel, thats totally different to a regular katana and looks really interesting
Tsurugi, Chokuto, Ken, Karatachi and Warebite To are the swords you are looking for: i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/02/49/1e0249a7f80376783132f0cd32985a94.png encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTBNXscE8iSyDJrVW6w4XcHkHkMWVcYwAGwq3khXwW5OyOaG8R0 www.swordforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=37207&stc=1&d=1115651715 www.swordforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=37267&stc=1&d=1115783867 pin.it/hdjpxtizhsbsu5 pin.it/gtow35zkkgejrp pin.it/pwkgbjjvadhgpd
@@lucanic4328 Yep these are the ones Would love to learn more detail about there history and use. Picture of the orginal finds below www.google.co.uk/search?q=Japanese%209th%20century%20sword&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg%3ACU1qcLbu9IJ5IkAQQ5aOy_1uLVvxHFdOCjPG4mxP9aN44yjd0ZIRzoOg0klt6YkdPkNuUlQKVRwMEP7CfiTMgIviJzL55XXiDdNw6KhIJEEOWjsv7i1YRA3vN9tJpcEIqEgn8RxXTgozxuBFUDqQm4I_1eXyoSCZsT_1WjeOMo3EVY6V260MW81KhIJdGSEc6DoNJIRKbXUIqE3ceIqEglbemJHT5DblBHhqOz-7OO9ZSoSCZUClUcDBD-wEZ5F2gEZLgImKhIJn4kzICL4icwRQH-zgVKC-jsqEgm-eV14g3TcOhGjDs5Qp9TnHg%3D%3D&safe=off&client=ms-android-asus&prmd=isvn&hl=en&ved=0CBUQuIIBahcKEwjQjeKD9t_eAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBQ&biw=360&bih=559#imgrc=aZA2Q31jC0Yo9M
@@magnani Unfortunately there isn't a lot in English. However, a very good work I can suggest you is " On the Origins of NihonTo" by Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini. Is a pdf available online. Also if you are interested you could check my blog: gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.it/?m=1 I will sooner or later talk about that period of Japanese history!
I'm not going to disagree with what you're saying here because I think it's just a given that material and technological constraints are going to dictate design, however, there is a clear mechanical advantage to wider blades when it comes to cutting. tl;dr: Thick blades are stiffer in the plane of the edge, and therefore better for transferring energy into a target (up to a point). The bending rigidity of an object is dictated by two things, the amount of mass resisting the bending moment, and the distance of that mass from the center line of the axis of bending. Simply put, if you suspend a bar between two points and put a load downwards atop its center, it's going to bend into a smiley face. The top of the bar is in compression (that is, being forcibly shortened) and the bottom is in tension (forcibly elongated). At some mid-point between the two, the change in length must be zero (that's a real world application of the intermediate value theorem, actually). That means, at the midpoint between the two sides, the material is not actually resisting the bending at all (no distortion). Equally, the further away from that point you get, the more the material elongates/compresses (and resists). This is why an I-beam is shaped the way it is. If you load an I-beam on the plates, you'll note that almost all the mass is located as far away from the center line as possible. This is the same principle as a fuller on a sword. Thus, the broader the blade is edge to edge, the stiffer (for a given amount of material) it will be in THAT plane. The more efficient it will be at imparting energy into the target. The problem arises in that, if you make the blade thinner to accomplish this, the bending rigidity in the direction of the flat, or torsionally (i.e.wringing your hands), will diminish, and energy will be lost in THAT way. This is what you always talk about with katanas being more forgiving with bad edge alignment because the blade doesn't wobble and deviate. In other words, widening the blade for a given amount of metal will improve the ability to impart energy into the cut UP TO A POINT. Equally, this is why it's not entirely fair to compare the width of single-edged cutting swords to double-edged swords. A thick spine is inherently better at resisting a bending moment applied from the direction of the edge than a thick mid-rib on a double-edged sword because it is distant from the center line of the blade. So, given an equivalent amount of material, the blade will be stiffer in the direction of the edge than a double-edged sword. This is what I find so fascinating about sword design - there's actually a tremendous amount of engineering that goes into why swords behave the way they do, and they're not at all the simple objects they appear to be. If you've made it this far, I don't know why I wrote all this, and I don't know why you're still reading it. Cheers.
Fantastic video! I would certainly love to see this discussion extended to hilt design, as well. I am curious as to if material availability and quality was a prominent factor when it came to hilt design. For example, what kind of characteristics do you need for material making up a basket hilt? or a knuckle-bow? or the longer cross hilts seen in later period cruciform swords vs. their early medieval era ancestors? And might that partially explain why they showed up when they did?
That was a lot of ground to cover and well done. I'll add this possible point as to blade shapes besides quality of steels which makes perfect sense. Armour also had its influence on blade shape. A 12th or 11th century arming sword was pitted against chain mail and helmets. While the wide, front heavy arming sword might not be able to cut or thrust through mail a heavy blow might break a bone, disable a joint or stun with a blow on the helmet leaving an opponent on the battlefield at your mercy. A thinner blade would not deliver the necessary force needed. Plate armour required a fine point for the armour openings but the cut was still necessary for less well protected adversaries on the battlefield. Firearms did away with plate armour and the wider blades went with the plate armour excepting hold outs like the basket hilt broadsword in combination with the targe. The targe said to be somewhat effective at deflecting musket balls when angled and closing and therefore banned the story goes when the Jacobites were defeated. Has anyone done a test to see if the targe could deflect a Brown Bess launched musket ball at different ranges? This might prove difficult considering the accuracy of smooth bores.
I agree with your points to an extent. The material of the swords is very important to the shape of the weapons, but don't forget it is also about the skill of the users of said weapons. It is hard to mess up the cut with a falchion or a messer, and were most often used by poorer less trained troop or civilians. Swords like late Medieval arming swords and katanas were used by highly trained elite or noble warriors.
Matt ,about the large falchion and the katana,in a tameshigiri video i saw a katana with a very broad blade,i think it was called Meiji shrine celebration or similar,it was around the end
I really enjoyed this video. just a few question in terms of cutting unarmored people could you say a faster thinner blades like the katana, shamshir 19th century sabre would be better at cutting through flesh while broader blades like falchion dadao be better for cutting through bone? what about light clothing such as silk would thinner blades be more effective on it then broader blades?
I think there's probably another thing driving sword design, in addition to technology and combat use. Convenience. I suspect the reason the katana has such small, or sometimes no, hand protection is because a big hand guard is more cumbersome when worn in a scabbard. The same goes for smallswords replacing rapiers, easier to carry. Like Matt's said many times, most of a weapons life is not spent fighting, but being carried around.
Rapier for cutting and thrusting in my book. Slash out wrists and / or neck and / or at the knees while darting back. Thrust when opponent is open/wounded or his blade is trapped, and you don't have to worry about an afterblow.
A similar dynamic happens with firearms design. Once the frame could be made mostly of polymer (glorified plastic) and the whole gun didn't have to be made from steel (and wood) any more, a whole new world opened up.
Matt what about change in clothing in combat or armour, wouldn't that also account for it? Moreover, can you please provide a source for those narrower blades during the viking era? Cheers.
