Yay, I get to be the first to point it out! The property you are talking about, the resistance of a long bar to rotation, is called the *moment of inertia*. If two swords have the same mass, but one is longer, the longer one will have a higher moment of inertia, and therefore will resist more when you try to rotate it. (Assuming the two swords have similar distributions of mass along their length.)
@@johnapple6646 Trust me, people absolutely did that on the battle field. Maybe not in dead man's land, but definitely in trenches. At least that's what you can infer from several Army panflets of the era dedicated to talking about sexually transmitted infections. But then again, what did people expect was going to happen when the Army literally encourages soldiers to masturbate to pass time?
"Let's see what's in your military backpack, Jack... medkit... ammo... condoms? why do you need condoms? Isn't it only men where you're statione--oh, Jack." "That's what he said."
People need to stop obsessing about point of balance, but consider pivot points as well - both of them combined tell you much more about how it handles, rather than just POB. And weight. And what it's supposed to do. And some other stuff. About pronunciation of koncerz - the second one was quite good, but the "c" is more like "zz" in pizza (it's almost always like that in Polish, unless it's next to H (as in "ch", then it's just H like in Hitler) or next to Z (as in cz, then it's just like ch in check))
"Koncezh" is a pretty good pronounciation, provided that we're talking about "hard" zh, not "soft" zh. Something like in "mirage". "Rz" is a digraph, in modern times pronounced the same as "Ż", so the second time you said the word in the video is closer to the correct pronounciation :) Also, I'm quite impressed with how you say "szabla", I think it's pretty uncommon for a non-Polish speaker to be so accurate. Cheers.
From what I know, the Polish Koncezh (kon-tse-zh?) is a development of an earlier Turkic (not Turkish) blade whose name is a tiny bit easier to pronounce: Kandzar or Konchar.
To be honest, I've never heard of that kind of weapon, but what you wrote seems highly plausible. There were many Turkish and even Mongol influences in Polish arms, armour and clothing. Even the famous Polish szabla probably had Ottoman "ancestors", which is notable in the design of the karabela. Karabela in many ways resembled a kilij, both in the design of the crossguard as well as the curvature of the blade (although it was somewhat straighter). Also, "kon-tse-zh" is probably a good pronounciation, the "c" in koncerz is soft :)
I blame Mongols for everything (cue Mongol-tage from Crash Course). Their conquests carried a lot of stuff westward: culture, technology, the bubonic plague... Middle Eastern curved sword traditions seem to be heavily influenced by the Chinese-made weapons the Mongol invaders carried, and Poland likely picked up quite a bit from them as well. After Rus got its ass thoroughly kicked by Batu Khan's forces, Poland-Lithuania kind of became European bulwark against Asia so some exchange had to happen. As for Konchar, it is mentioned in the accounts of Mongol invasion of Khwarezm, where it probably originated, and some hundred years later a Russian "letopis" drops the name as well. So: territory of modern Turkmenistan -> modern Khazakhstan -> modern Russia -> modern Belarus -> moderrn Poland, some 3000 miles. A bit over trek, but it didn't happen overnight either.
The "Koncerz" was used like a spear in a charge. When the lance broke or got lost, koncerz would be used. The hilt would be placed against the front of the sattle pointing forward. Then a charge would be performed as usual, using the sattle to absorb the force of the hit it would pierce the opponent. It was mostly used vs. other cavalry as far as i know.
The town was founded in german speaking territory 1730 trying to replicate the efectiveness of Solingen. The German Confederation came to be 80 years later
It's located in Alsace Lorraine and there is a historic reason the German empire annexed that territory from the French, namely that there were a lot of German culture and language in those regions from the times of the HRE with that area between France and core German lands being always that messy border region which then with the demise of Burgundy got annexed by France. A lot of the eastern Lorraine place names are pretty German, sometimes only somewhat "frenchified".