I understand the points being made in this video, and it may indeed have some truth to it. But, as always, any discussion of the evolution of arms and armor is even more complex than can be covered in one video. I personally focus on the late Roman and early medieval periods, so I've done a lot of reading on the subject of swords in those time periods. We can definitely say that, in the early medieval period (migration period - Viking age if you prefer), there was a broader range of steel and iron quality than either in the Roman or later medieval periods. Could be poor, could be excellent, could be so-so. And a lot of the metallurgical analysis of weapons and tools reflects that fact. So, of course, it impacted how weapons were manufactured. Pattern welding, folding, and laminating steel (like San-Mai) were all techniques performed during this period to make the good steel go further and the poorer quality bits more reliable. However, one thing that makes me question Matt's hypothesis here is the fact that these weapons change relatively little (at least in blade shape) from the Roman spathae they ultimately come from. Warfare during the late Roman period on through to the Viking Age doesn't change as drastically as it might have across 5-6 centuries compared to changes from the Viking Age to the Renaissance. All this in spite of the drop in consistency of steel quality after the classical period. The overall form of these swords as long, broad, cut-oriented weapons remains relatively unchanged. And while the availability of armor may have changed from time to time, the style or armor didn't change so much. To me, it seems like the form of the weapons is still just related to their function regardless of the average quality of steel. They stuck with what worked with some tweaking here and there. There are definitely some Roman spathae that are more narrow than the ones that the Germanic spathae descend from. And I would have to look more into those to see what they were used for and what kind of steel they were working with. Maybe that would shed some more light on this and see if Matt is onto something. Good video, Matt! Really got me thinking.
Matt, maybe you have a Notion about this. Why did Cavalry in early to mid 17th. Century use the Rapier, like the Pappenheimer? Obviously the pistol was the primary Weapon in a engagement, but after you fired your two pistols at point blank range at your heavily armoured opponent, how the Hell do you punch a Rapier through a Cuirassiers Armour? I guess that's where the Warhammer and Horseman's Axe comes into the Playing-field. But still, WHY a Rapier?
Just wanted to add something about steel types and blade shapes. You can see the change through the periods from what tempering allowed in sword design. Case hardening (Roman era) This needed thick blades, as the soft core can bend. Differential hardening (early feudal Japanese) same problem with case hardening, soft spine can bend Tempering a through hardened blade (Late medieval period) This was when spring temper became widely used in swords Just because a steel is a crucible steel, it does not mean it is a spring tempered and through hardened steel. The best steel in the world will still act just like mild steel in it's annealed un hardened state. In its through hardened state a high carbon content uniform crucible steel is brittle, after tempering is the only time you will achieve a spring temper. So when we talk about wootz crucible steel, migration period crucible rare swords, and pattern welded steel, all of those things mean nothing unless the smith knows exactly the 3 step process of heat treatment for spring temper. There is confusion still in the 'sword' community on this topic. People assume that a crucible steel sword is the same as a late medieval spring tempered blade. When it's talking about a completely different part of 2 different process's. The Romans could have easily created medieval level spring gladius, but they didn't understand advanced metallurgy hardening techniques, they got carbon to enter the iron through working and case hardening the sword, to create a tough outer shell, basically a martensite skin over a soft core. I also have doubts of the Scandinavian smiths, I think their swords are over hyped and nobody has let me run tests to confirm if they have a spring flex, I don't think they do, I think they are just good carbon crucible steel swords that have been hardened partially. If anybody has actual proof that an Ulfbhert has a spring temper please send me the studies or tests, I have seen evidence that they are high grade crucible steel, but this does not conclude they have a spring temper, has anybody ever bent an ulfbhert and seen it return to true?
About 20:17 Matt messed up & said " Most of the hilt is at the base." Lol Yes It's clear he meant mass & it's well known he doesn't do a lot of editing work... But now I'm really am trying to picture a sword that doesn't have most of the hilt at the base lol Perhaps like those weird duelling swords in Fiore?
Where do shields fit in to this picture? Can impacts with defenders' shields damage blades, and are they more likely to damage a thin blade? Superficially, it seems like the broader blades also correspond to regions/time periods where people also used big shields.
This video raised a vital question for me: Supposing all modern technology and specific chemical reactions(eg gunpowder) stopped working, society collapses. and you needed to make a swift raid on the local Tesco to secure supplies. How many mates could you arm and outfit to bring with you? Cos it looks like a lot. I mean *a lot*. I mean like the whole lot. 'S'lot of swords, is what I'm sayin'.
Oke one question! Why do falchions end in a nearly flat point? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a spike style tip like a baynot or the tip of a billhook or even just to sweep up in a crecent type shape at the tip to create a slightly sharper thinner tip then the half round nearly ball shaped tip they have? Like why not have a propper tip you can propperly trust with then the thing they have which might not even trust to gambeson. Don't get me wrong falchions are made to cut true sh*t, but when this fails wouldn't it be better to have a propper tip as back up?
I wonder if one of the main reasons why Migration Era swords tended to be the shape they were was not so much beccause of concern of a client surviving having a poorly designed sword and coming back so much as the smiths sticking to what they know because of the cost and difficulty in getting quality steel. As a smith, if you could only afford to buy enough good steel to make 3 swords in a given period of time would you want to waste any of your precious steel on a design that might not work and thus cannot sell, or you would rather make 3 swords of a proven design that you know you'll be able to sell?
I suspect that the armour the sword was supposed to fight was more impactful on its form than the material it's made of. Post Roman conflicts were primarily gambison and so more cutting orented blades thrived, then as armour moved to chain and then plate the swords became more and more thrust orented to explote their gaps, however with gunpowder displacing plate and the introduction of woolen uniforms of soldiers, cutting returned in the saber. In Japan armour remaned reletivly the same, light, and wooden at most and so the saber like katana did well enough to become engrained in culture and ceased evolving even when metal armour was interduced. If thicker soft armours like gambison made a return so would more extream cutting blades, and where heavly armoured targets wernt expected, like amongst the men-at-arms cutting blades like zwihanders remained in use
I didn't think there was any evidence for the gambison that early on, or that it was used at all I the early dark ages (or migration era or whatever you call it) either by itself or under mail. I'm also pretty sure metal armour in Japan predates the katana. I agree with your point about the armour the sword would be used against although you have to remember some swords are civilian weapons so they would usually encounter little or no armour in the context they were primarily used.
A bigger factor than what the armor is made of might be how big are the gaps. If the metal plates are impenetrable but the articulation is simple enough that a lot of the limbs a still unprotected the you can still slip in a falcion in the gaps just as easily as an estoc.
@@101Mant theres rather little evidence of gambison being used at any time but considering it's simplicity (its layers of clothes sewn together) its hard to imagine it not being used. as for Japanese amours they were leather and lacquer until trade with Europe in the 16th century which i'm pretty sure is after the katana became widespread. @MrMonkeybat armour especially incomplete and early designs were typically warn in layers, gambison under chain under plate so until the late medieval where plates were almost machine perfect and interlocking, there would be chainmail underneath any vulnerable gaps in the plates, so any weapon would need to deal with at least that
Japanese armor evolved quite a lot actually, wood(or leather for that matter) was never used and they wear heavy sets of armor, that is actually a myth the switch to Metal armor happen before Europeans arrived not after, katanas appeared a little before the switch to plate. gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/10/notes-on-japanese-armor-transition-from.html?m=1 gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2017/10/tosei-gusoku-body-coverage-explained.html?m=1
Speaking of the Katana and the Saber, I have heard that in the late 1800's-early 1900's the Japanese Army converted a lot of Katana's into saber-like swords through the simple method of changing the hilt.
Regarding the supposed trend of swords getting longer in the middle ages, the type XI sword you showed goes exactly against that. I mean, it's almost as long as that rapier! Interestingly enough it was well after the XI came along that shorter blades (such as type XIV) came into common use.
After being on Knife or death, I so want to do sword feats now. I think folks would enjoy that. I mean how could would that be at a county fair or street fair. Cutting different targets get a few cutters together and bam!
Somebody might have said this already but is it possible that that small sabre is a so called 'sabre briquet'? They were short secondary weapons used by infantry in the napoleonic wars. I don't know much else about them but that could be what you've got there, Matt.
Ok I know this may be off topic... Why isn't everyone on "The walking dead" sporting gambeson or at least chainmail, halberds and flails besides one blimen katana? I mean if bullets are running out, what was Rick Grimes thinking? Is it too hot where he lives to raid a handy medieval reenactors place and walk through legions of the undead ....
Indeed. Just make armor out of pvc pipe, heat them a little and you can shape it to your body parts real easy, and no zombie would be able to chomp through, or even get purchase with their teeth. Maces and war hammers would be a nice choice of melee weapon too, instead of those silly folding knives so many use on TWD. It`s like the skull turns to pumpkins when they reanimate ol.
Because the show has zero common sense. In one episode they used riot armor, and it worked great. So they never used it again. They constantly find stuff that works great and then appear to forget.
@@mageyeah7763 Yup, like the "one weird trick" where they chuck some walker gut all over their clothes and can then walk right through a herd, somehow they seem to forget how that works.
Less didn't trust and more knew the limits of. I would suggest that we don't have the common knowledge, instinct behind our thoughts that these people would have. Even for the more practised of us. We don't need it to survive, make it to the next day. That can change how you value something and what you would do with said knowledge.
@@mikaluostarinen4858 it's more difficult, in many ways. Temperatures change very rapidly in thin stock, and if you are only going by colour to judge temperature, you have to be quite good to get it right. I still have the occasional mishap where i basically burn the thin edge of a forged piece.
Matt don't you think that, maybe, to put a distal taper on a blade is more complex than a profile taper (and i'm referring to the arming sword). It can be that an arming sword with only the profile taper cost less than a sword with the distal taper because is easly and qucker to forge.
It is far easier today to have profile taper than distal taper. But that is because stock comes in the form of a plate or long bar, that you cut from with an angle grinder. Especially budget swords today are essentially completely flat and cut to shape with a grinder. When shaping a sword from a lump of metal, you have completely different ways of cutting costs, and I am not sure whether it is easier to create a flat sword than a distally tapering. It is likely, at the very least, to not be any easier with a profile than a distal taper.
Matt this is a bit off topic. But how offten was Rabats used with sabers? There is some use of them with other types of single handed swords but i no clue about sabers
I have some questions about about the guards on different swords, you mentioned the change in balance from the increased hand protection in the rapier compared to the arming sword, so how does the katana's disk guard weigh compared to a medieval long sword? It has also been mentioned that the disk guard gives less hand protection than a cross guard especially for the back hand, if so do we see wore evidence of hand injuries on samurai to support this? And might the backward curve in the katana's handle be to hide more of the back hand behind the smaller guard so that it is not sticking out forward and exposed? Just shooting out theories, let me know what you think.
The Tsuba, the Japanese disc guard, is lighter than a crossguard with long quillons for sure; I don't think that you would find some data but is really a matter of dimension. Some Tsuba could be quite big though. It's really kind of a mystery why the Japanese didn't use crossguards, since they have it on other weapons; they are called Hadome and are used in spear, nodachi, parrying dagger and other polearms; www.ashokaarts.com/img/product_images/image/detail/yari-hadome-with-lacquerwork-19th-century-3-6862.jpg One of the reason that is often given is A) the Tsuba was actually large enough and B) the Japanese swordmanship is built in a way that most of the actions happen towards the end of the blade rather than closer to your hands. For example, in the bind, given the curvature of the katana, the blade slides rather than staying in place, so you don't really have time to use the crossguard. I'm also not aware of any technique made to snipe the hand; hands are very small and moving target. If anything, if they didn't like their guards, they would have changed it. Despite all the hate/glorification it gets, the katana was a sword born from the battlefield, made to work and a very utilitarian tool up to the mid 1600.
So Matt, your points beg an obvious question; how much protection does and 18th/19th uniform give against cutting? I have read accounts of Huzzars using their jackets as basically a shield.
All of the earlier 'dark age' swords that I've seen (either as excavated or X-ray'd) have a narrow tang passing through the crossguard up though the hilt - during re-enactment training or 'battles' the majority of failures occured at the section change at or near the crossguard at the base of the blade suggesting that the width of the blade was a design choice rather than a material one? EDIT - must admit that the re-enactment blades were normally made from modern spring steel (EN34 from memory).
I think matt its also a way of thinking that made those swords bigger and wider per example going back 25 or 30 years back bigger and heavier cars were thought to be better, evolution wise cars got lighter and thinner chassies may get the job done so its back to the way of thinking that bigger heavier doesnt nescesseraly mean better
It is reasonable to think that a reason why thin swords become more common as time went on because gambison and other heavy protective stuff was less commonly worn as time went on.
personally (purely speculative) i think the Katana (also the dadao) is mean to be used single handed on horseback if the samurai ran out of arrows or lost/broke their pole-arm. Then in desperation as a two handed sword on foot, but a samurai off his horse with a katana is little match for several peasants with yari. The particular shape remaining in use long after the Chinese abandoned that style is because the Japanese probably didn't use the katana for battle, only as a badge of rank and in duels that are expected to be over in a single strike. tradition and an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude kept it in vogue long enough for it to survive to the age of sabers and become relevant again.
That's true, to a degree. After Japan was unified after the battle of Sekigahara under the rule Ieyasu Tokugawa warfare slowly started to beomce a thing of the past and thus the katana started to get used less as a weapon of war than it already was. That's why I think that the katana stopped evolving after a while, it's because there was no need for it evolve since there was no longer any pressure from war to make changes and improvements to the design. This is also when, in my opinion, that the katana started to become the status symbol that it was in Japan, it was easy to carry around and thus a tie to their warrior heritage that they could carry around with them everyday.
Your points on the katana make sense but Dadao has always been designed with two handed use in mind. Other types of Dao saw primary use as one-handed cavalry sabers
Can you do a video about the training scene in Kingdom of Heaven? That "high guard" just seems like you're leaving your body completely open and telegraphing your strikes
Definitely good points. After all, a big reason why bronze swords were designed the way they were, was the limitations of bronze. Also I really like this kind of technical discussion!
Also, we know that whether the arming sword is better than the rapier is irrelevant, since nothing can come close to... THE SPADROON!
In my opinion, the depth of the blade is an important factor to remember when considering blade width. Just to clarify the terms, we have length which needs not clarification, and width being the distance from edge to edge or edge to back, and depth being the distance from flat to flat which we can call thickness. The katana is a significantly thicker on that plane compared to other swords which enables it to maintain rigidity for how thin it is along its width, but that thickness hinders cutting a little because the material it cuts needs to be pushed farther apart to allow the blade to pass through. I suspect that if you wanted a thinner sword from flat to flat so material doesn’t need to be pushed as far apart, you would need to increase the blade’s width to return some of the structure to the blade even though it would be more floppy due to being thinner, it would still be stronger than if it was more narrow from edge to back, which would give us thinner but wider blades, much like the falchion.
Shadiversity shad you have your own bloody channel, can you please stop writing your 3 page missive's and just make a Fucken response video!!!
@@HansGruber006 It seem to me, that was an undeserved reply.
As for the response thing, anybody that has a TH-cam account has a channel. If everybody used it to reply to each others, than what is the use for comments? Why don't you pass your reply on your channel?
@@HansGruber006 I'm sorry you don't like reading.
I think you need much better quality steel for broad and thin blades than for thick blades. So better material-technology made thinner blades possible not narrower ones.
And the Katana follows the same rule. Because the back of the Katana is out of lowcarbonsteel, it is like it would be made of lowerquality steel over all.
estranho konsta
I believe he was referring to longform vs shortform replies. Where comment section is good for shortform when you are able tomake a video for longform responses.
"Several sharp sabers" says the man swimming in antique sabers
I like how he forgot there's a bucket filled with sabres right behind him as well.
8:28 somewhere in the world, a short man rolls in his grave in indignation at being called a child.