Could you talk about the medieval estocs? Or interview someone who might be more knowledgeable in that area? I hear lots of secondary sourced descriptions of them, but I don't know any sword/HEMA researchers who speak specifically about them.
Just a note on the winged hussar lance, generally, they were hollow glued design; wooden part meant to shatter upon impact. After the impact, they would throw away what remained of the lance and tried to turn and ride past the flack of the enemy formation to return to get another lance from their servants to return for another charge and if pulled of successfully winged hussars charged in a kind of continuous waves. In addition, this construction made lances extra long and extremely light for the relative size that it had.
I see what you mean, its like a heavy stick if swung. But their main function, used by heavy cavalry, the momentum due to the mass of the heavy horse and the tall horsmen gave it stopping power against armored opponents. Kind of like a mini lance that didnt break.
In addition to Cuirassiers the French had formidable heavy cavalry known as horse grenadiers . What are your thoughts on the swords of those Horse grenadiers ?
That would be the saber a la montmorency. From just looking quickly at pictures it seems very similar to the British 1821 pattern cavalry saber, a slightly curved and fullered blade, although it looked like the blade is slightly narrower. If thats indeed the case then it would be a fairly good cutter and thruster, though it would be impossible to really judge without handling them.
Better blade on Horse back. Having a edge on a pointy weapon assists penetration of fabric because it is cutting threads as it goes in. On a horse, you generating so much force that feature doesn't matter as much. Crap, sorry, you said something implying that in the video.
Alistair Shaw Not really a ton, an average cuirassier on an average cuirassier horse would probably get closer to 6-700 kg. The horses they rode were bigger than those of the average cavalrymen, but were not draft horses by any means (most breeds of draft horses were not really suitable for riding, much less riding in a combat environment! Draft crosses could work though). More like warmblood breeds like Hanoverian and Trahkener, which would weight around 500-600 kg at most. The French cuirassier did use the Percheron breed extensively, but in the early 19th century the Percheron were not the 900 kg weight-pulling giants of today, that only came later in the late 19th century with selective breeding to get the desired massive size.
I've read about napoleonic commanders commenting on how soldiers in a melee ended up chopping wildly with their swords, even if they were trained in fencing with the point. I don't remember where. Maybe that's also a reason why thrust-only swords like that didn't get popular
But thrust only swords did catch on. As Matt mentioned, the British eventually ended up adopting thrust only swords, although I don't know if they kept that up to the end of use of swords in combat. The US, for its last cavalry sword, adopted a sword designed by Patton and was thrusting only design as well.
Riceball01 Yup, he also mentioned thats because by that point in history, advances in firearm technology meant that mounted actions were not considered the cavalrymen's main function anymore. British cavalrymen were issued the same rifles as their infantry counterparts, and were well trained to use it on foot. Cavalry charges were to be used sparingly and opportunistically; charge through and through vulnerable enemy formations, hoping that they would rout and flee, and nevet got yourself entangled in a melee. Since that was the only use envisioned of the cavalry, issuing them with a proper cut and thrust sword, and taking the time to teach the troopers a whole repertoire of mounted swordmanship was seen as waste of time. And hence the 1908 pattern cavalry sword was born.
Yeah, the winged hussars did carry a lot of weapons. Lances up to 6 meters in length, a saber, koncerz (tucked on the left side of the horse, under the saddle), a pair of pistols (again, saddle-mounted), sometimes a horseman's pick or hammer. Initially they also had shields, and that's how their formations were distinguished in the register, by the acronym p.t.d.p. (pancerz, tarcza, drzewo, przyłbica - literally: armour, shield, tree, helmet; tree meaning the lance).
@@joejoelesh1197 If I remember correctly, the pick (czekan etc.) was on the list of obligatory equipment for the Polish Hussar, while Sabre was not... but this was because sabre was just too obvious too mention. You weren't a nobleman if you didn't have a sabre, a horse and couldn't speak Latin. These were basically the identification marks, because there was no registry of nobility. I'm sure though at wartime situation, they would carry it EDC because it gets through armour, is really easy to hurt your opponent with it however you swing it, and it could be a good backup to the sabre.