I love this analysis! Steel is difficult to make and work, and our ancestors were good metal shapers. They weren't making swords willy-nilly. Their shape was very careful and deliberate. It's not for fashion, so much as effectiveness in its time, with its tech.
fashion did play a part in things.
Very interesting topic!
At the moment, i'm extrapolating it to even earlier swords (iron age and bronze age), especially their blade geometry. I'm thinking the leaf shape of some bronze swords looks like a compromise between piercing and cutting power, with a much softer material.
EDIT: Please do more videos like this, it's a highly fascinating topic!
What do you think of the various blade shapes of the gladius? Some have a fairly blunt taper while others have 1/3 of the blade tapering to a relative sharp point.
There are various variations of leaf shapes, some as you said are quite pointy. I wonder how the relative soft material (bronze) did perform if it accidentally hit armor when trying to pierce unprotected body parts.
You see, what interest me the most is the difference in construction between advanced steel swords that can flex and ancient swords that where constructed with rigity in mind.
As you said some where quite pointy, while others where rather broad, some had a ridge to add more ridigity, which is quite a contrast to the later fuller on steel blades.
(did iron age swords had fullers? i'm not sure about that)
They where obviously trying to create piercing oriented and cut oriented weapons, but they looked quite different to later (spring steel) designs. I find this aspect of construction really fascinating if you consider what kind of sollutions the came up with, just because of the different characteristic of material they had at hand.
I wonder how different swordfight techniques must have been in ancient times, compared to medieval and later techniques.
@@nealsterling8151 i'm not sure about iron age swords in general, but early examples that i'm aware of were often very like the bronze ones used by the same culture before, and it took a while for them to develop a distinctive shape. (the same is true in axeheads, sometimes they had decorative elements that in predecessor forms were utilitarian but became obsolete because of advanced hafting methods.) bronze swords also can have ridges down the middle of the blade to improve rigidity - again iron age swords following the pattern would make sense. well-made bronze isn't necessarily inferior to iron as a material, but it probably also should be taken into account that complex blade geometry is easier to make in bronze casting.
"...which is quite a contrast to the later fuller on steel blades."
It is a contrast, but the effect is basically the same. A central fuller/groove creates a pair ridges. A bronze sword with a central ridge could also be described as having a pair of fullers/grooves either side of the mid-line.
Swords are created with ridges because ridges increase RIGIDITY, without adding much mass. Rigidity is important for both thrusting and cutting performance.
Very true, the effect is the same.
My statement was aimed at the process of creating a sword and sword construction.
There are many factors which determine the design of any given sword and as always, Matt you presented this information in an excellent manner. To understand sword design we must understand the greater context.
This is very useful for me. I'm currently working on a tycoon style video game about growing a humble blacksmith shop into a prestigious weapons factory. Set in a fictional medieval-esque environment and incorporating plenty of historically accurate details along with some, shall we say, historically plausible fiction. This kind of thinking will help me to improve the tech-tree and progression.
Amazing video as always! I think the rapiers have thin and narrow blade because the plate armor wasn't the most common choice during that period. People probably thought that wearing full plate armor is meaningless when your opponent could draw his flintlock pistol and finish the combat. So rapiers evolved to a form which concentrate their mass on to handle that gives them accuracy on blade. Thanks for the video Sir Matt Easton!
Nothing like a quality Matt Easton video to watch during a long cold November morning commute.
Material availability will almost always dictate weapon form. If all you have is wood, you probably have a weapon shaped like a baseball bat, or a stick with a knobby end. Bronze age swords were short. Victorian age muskets were smoothbore, because of black powder fouling. As materials change, so does form.
It's also worth noting (though Matt did touch on it) that every sword design is a compromise: to gain in one area or quality, you have to sacrifice in another area. The key is finding an acceptable balance of qualities.
Not sure what you mean about the muskets. But they were smoothbore because they hadn't made rifling yet. Muzzleloading rifles still used black powder, even the first cartridge guns used black powder.
Love these big, detailed, informational videos! Great job, thanks Matt
This is an incredible summation of swords, so far as I've gleaned from watching you and other sword nerd youtubers. Thanks for this great video, and all your others too.
I'd also like to point out that among civilians, rapiers were in demand for being well-suited for self-defense, so it makes sense that rapier cuts aren't as potentially fatal as other swords. A law-abiding citizen would be in deep trouble if they got someone killed. A duel would normally end with the winner being the first to draw blood from their opponent (and nothing more), something the rapier is sufficiently capable of.
Very interesting and complex topic, Matt, kudos to you for taking it on...!
This is pretty much what I was looking for when I searched for your channel originally. Thanks for the content and for being awesome! All hail scholorgladitoria!
It should also be remembered that from Ancient times to perhaps the Renascence it was common for people in various disciplines to try to keep secrets from the broader world about improvements they had discovered for as long as possible. This means that a Smith who figured out how to produce a better metal for his swords would not likely to share what he knew with anyone not directly apprenticed to him and even might save key information to only pass on once he was ready to retire. This slowed advancement and innovation which compounded when a plague swept through killing off the smith in this instance before he could pass on his knowledge. This would explain one offs that seem to be made before the time frame for which they are expected.
Love the long, complicated, highly detailed videos. Thanks, Matt!
I agree with your premise, but I don't think that detracts from the same idea that different sword designs trickled to the top for certain contexts. Considering things like costs, intended opponents, how you intend to fight, how often the sword will be worn, how often the sword will be carried, how often you intend to replace a sword, in what cases you are allowed to wear a sword, if you intend to sell the sword, how long you want the sword to stay at relatively peak function, what swords are people selling/can you get second hand...
I don't think it's a coincidence that in times of experimentation and conflict, like the 14th century, we see tons and tons of variety in designs; both as they're felt out for what's best, but as different people need/want different things.
Best video in a long time, in my opinion! I was so f'ing excited for the Poitier to make an appearance, it's among my very favorite of your collection! I was becoming worried that perhaps you didn't have it anymore.
As sword fanciers living in the 21st century, we enjoy the luxury of no longer needing to rely on the functionality of a particular sword. Living in the 21st century also means that we have the technology to have a medieval-style arming sword made from steel far superior to that of any 17th century rapier. Therefore, I see no reason why we can't make aesthetics as important of a consideration as function! And when it comes to the ultimate in swordliness, and everything that the sword symbolizes(at least from the Western/Christian perspective), nothing surpasses the arming sword. Whether it be "Excalibur", or the one-handed swords from the time of Charlemagne, or the 14th-15th century originals that the Poitier is based on, which existed right alongside the longsword's period of service, the arming sword epitomizes swordliness in the Western psyche, and this is because of its simple, brutal beauty. I own the Albion "Burgundian". Like the Poitier, it may be able to cut quite well, but is more oriented toward the thrust.
Excellent video Matt. Thank you from the khukuri & Indonesian blades communities...
I've been looking for videos of test cutting with rapiers, and I simply haven't been able to find many. I think we need to do some serious research test cutting with accurate recreations on various materials and get some proper results on their performance. I see a lot of people saying rapiers can't cut, and rapiers can cut, but no actual testing of exactly how well they do. I think we need to get some stats on how sharp rapiers probably were from surviving examples, get some swords made with those kinds of edges and actually slice and cut with them and see what we get. There are plenty of tests of other kinds of swords, though few of them are systematic, but this area is woefully lacking, at least in publicly available material.
I love these technical types of videos Matt! Would love to see more.
Your audience seems to be growing enormously. Congrats!
a good point, i hear alot of people complain about the design of tanks and planes as well as blades. people who have not considered the limits of materials and manufacturing techniques.
i shall refer them to this video.
Oh, I love it when Captain Context wears sweaters.