They could carry everything, because they weren't soldiers the state had to equip, but knights who paid for everything from their own pockets. Also, they had separate horses for march and separate for combat, so weight of equipment wasn't an issue.
This saber was used by the Cuirassiers, Carabiniers and Dragons. I don't think it's really more expensive to call it by its proper name then: "sabre de Cavalerie de Ligne" (line cavalry saber), as the predecessor of this saber, the An IX pattern was called by General Gassendi (who actually designed and put the saber in production as "superintendent of armament") in his book of 1809, "Aide-mémoire à l'usage des officiers d'artillerie". Just like you don't talk about the 1796 Hussar saber or 1796 Scots Greys sword. It could also be called by its French colloquial name: "latte" de cavalerie (pronounce "latt", means slat/lath), which describes a straight blade saber, so pretty much only this single-edge, double-fullered kind of blade as it was by far the longest lived and more common of the straight blade sabers. The triple fullered, smallsword-like blade has a very specific name: it's called a Preval blade, from General Preval who submitted it multiple times, and there are recorded instances of this kind of blade being submitted in 1832, 1847, and 1891, with a very likely first presentation in 1822, according to Michel Ariès. No reason is given to why it was refused. It might simply have been politics. Another thing: by the napoleonic period, there were two main saber manufactures: Klingenthal (which would later become Coulaux as it is privatised) and Versailles. Chatellerault and Saint-Etienne would only take on later. In a heavy cavalry role, I would take a French line cavalry saber (An IX, 1816 or 1854 pattern) any day over the most ugly 1796 British heavy cavalry saber or 1908 saber (which is about as unimpressive as a saber can be). I'd like to see a comparison of stiffness, maniability and cutting capacity of these three. And the fact is the An IX/1816/1852 double fullered blade was used muuuch longer than the British 1796 HCS (almost a century if you count the tail end of their service life). The Preval blade would have made it even better, for sure, but it can be strongly argued that this blade design is the best ever adopted on a large scale for a national heavy cavalry (of the three successive patterns this blade was attached to, the hilt variations were very marginal, it was mostly a different pommel cap and slightly different guard design).
I don't remember if he was referring to those specific models, but Matt has actually said that the double fullered french blades are better and to go to war he would have preferred one of those... with an English hilt, as they give more hand protection.
Thank you Matt for welcoming a couple of Americans to your class. You are as passionate and knowledgeable in person as you seem in your videos . A true credit to HEMA and all who seek to understand the sword.
Hi Matt ! Interesting video as usual I have a question : - Were 19th century British Horse guard swords similair to those of the Cuirassiers ? and what do you think about them ? I know they had very long swords (+38 inches)
Is there any truth to the hearsay that wounds caused by triangular blades don't close, or at least don't close properly? I see it come up a lot and have even had small-time arms dealers (sword merchants? Not sure on the best term) try and sell me on this point. It sounds iffy.
I heard it more in regards to bayonets, unless you get fully run through by this sword the hole wont be triangular the problem with triangular wounds is that they are way harder to stitch back together by a surgeon. specially in battlefield conditions, which leads to a way higher rate of infection is not that the body cant heal them just as well if the "flaps" dont move too much and there was no danger of bleeding out. its just that getting the parts to stick together, and thus keep the wound clean, is much harder with a triangular wound
I have heard that as well. Although I have never seen any actual data to back it up. Mostly I think the triangular cross section has to do with blade rigidity.
One thing overlooked, a rubbish sword for cutting, but.......... as a club, you break a man's arm with this he's "hors de combat". Generally, Cuirassiers were big men, so a big man with a big sword.... look out!
1. I love that giant tri-edge sword. That is definitely what I would want as a piercing thrust sword. 2. That sword above your head with the reddish grip (that disappears after 15:00) is my favorite blade design. 3. OMG so many double entendres.
Matt don't you think that the late 1908 is a better cavalry sword ? I mean it has a better hand protection and it can arguably thrust better . As for cutting both are crap .
The important thing with the long rapiers is not the point of balance (which many manufacturers today create with far to heavy pommels, adding to the overal weight) but the weight distribution in the blade. They have an extreme distal taper from around 9-11mm at the ricasso, down to around 1mm at the tip.
If you had to pick a cut and thrust saber/backsword, which model/style of blade do you consider the best compromise between cutting and thrusting performance?
Matt should bring me on to pronounce weapon names for him. I'm as studied in phonetics as he is in swords, and as little studied in swords as he is in phonetics. We'd make a fine (if clumsy) team.
Most interesting. I enjoy the way you describe and explain things. I remember reading some articles written by a modern surgeon who collected anything related to surgery , battle field and hospital surgeries , during the American civil war. He had come across letters and other documents written by military surgeons that mentioned the almost always fatal wounds made by the super cheap light weight triangular bayonets used, especially by union troops. Apparently the wounds to the body created by the triangular blade, were difficult to close and presented many problems to the insanely over loaded battle field and near battle field surgeries. However wounds were more survivable if the bayonet was stopped by a bone. The bayonets were very light weight and tended to twist when it stabs bones. It would get stuck in ribs and heavy clothing. Things that a heavy edged blade could pierce more readily. They probably cost a penny each to manufacture. Some times, they were actually used for the purpose they were intended. Not as often as one might think.
It's all explained in a educational way but no matter how good the delivery "Stiffness aids penetration" is gonna crack me up. I had to stop the video a bit. Great video as usual though!
On WWI and WWII bayonets, at least one of the reasons for the very long bayonets in WWI was to maintain reach during the switch to short rifles. I'm fairly certain that this was the case with the long enfield bayonets. But once almost every army had switched, well what do you need it for? Also long bayonets were unwieldy and the whole point of a short rifle was a handier gun.
But then you had the Japanese who, during WWII, had full length rifles with long bayonets. Of course, Japanese doctrine at the time did place a certain emphasis on the bayonet charge, so much that they put bayonet lugs on everything but pistols and artillery. At least one of their light machine guns was famously equipped with a bayonet lug and they even (for a while at least) put a bayonet lug on one of their SMGs.
Jeff Acheson I believe that part of the rational was to allow infantry formations to stand up against cavalry charges. You need a certain minimum length to do that. Of course that was more of a consideration in the 19th century but there is a certain inertia in the way people think about things.
As far as I’ve read the Hussar lances were manufactured specifically to shatter on impact. Their multiple charge tactics involved picking up new lances from dedicated wagons between charges.
Ah! Better than your other video on the subject... ;) !!! Yes it seems air pressure is at work here, sticking steel to flesh and blood when pulling out a blade.
What about French carabineer swords, are they pretty much the same? The top quality historical source of mount and blade napoleonic wars has them as different swords, but are they effectively the same in reality?
Few points about Winged Hussars. Their horses ware rather small and fast, so they had to limit weight of the equipment, if not horses would get tiered to quickly on a battlefield. So Hussar was caring koncerz or sabre, situations where both types of weapons were carried by one Hussar were rare. Basically Winged Hussars had a lot of different equipment on carts and just before battle they made a choice what to take to the battlefield and what to leave on a cart in the camp. Choice which weapon to to take and which to leave depended mostly on type of opponent.