The question is what sword would Captain Context carry on duty, all we know is that it is most definatly an non-regulation one
You can cut meat with a blade as thin as a sheet of paper. A thin and wide blade will be easy to push into soft targets and it essentially aligns the blade for you. However, such blades are too whippy and as soon as there's some resistance it all gets lost in bouncing and vibrating. With a heavy, stiff blade you can chop like an axe, even when it's blunt, but that makes it sluggish and less effective against meat (but better at breaking bones).
A Katana is that thick because it was no spring steel and needed to be super stiff. A falchion may hit just as hard, but can afford a thin, wide blade. Against unarmored opponents, both are a bit of an overkill, but as soon as we talk about gambesson and leather, things change...
Wonderful sword banter, I love love LOVE this.
I feel like adding broadness to the blade is an easy way to add mass-per-length without making the blade more thick (and increasing the cut friction). If you imagine the sword to be made out of unbending diamond, then you can assume that all of the energy of the strike will be transferred into the cut, in which case mass-per-length is irrelevant, and the inertia of the entire object should be considered. On the other hand, if you imagine the blade to be a pool noodle, then only the mass directly behind the cross-section of impact will be absorbed into the cut, while the rest will be dispersed in the overall "wobble" of the noodle.
I assume that an iron bar is somewhere between a pool noodle and a diamond, and that part of the kinetic energy of the object will be lost to the wobble/bending and part of it absorbed into the cut-work at the blade cross section.
I also assume that the softer the material you work with is, the most energy will be lost to bending or wobble, and the more incentive you have to have the mass of the blade directly behind the cutting edge. As metallurgy improved and steels got harder without being brittle, it became feasible to store part of the mass of the blade closer to the fulcrum of the hand-held weapon (making it more nimble for thrusts and defensive action) while also transmitting the kinetic energy of that part of the blade to the cut.
To be clear they always had the possibility to make really hard blades (pig iron) but they would have been incredibly brittle, and since you could make a softer iron blade that was just wider and had the same cutting power, then you would just do that. Only when metallurgy got better did you start seeing mail-piercers (even though mail had been around forever).
A really interesting hypothesis, and I don’t think I have ever heard exactly the same idea put forward before. Cheers!
Really great packed full of great info 👍🏻 you should do a video about the evolution of spears king of the battlefield.
can you talk about parrying daggers, in particular alehouse daggers and those used in the 18th century as shown in Angelo and Girard?
girard? what was the name of his manual/book?
@@josephdedrick9337 Traite Des Armes (1740)
Fantastic video. Please talk more about the evolution of steel. How does steel really change century by century?
I feel like this video and lindybeige's minimum force video go together well, especially your last couple points about the lead cutters
Really fascinating video, one of the best you've done for my liking. Thanks.
Matt, you're a giant nerd and I love you for it. While watching this vid I had an idea for a follow up vid. You mentioned that massive wide blades were, while excellent at cutting, somewhat impractical in combat. But combat isn't the only thing swords were used for. Executions weren't uncommon in the middle ages, and having a tool to decapitate / dismember cleanly "humanely" was something of a priority to some people. (if I'm not mistaken)
Anyways, be interested to see an addendum covering blade geometry of executioners / ceremonial blades as well.
what blade type is the tapered arming sword he's talking about around 17:40 and what complex hilt swords use that blade? He mentions it the first time he picks it up but that blade is a little more impressive than like a Munich sword and would be pretty cool with a complex hilt like it.
Dont apologize for rambling. We love rambling.
On top of all the things mentioned in the video, i think i wider blade also has lesser chances of getting stuck in muscles, ligaments and tendons (when used for cutting) as opposed to narrower blades, which thanks to their geometry have lesser chance of getting stuck when used for thrusting.
If the blade is wider there is more room for the edge to taper, meaning you can have a smaller edge angle and still have much durability. It's also increasing the mass of the blade, obviously. For a moder analogue, think of a kitchen cleaver (very wide, rectangular blade) and how it's used (hard chopping blows).
I always happy to see how analitical you can be in these topics, the nerd-scientist martial-artist in me loves CONTEXT! XD
I really love your videos they are so insightful. Keep up the good job!!!!!
Very interesting video, I hadn't thought of technology as a limiting factor for why thrust-centric viking swords were so rare. I do feel you may have understated that early arming swords do cut quite a lot better than e.g. a type XV though (I mean they're basically viking swords), and that near the end of the medieval period you see something of a return to wider or at least less heavily tapered blades than what they used to counter plate.
Shad beat me to the point I wanted to make initially but something I want to mention is also the impact of culture and fashion in sword design. The technology to make long narrow blades has been around for much longer than you think, the Avars used narrow curved swords as early as 700-800 A.D. as well as the Sassanid Persians and later Mongols. their blade material varied hugely just like any sword culture, but even then it's totally possible to make narrow blades by compensating with thickness.
Another example is the resurgence in wide blades from the 1450's to 1600. The Landsknecht were renowned for using broad cutting swords, but even so they weren't the only ones to do so, with examples like the cinquadea short swords coming into Italian fashion and some variants of German messers and some later basket hilt swords. Even the not so famous 1796 heavy cavalry sword comes off as a modernized Norman style cutting sword outfitted with a selection of points, at a point you mention is dominated by narrower blades. Indians too thought there was value in broad blades as they certainly held onto that aspect with Tulwar design, but again not always as some preferred the persian shamshir style popular with moghul nobles. The Sihks also held the broad bladed khanda in high regard as a traditional weapon of war.
Lastly id like to point out that in literature, heavy cutting swords may have fell out of fashion at some point in Europe due to being considered a more brutal and savage weapon than what was considered elegant and gentlemanly later on. Also, that heated debate of cut versus thrust divided swordsmen for a long time. I have no references to back this claim up but I'm sure anyone who has read up on the subject have seen this a few times at least.
So I guess it's true that technology plays a part, but sometimes it comes down to what looks good too, and that can change a lot over a 1000 years.....
peace Matt
As an amature blade Smith I have noticed that more modern and thinner blades (like the rapier) are also more difficult to forge. Do you think that improving skill over the ages could also be a contributing factor to blade design? Although I do agree that materials would be a more significant factor.
Thank you for the comparisons. Your 11th century arming sword is gorgeous.
Perhaps you have already done a video on it, but I would be interested to know more about the edge geometry, ie: how sword edges varied or changed over time, even going back to Egyptian, Greek, Persian, and Assyrian bronze examples. And then how it changed with Roman, Iberian, Celtic, and other Germanic swords. And then the same periods you just went through above. For example, I have often heard that katanas are much fatter blades than sabers, despite their relatively similar dimensions. I always assumed this was due to quality of material, but it could also be that katanas could chop better than sabers (both slash great) because of that extra weight in the blade. And while many arming swords tend to have flatter or hexagonal profiles, katanas tend to have a more triangular profile. And most bronze swords I have seen seem to have a more pointed-oval type of profile.
Really interesting and insightful video.
Bit off topic but I have a suggestion I'd really like to hear discussed.
People always want to compare the Katana vs longsword, but seem to forget the katana as we know it is really a 16th (ish) century onward design when its often compared to earlier medivel swords.
People seem to think the only type of sword ever in Japanese history is the katana and wakazshi, but Japanese swords went through there own developmental process and earlier examples i have seen are straight one handed blades.
I'm really not very knowledgeable on the subject and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of information, but i'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on earlier Japanese swords, to at least address this topic, as it never seems to be talked about.
@@XCodes I'm less interested in the difference between curved and straight blades as that in of itself like you say doesn't make much difference, but some of the early swords i've seen have one handed saber like grips and large ball pommel, thats totally different to a regular katana and looks really interesting
@@XCodes i think the one i'm refering to is called kabuduchi tachi
Tsurugi, Chokuto, Ken, Karatachi and Warebite To are the swords you are looking for:
i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/02/49/1e0249a7f80376783132f0cd32985a94.png
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcTBNXscE8iSyDJrVW6w4XcHkHkMWVcYwAGwq3khXwW5OyOaG8R0
www.swordforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=37207&stc=1&d=1115651715
www.swordforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=37267&stc=1&d=1115783867
pin.it/hdjpxtizhsbsu5
pin.it/gtow35zkkgejrp
pin.it/pwkgbjjvadhgpd
@@lucanic4328 Yep these are the ones
Would love to learn more detail about there history and use.
Picture of the orginal finds below
www.google.co.uk/search?q=Japanese%209th%20century%20sword&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg%3ACU1qcLbu9IJ5IkAQQ5aOy_1uLVvxHFdOCjPG4mxP9aN44yjd0ZIRzoOg0klt6YkdPkNuUlQKVRwMEP7CfiTMgIviJzL55XXiDdNw6KhIJEEOWjsv7i1YRA3vN9tJpcEIqEgn8RxXTgozxuBFUDqQm4I_1eXyoSCZsT_1WjeOMo3EVY6V260MW81KhIJdGSEc6DoNJIRKbXUIqE3ceIqEglbemJHT5DblBHhqOz-7OO9ZSoSCZUClUcDBD-wEZ5F2gEZLgImKhIJn4kzICL4icwRQH-zgVKC-jsqEgm-eV14g3TcOhGjDs5Qp9TnHg%3D%3D&safe=off&client=ms-android-asus&prmd=isvn&hl=en&ved=0CBUQuIIBahcKEwjQjeKD9t_eAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBQ&biw=360&bih=559#imgrc=aZA2Q31jC0Yo9M
@@magnani
Unfortunately there isn't a lot in English. However, a very good work I can suggest you is " On the Origins of NihonTo" by Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini. Is a pdf available online. Also if you are interested you could check my blog:
gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.it/?m=1
I will sooner or later talk about that period of Japanese history!
I'm not going to disagree with what you're saying here because I think it's just a given that material and technological constraints are going to dictate design, however, there is a clear mechanical advantage to wider blades when it comes to cutting.
tl;dr: Thick blades are stiffer in the plane of the edge, and therefore better for transferring energy into a target (up to a point).
The bending rigidity of an object is dictated by two things, the amount of mass resisting the bending moment, and the distance of that mass from the center line of the axis of bending. Simply put, if you suspend a bar between two points and put a load downwards atop its center, it's going to bend into a smiley face. The top of the bar is in compression (that is, being forcibly shortened) and the bottom is in tension (forcibly elongated). At some mid-point between the two, the change in length must be zero (that's a real world application of the intermediate value theorem, actually).
That means, at the midpoint between the two sides, the material is not actually resisting the bending at all (no distortion). Equally, the further away from that point you get, the more the material elongates/compresses (and resists). This is why an I-beam is shaped the way it is. If you load an I-beam on the plates, you'll note that almost all the mass is located as far away from the center line as possible. This is the same principle as a fuller on a sword.
Thus, the broader the blade is edge to edge, the stiffer (for a given amount of material) it will be in THAT plane. The more efficient it will be at imparting energy into the target. The problem arises in that, if you make the blade thinner to accomplish this, the bending rigidity in the direction of the flat, or torsionally (i.e.wringing your hands), will diminish, and energy will be lost in THAT way. This is what you always talk about with katanas being more forgiving with bad edge alignment because the blade doesn't wobble and deviate. In other words, widening the blade for a given amount of metal will improve the ability to impart energy into the cut UP TO A POINT.
Equally, this is why it's not entirely fair to compare the width of single-edged cutting swords to double-edged swords. A thick spine is inherently better at resisting a bending moment applied from the direction of the edge than a thick mid-rib on a double-edged sword because it is distant from the center line of the blade. So, given an equivalent amount of material, the blade will be stiffer in the direction of the edge than a double-edged sword.
This is what I find so fascinating about sword design - there's actually a tremendous amount of engineering that goes into why swords behave the way they do, and they're not at all the simple objects they appear to be.
If you've made it this far, I don't know why I wrote all this, and I don't know why you're still reading it. Cheers.
Thank you for tackling this topic!
Fantastic video! I would certainly love to see this discussion extended to hilt design, as well. I am curious as to if material availability and quality was a prominent factor when it came to hilt design. For example, what kind of characteristics do you need for material making up a basket hilt? or a knuckle-bow? or the longer cross hilts seen in later period cruciform swords vs. their early medieval era ancestors? And might that partially explain why they showed up when they did?
That was a lot of ground to cover and well done. I'll add this possible point as to blade shapes besides quality of steels which makes perfect sense. Armour also had its influence on blade shape. A 12th or 11th century arming sword was pitted against chain mail and helmets. While the wide, front heavy arming sword might not be able to cut or thrust through mail a heavy blow might break a bone, disable a joint or stun with a blow on the helmet leaving an opponent on the battlefield at your mercy. A thinner blade would not deliver the necessary force needed. Plate armour required a fine point for the armour openings but the cut was still necessary for less well protected adversaries on the battlefield. Firearms did away with plate armour and the wider blades went with the plate armour excepting hold outs like the basket hilt broadsword in combination with the targe. The targe said to be somewhat effective at deflecting musket balls when angled and closing and therefore banned the story goes when the Jacobites were defeated.
Has anyone done a test to see if the targe could deflect a Brown Bess launched musket ball at different ranges? This might prove difficult considering the accuracy of smooth bores.
I agree with your points to an extent. The material of the swords is very important to the shape of the weapons, but don't forget it is also about the skill of the users of said weapons. It is hard to mess up the cut with a falchion or a messer, and were most often used by poorer less trained troop or civilians. Swords like late Medieval arming swords and katanas were used by highly trained elite or noble warriors.
Awesome. First time I've heard of a leadcutter sword. Reminds me of a katzbalger, only longer.
Avars also had narrow cutting swords which have a superficially similar blade geometry to 19th century sabres
Hey Matt what about a video about the Jian
hell yeah
This overlooks the fact that many blades where rehilted and recycled, some lasting centuries.
Thank you for your informed analysis.
Great video, very important topic.
Great video! For Christmas, maybe your patrons can send you a hand-level table!
Love for you to discuss the good enough and spring steel
Matt ,about the large falchion and the katana,in a tameshigiri video i saw a katana with a very broad blade,i think it was called Meiji shrine celebration or similar,it was around the end
I really enjoyed this video. just a few question in terms of cutting unarmored people could you say a faster thinner blades like the katana, shamshir 19th century sabre would be better at cutting through flesh while broader blades like falchion dadao be better for cutting through bone? what about light clothing such as silk would thinner blades be more effective on it then broader blades?
I think there's probably another thing driving sword design, in addition to technology and combat use. Convenience. I suspect the reason the katana has such small, or sometimes no, hand protection is because a big hand guard is more cumbersome when worn in a scabbard. The same goes for smallswords replacing rapiers, easier to carry. Like Matt's said many times, most of a weapons life is not spent fighting, but being carried around.
Rapier for cutting and thrusting in my book. Slash out wrists and / or neck and / or at the knees while darting back. Thrust when opponent is open/wounded or his blade is trapped, and you don't have to worry about an afterblow.
A similar dynamic happens with firearms design. Once the frame could be made mostly of polymer (glorified plastic) and the whole gun didn't have to be made from steel (and wood) any more, a whole new world opened up.
Matt what about change in clothing in combat or armour, wouldn't that also account for it? Moreover, can you please provide a source for those narrower blades during the viking era? Cheers.
and do a video on that chid's sabre. You sure it wasn't just for very short man? Haha.