jhjkhgjhfgjg jgjyfhdhbfjhg Actually period accounts described the hussars carrying both the pallash or koncerz AND the saber (and other weapons) at the same time. The weight of a sword were rather insignificant to the overall load (2-3 lbs). Starowolski wrote - "usars are those (cavalry) who wear metal kaftans, that is body armour, helmets and forearm protection, long lances seven and a half elbows long, sabres on their left side, a rapier or koncerz under their left leg near the saddle and at the front one or two pistols ... on their armour they wear lynx, tiger and bear skins and on their own and horses' heads wear feathers." Charles Ogier (1635) wrote - "never have I seen a more peculiar sight than this. Polish nobility all on beautiful chargers, in superb shining armour, with panther, lion and tigers skins thrown over their shoulders, having long lances held up by cords hanging from the saddle, on the end of which, beneath the point, were silk pennons which fluttered in the air and confused the enemy's eyes. This was all very brilliant, but it was hard not to laugh at the sight of the tall wings fixed to their backs, from which, as they say, enemy horses are frightened and escape from ... at their side they wear sabres and near the saddle pistols, maces, hammers, axes and swords. In battle only the first one or two ranks can use the lance, for the others it is almost useless so they choose other weapons." Since the hussars were generally accompanied by vast number of camp followers, spare horses and baggage trains, they carried almost no provisions or logistical equipment on their war horses. Because of this the load a hussar horse would be carrying was in fact similar to that of an unarmored cavalryman's horse of the Napoleonic War, who has to carry all his personal equipment plus rations for himself and his horse, on his horse's poor back! Hence the hussars could get away with carrying all those weapon and armor.
Matt, you are thinking like a swordsman, not as an officer. It's cheaper and simpler to produce a flat, even fullered, blades then a triangular section ones. Both money and time are major issues when you are equipping large numbers of man, and good enough is good enough if it means that you shell put more weapons quicker in the arms of your soldiers.
:) The correct answer. And then couple that aspect with a cross-section of the wisdom of many opinionated arm-chair generals (like the comment section on here) - and you have basically the decision-making process of the vast majority of militaries, throughout history. It's the same as putting bayonets on modern rifles. Any solider would vastly prefer slugging someone with the stock than to mess around with attaching the bayonet. Not in the least because after you've used it, the thing is going to be stuck to the rifle-rungs, it's going to be bent, and the rifle is going to be beat up beyond repair forever. Even if you go back to ww1 and ww2 where charges over trenches actually happened - aiming with a bayonet is something not many actually could do. And if you try yourself, you realize why instantly - you're back-heavy, you can't aim, and you're just going to drop the weapon unless you hold it up by the barrel anyway. On top of that, bayonet wounds are ridiculous, pushing stabs that ideally go straight through, and cause as little damage as possible - on the other side, they then weer off and don't actually cut. And yet, the bayonet has a significant place in all militaries even to this day. We train and put it in people's gear. And no one knows why. I asked a captain about this once, and he said: "Shut up". I asked someone else, and they said: "It looks intimidating!". And yet, it arguably never was something actual soliders ever thought looked intimidating, but instead was just stupid, even in the context of a war. So personally, I think that the bayonet - and the useless penetration implements issued to soliders, and the speculation as to why... - is the most significant things you can study when it comes to warfare.
I miss how you used to wield the weapons in your videos as you talked about them, it's what impressed me the most when I first discovered this channel. Yeah, now that I look at French weapons and uniforms, I see how they look like US stuff. It's cool to see how the different nations make a saber and why, rather than only think of sabers as those 1 general type of thing. Thanks.
Are the triangular blades more difficult to produce? I wonder if that's another reason they might have not caught on, if you need to equip an army, cost and ease of production would matter a lot.
If you have to choose or make a sword for all purpose, which one will you choose? Not just for duel or war again plate but for everything that can send at you. Also, which sword do you think is the best cutter, piercing or other advantage you can think?
Were the edges of these triangular blade ever sharpened at all? Not so that you could cut effectively with them, but so that anyone trying to grab the blade would at least cut their hand?
What if the edge was not intended to "cut" but rather to aid in disengaging the blade from the body of horse or man as the Cuirassier passed? The back of the blade serving as a fulcrum, the semi-sharp edge would tear through the flesh much more easily than a square, round, or flat, thus allowing the blade to be easily disengaged. Just a thought.