I understand the points being made in this video, and it may indeed have some truth to it. But, as always, any discussion of the evolution of arms and armor is even more complex than can be covered in one video. I personally focus on the late Roman and early medieval periods, so I've done a lot of reading on the subject of swords in those time periods. We can definitely say that, in the early medieval period (migration period - Viking age if you prefer), there was a broader range of steel and iron quality than either in the Roman or later medieval periods. Could be poor, could be excellent, could be so-so. And a lot of the metallurgical analysis of weapons and tools reflects that fact. So, of course, it impacted how weapons were manufactured. Pattern welding, folding, and laminating steel (like San-Mai) were all techniques performed during this period to make the good steel go further and the poorer quality bits more reliable.
However, one thing that makes me question Matt's hypothesis here is the fact that these weapons change relatively little (at least in blade shape) from the Roman spathae they ultimately come from. Warfare during the late Roman period on through to the Viking Age doesn't change as drastically as it might have across 5-6 centuries compared to changes from the Viking Age to the Renaissance. All this in spite of the drop in consistency of steel quality after the classical period. The overall form of these swords as long, broad, cut-oriented weapons remains relatively unchanged. And while the availability of armor may have changed from time to time, the style or armor didn't change so much. To me, it seems like the form of the weapons is still just related to their function regardless of the average quality of steel. They stuck with what worked with some tweaking here and there.
There are definitely some Roman spathae that are more narrow than the ones that the Germanic spathae descend from. And I would have to look more into those to see what they were used for and what kind of steel they were working with. Maybe that would shed some more light on this and see if Matt is onto something. Good video, Matt! Really got me thinking.
Matt, maybe you have a Notion about this.
Why did Cavalry in early to mid 17th. Century use the Rapier, like the Pappenheimer?
Obviously the pistol was the primary Weapon in a engagement, but after you fired your two pistols at point blank range at your heavily armoured opponent, how the Hell do you punch a Rapier through a Cuirassiers Armour?
I guess that's where the Warhammer and Horseman's Axe comes into the Playing-field.
But still, WHY a Rapier?
Just wanted to add something about steel types and blade shapes. You can see the change through the periods from what tempering allowed in sword design.
Case hardening (Roman era) This needed thick blades, as the soft core can bend.
Differential hardening (early feudal Japanese) same problem with case hardening, soft spine can bend
Tempering a through hardened blade (Late medieval period) This was when spring temper became widely used in swords
Just because a steel is a crucible steel, it does not mean it is a spring tempered and through hardened steel. The best steel in the world will still act just like mild steel in it's annealed un hardened state. In its through hardened state a high carbon content uniform crucible steel is brittle, after tempering is the only time you will achieve a spring temper. So when we talk about wootz crucible steel, migration period crucible rare swords, and pattern welded steel, all of those things mean nothing unless the smith knows exactly the 3 step process of heat treatment for spring temper. There is confusion still in the 'sword' community on this topic. People assume that a crucible steel sword is the same as a late medieval spring tempered blade. When it's talking about a completely different part of 2 different process's. The Romans could have easily created medieval level spring gladius, but they didn't understand advanced metallurgy hardening techniques, they got carbon to enter the iron through working and case hardening the sword, to create a tough outer shell, basically a martensite skin over a soft core. I also have doubts of the Scandinavian smiths, I think their swords are over hyped and nobody has let me run tests to confirm if they have a spring flex, I don't think they do, I think they are just good carbon crucible steel swords that have been hardened partially. If anybody has actual proof that an Ulfbhert has a spring temper please send me the studies or tests, I have seen evidence that they are high grade crucible steel, but this does not conclude they have a spring temper, has anybody ever bent an ulfbhert and seen it return to true?
About 20:17 Matt messed up & said " Most of the hilt is at the base." Lol
Yes It's clear he meant mass & it's well known he doesn't do a lot of editing work...
But now I'm really am trying to picture a sword that doesn't have most of the hilt at the base lol
Perhaps like those weird duelling swords in Fiore?
Where do shields fit in to this picture? Can impacts with defenders' shields damage blades, and are they more likely to damage a thin blade? Superficially, it seems like the broader blades also correspond to regions/time periods where people also used big shields.
This video raised a vital question for me:
Supposing all modern technology and specific chemical reactions(eg gunpowder) stopped working, society collapses. and you needed to make a swift raid on the local Tesco to secure supplies. How many mates could you arm and outfit to bring with you? Cos it looks like a lot. I mean *a lot*. I mean like the whole lot.
'S'lot of swords, is what I'm sayin'.
Oke one question! Why do falchions end in a nearly flat point? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a spike style tip like a baynot or the tip of a billhook or even just to sweep up in a crecent type shape at the tip to create a slightly sharper thinner tip then the half round nearly ball shaped tip they have? Like why not have a propper tip you can propperly trust with then the thing they have which might not even trust to gambeson. Don't get me wrong falchions are made to cut true sh*t, but when this fails wouldn't it be better to have a propper tip as back up?
I wonder if one of the main reasons why Migration Era swords tended to be the shape they were was not so much beccause of concern of a client surviving having a poorly designed sword and coming back so much as the smiths sticking to what they know because of the cost and difficulty in getting quality steel. As a smith, if you could only afford to buy enough good steel to make 3 swords in a given period of time would you want to waste any of your precious steel on a design that might not work and thus cannot sell, or you would rather make 3 swords of a proven design that you know you'll be able to sell?
I suspect that the armour the sword was supposed to fight was more impactful on its form than the material it's made of. Post Roman conflicts were primarily gambison and so more cutting orented blades thrived, then as armour moved to chain and then plate the swords became more and more thrust orented to explote their gaps, however with gunpowder displacing plate and the introduction of woolen uniforms of soldiers, cutting returned in the saber. In Japan armour remaned reletivly the same, light, and wooden at most and so the saber like katana did well enough to become engrained in culture and ceased evolving even when metal armour was interduced. If thicker soft armours like gambison made a return so would more extream cutting blades, and where heavly armoured targets wernt expected, like amongst the men-at-arms cutting blades like zwihanders remained in use
I didn't think there was any evidence for the gambison that early on, or that it was used at all I the early dark ages (or migration era or whatever you call it) either by itself or under mail. I'm also pretty sure metal armour in Japan predates the katana. I agree with your point about the armour the sword would be used against although you have to remember some swords are civilian weapons so they would usually encounter little or no armour in the context they were primarily used.
A bigger factor than what the armor is made of might be how big are the gaps. If the metal plates are impenetrable but the articulation is simple enough that a lot of the limbs a still unprotected the you can still slip in a falcion in the gaps just as easily as an estoc.
@@101Mant theres rather little evidence of gambison being used at any time but considering it's simplicity (its layers of clothes sewn together) its hard to imagine it not being used. as for Japanese amours they were leather and lacquer until trade with Europe in the 16th century which i'm pretty sure is after the katana became widespread.
@MrMonkeybat
armour especially incomplete and early designs were typically warn in layers, gambison under chain under plate so until the late medieval where plates were almost machine perfect and interlocking, there would be chainmail underneath any vulnerable gaps in the plates, so any weapon would need to deal with at least that
Japanese armor evolved quite a lot actually, wood(or leather for that matter) was never used and they wear heavy sets of armor, that is actually a myth the switch to Metal armor happen before Europeans arrived not after, katanas appeared a little before the switch to plate.
gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/10/notes-on-japanese-armor-transition-from.html?m=1
gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2017/10/tosei-gusoku-body-coverage-explained.html?m=1
Nigga shut yo fruity manchild ass up
very informative! great video!
Speaking of the Katana and the Saber, I have heard that in the late 1800's-early 1900's the Japanese Army converted a lot of Katana's into saber-like swords through the simple method of changing the hilt.
The 11th century sword looks so beautiful 😍😍
When did steel improvement stop, or do we still make better sword steels now than 20 years ago?