I have a question if all type of French straight two fuller Cuirassier Sword has a bad control and bad cutting? if it's so bad in melee, does longer stab range in charge is a good trade-off? in my thought, the chance of charge attack less than one second, if you lose this chance and your sword is awful in melee. you will be beaten in melee. Or, It's only a problem for M 1816 Cuirassier Swords, because it's a big & heavy version?
This video made me realize that the winged hussar is my spirit-animal, I often jokingly get called Asemies (which is the Finnish translation of the He-Man character Man at Arms, but the Finnish version loses all the proper military connotations and basically just means Weapon Man) at my HEMA club because I always bring a ton of weapons with me. I think the most I've carried to a training session is a longsword, two daggers, a sidesword, a transitional smallsword, a sabre, a pollaxe, and a buckler. Also, that carbine-mounted sword looks cool as hell, and I think it could have become more common if the system for attaching the sword was quick and sure so you could shoot without having that long bugger attached and then quickly put it on for close combat. But then again I guess doing Gurkha-style fighting with the carbine and the sword in separate hands is more suited for the types of on ground combat situations those mounted troops were likely to have to take part in.
Some point in time the Winged Hussar Lances should have been hollow, so they are lighter and break on first impakt. Reduking the danger of injuring the Lancer on Impact i think.
Never heard of the long lances only being used sometimes. From what I know, they were the standard weapon they all used unless it would be disadvantageous. Especially since they were the only weapon that the hussars would receive from the state instead of providing by themselves.
Are you sure that they were hollow? I find some references to it, but is seems quite difficult to produce a hollow wooden shaft in preindustrial times for something that is essentially disposable. I once read that they were actually made from two lenghts of wood glued in the middle on the long axis. It was in a fiction book, from the 1632 series, but they are usually extremely well researched.
That's exactly how they were done. After gluing the halves together they were also doused with pitch, and bound with leather straps, which strengthened it quite a bit and protected from the weather. At the end of the day, they were still disposable tools, and almost always broke after being used once. Which was probably the intended effect so as to avoid the problem of extracting them from the corpses of the enemies.
Do you think Matt that the flexibility of the cuirassier sword was to aid in durability? Having it flex a little would reduce its chance of breaking, where it would hopefully bend first.
What I got out of the discussion of the edge and cross section is that perhaps a dedicated thrusting sword for the cavalry charge was designed with an edge, not to cut with in a melee, but simply to aid in it coming out of whatever target it hits with less probability of pulling out of the hand. Is there commentary in any of the sources about the stickiness of triangular cross section weapons being due to the fact that they weren't aided by a cutting edge to help them slide free?
OK. Would that apply with a thrusting weapon that has an edge, or just for heavy cuts? My reasoning was that, if the angle of the blade changes (because the sword wielder or the target moves) and there is resistance to the blade withdrawing from compacted tissue around the blade, an edge might be able to cut through a bit and ease the tension. From what you're saying, a not especially sharp edge might be better than a razor sharp edge for this, because it might be less likely to itself become stuck on an obstacle, like bone.
I would wonder if the momentum of being on a horse changes the dynamic of what is effective. Especially earlier Napoleonic versions that were a tiny bit better designed for cutting (clipped tips). With the momentum the poor profile may not have been as ineffective at cuts and perhaps there is some other advantage like as you mentioned getting stuck less.
Wow. You even said koncerz right on the second attempt. Well, almost... Yes, it was a replacement after the kopia (not really a lance, as it was hollow and much longer to reach pikemen from beyond their weapon reach) was broken. Usually the unit of hussars would retreat after a charge to get new batch of kopie, as these were designated one use weapons. Sometimes that was impossible due to tactical considerations and koncerz was used. Unless the opponents were unarmored (Tatars, most infantry, lighter Sipahi cavalry) when normal karabela - type sabers were more than enough.