Regarding the supposed trend of swords getting longer in the middle ages, the type XI sword you showed goes exactly against that. I mean, it's almost as long as that rapier! Interestingly enough it was well after the XI came along that shorter blades (such as type XIV) came into common use.
Material could also be a main answer for two cutting edges. One edge blunts - cut by another
After being on Knife or death, I so want to do sword feats now. I think folks would enjoy that. I mean how could would that be at a county fair or street fair. Cutting different targets get a few cutters together and bam!
Somebody might have said this already but is it possible that that small sabre is a so called 'sabre briquet'? They were short secondary weapons used by infantry in the napoleonic wars. I don't know much else about them but that could be what you've got there, Matt.
Have you ever tried to cut tatami with a rapier? It would be nice to see if it's possible.
Hey Matt I'd love to hear your thoughts on how 3D printing would affect sword design and maybe other weapons and armor.
Ok I know this may be off topic...
Why isn't everyone on "The walking dead" sporting gambeson or at least chainmail, halberds and flails besides one blimen katana? I mean if bullets are running out, what was Rick Grimes thinking? Is it too hot where he lives to raid a handy medieval reenactors place and walk through legions of the undead ....
One thing i have always thought is,wouldn t a dog trainer suit be perfect in a zombie apocalipse?
Indeed. Just make armor out of pvc pipe, heat them a little and you can shape it to your body parts real easy, and no zombie would be able to chomp through, or even get purchase with their teeth. Maces and war hammers would be a nice choice of melee weapon too, instead of those silly folding knives so many use on TWD. It`s like the skull turns to pumpkins when they reanimate ol.
Because the show has zero common sense. In one episode they used riot armor, and it worked great. So they never used it again. They constantly find stuff that works great and then appear to forget.
@@mageyeah7763 Yup, like the "one weird trick" where they chuck some walker gut all over their clothes and can then walk right through a herd, somehow they seem to forget how that works.
even biker leathers would stop human teeth & must have been common in their world.
But, if you didn't trust your materials, would making a broad but incredibly thin blade (like the falchion) really be an improvement?
Less didn't trust and more knew the limits of. I would suggest that we don't have the common knowledge, instinct behind our thoughts that these people would have.
Even for the more practised of us. We don't need it to survive, make it to the next day. That can change how you value something and what you would do with said knowledge.
Maybe it was easier to get the heat treatment right in thin blades.
@@mikaluostarinen4858 it's more difficult, in many ways. Temperatures change very rapidly in thin stock, and if you are only going by colour to judge temperature, you have to be quite good to get it right. I still have the occasional mishap where i basically burn the thin edge of a forged piece.
wide thin falchions became popular after technology had developed more and higher quality steel became more available.
Matt don't you think that, maybe, to put a distal taper on a blade is more complex than a profile taper (and i'm referring to the arming sword). It can be that an arming sword with only the profile taper cost less than a sword with the distal taper because is easly and qucker to forge.
It is far easier today to have profile taper than distal taper. But that is because stock comes in the form of a plate or long bar, that you cut from with an angle grinder. Especially budget swords today are essentially completely flat and cut to shape with a grinder. When shaping a sword from a lump of metal, you have completely different ways of cutting costs, and I am not sure whether it is easier to create a flat sword than a distally tapering. It is likely, at the very least, to not be any easier with a profile than a distal taper.
Hey Matt I was wondering how much would a spear like that cost? I mean the one to your far left with the lugs.
Matt this is a bit off topic. But how offten was Rabats used with sabers? There is some use of them with other types of single handed swords but i no clue about sabers
So were the Lead Cutters just a demonstration design? Were they tested the steel formulation?
8:30 Is that a 1873/74 Japanese naval sword or maybe a Japanese parade/dress sword?
I have some questions about about the guards on different swords, you mentioned the change in balance from the increased hand protection in the rapier compared to the arming sword, so how does the katana's disk guard weigh compared to a medieval long sword? It has also been mentioned that the disk guard gives less hand protection than a cross guard especially for the back hand, if so do we see wore evidence of hand injuries on samurai to support this? And might the backward curve in the katana's handle be to hide more of the back hand behind the smaller guard so that it is not sticking out forward and exposed? Just shooting out theories, let me know what you think.
The Tsuba, the Japanese disc guard, is lighter than a crossguard with long quillons for sure; I don't think that you would find some data but is really a matter of dimension.
Some Tsuba could be quite big though.
It's really kind of a mystery why the Japanese didn't use crossguards, since they have it on other weapons; they are called Hadome and are used in spear, nodachi, parrying dagger and other polearms;
www.ashokaarts.com/img/product_images/image/detail/yari-hadome-with-lacquerwork-19th-century-3-6862.jpg
One of the reason that is often given is A) the Tsuba was actually large enough and B) the Japanese swordmanship is built in a way that most of the actions happen towards the end of the blade rather than closer to your hands. For example, in the bind, given the curvature of the katana, the blade slides rather than staying in place, so you don't really have time to use the crossguard.
I'm also not aware of any technique made to snipe the hand; hands are very small and moving target.
If anything, if they didn't like their guards, they would have changed it. Despite all the hate/glorification it gets, the katana was a sword born from the battlefield, made to work and a very utilitarian tool up to the mid 1600.
@@lucanic4328 thank you . that's some interesting information.
So Matt, your points beg an obvious question; how much protection does and 18th/19th uniform give against cutting? I have read accounts of Huzzars using their jackets as basically a shield.
Combined with proper technique like stepping in and choking the swing, sure, why not?
Type XV arming swords require less distal taper to achieve a good point of balance & retain blade stiffness.
Why did they put a enclosed hilt on the lead cutter, if they did not wish to fight with it?
All of the earlier 'dark age' swords that I've seen (either as excavated or X-ray'd) have a narrow tang passing through the crossguard up though the hilt - during re-enactment training or 'battles' the majority of failures occured at the section change at or near the crossguard at the base of the blade suggesting that the width of the blade was a design choice rather than a material one? EDIT - must admit that the re-enactment blades were normally made from modern spring steel (EN34 from memory).
I think matt its also a way of thinking that made those swords bigger and wider per example going back 25 or 30 years back bigger and heavier cars were thought to be better, evolution wise cars got lighter and thinner chassies may get the job done so its back to the way of thinking that bigger heavier doesnt nescesseraly mean better
It is reasonable to think that a reason why thin swords become more common as time went on because gambison and other heavy protective stuff was less commonly worn as time went on.
personally (purely speculative) i think the Katana (also the dadao) is mean to be used single handed on horseback if the samurai ran out of arrows or lost/broke their pole-arm. Then in desperation as a two handed sword on foot, but a samurai off his horse with a katana is little match for several peasants with yari. The particular shape remaining in use long after the Chinese abandoned that style is because the Japanese probably didn't use the katana for battle, only as a badge of rank and in duels that are expected to be over in a single strike. tradition and an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude kept it in vogue long enough for it to survive to the age of sabers and become relevant again.
That's true, to a degree. After Japan was unified after the battle of Sekigahara under the rule Ieyasu Tokugawa warfare slowly started to beomce a thing of the past and thus the katana started to get used less as a weapon of war than it already was. That's why I think that the katana stopped evolving after a while, it's because there was no need for it evolve since there was no longer any pressure from war to make changes and improvements to the design. This is also when, in my opinion, that the katana started to become the status symbol that it was in Japan, it was easy to carry around and thus a tie to their warrior heritage that they could carry around with them everyday.
Your points on the katana make sense but Dadao has always been designed with two handed use in mind. Other types of Dao saw primary use as one-handed cavalry sabers
Can you do a video about the training scene in Kingdom of Heaven? That "high guard" just seems like you're leaving your body completely open and telegraphing your strikes