How good are the triangular blades at opening Champaign bottles? From what I have read of 19th century European military culture, that would be an important consideration. Perhaps Matt could make the experiment in his back yard when the weather warms up. I don't know about British tax laws but possibly the cost of the Champaign could be deducted as a business expense.
I have extensively handled an 1815 model cuirassier sword--it handled almost like a small sword due to the balance point. But the issue I think you may be underplaying in the comparison is this: In a cavalry melee, you need heft in the blade for a successful parry. The light triangular blade you favor would be excellent for the thrust--the clear intention of the "Give Point!" cuirassier blade--but it would suck for parrying blows. If wound up in a cavalry melee...I might just want that beef in the blade. Defense does matter when it's your own body on the line...
Did anyone ever consider a lance with breakaway tips? If a series of tips could break away after penetration, then the lance would get shorter with every successful thrust, but the fighter wouldn't lose the lance entirely. When you talked about French technology during that time, I thought back to the French building the Suez Canal. I think these swords predate that effort a little bit, but French did some big engineering feats during that time. Of course, civil engineering isn't quite the same as weapons engineering, but civil engineers need effective tools. The tool-buliding technology would apply to weapons.
Vamos la, as armaduras normalmente não estavam novas, já chega na guerra com alguns anos de vida (muitas com qualidade inferior), com alguns danos já sofrido em outros combates, a cota de malha por de baixo podia ser herdada e ter décadas. Já vi estudos mostrando o quanto a espessura de elmos é armaduras variam, havendo alguns pontos fracos e outros super fortes.
Mattias the leopard they carried a lance, koncerz, szabla, two pistols, a breastplate, wings on their backs and had a helper with additional lances and reserve horses and if I remember correctly they had to afford all of this by themselves.
Hungarians have a similar cavalry estoc to the koncerz, we call it hegyestőr or nyárs and I believe both that and the sabre as it became famous (there were sabres in Poland even before that) were introduced by Hungarians. Well thinking about it, Báthory introduced the heavy hussars (Hungarian speaking Polish king).
Panzerschreck means tank/(plate)armour - fright(ener) But in Germany I have the suspicion that most people would think of the anti tank weapon,not something of before the 2 WW
17:41 - You do realize that people will now be saying that the fullers really were "blood grooves" designed to not stick in an opponent (in comparison to a triangular blade)?
I wonder, with Triangular blades like this, could you make them out of iron or mild steel or maybe even brass or bronze instead of high carbon steel ? Chinese Bar Maces were often made out of iron or brass and these swords are basically just really long bar maces.
14:50 Presumably the biggest drawback of the carbine-sword lance arrangement is that, unlike if you have a separate sword, lance and firearm, if you were to get the thing stuck in someone, you've then lost your lance, sword and gun, all in one stroke
Matt, why aren't cuirassiers swords meant for cutting? are they just meant to charge in then break away? im mainly asking what a cuirassiers main role is
Depends on the country and time period. IIRC, 18th and early 19th century Prussian cuirrassiers (who didn´t use cuirasses from around 1790-1813, but used captured french ones at Leipzig and Waterloo) used shellguard broadswords. They should be well suited for melee. Their role was that of armoured (or not, but still riding large horses) shock cavalry, what happens after the charge depends on doctrine. The French clearly wanted them to use repeated charges, trying not to get bogged down in a melee. British heavy cavalry on the other hand used swords primarily oriented towards the cut (1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword).
Wouldn't a heavier blade have better penetration on horseback as it has more kinetic energy and also be more stable due to higher inertia (when charging the enemy)?
I feel like anyone who has ever gone camping on a horse or done some hiking: put the weapons on the scale, take the lightest ones. I can only imagine dragging that giant hilt and meter blade on campaign, your back would be hurting whatever side that thing is on. I'd much rather pack an extra pound of jerky or some whisky than cart that beast of a sword around all day. I totally would pick the lighter sword.
They likely also didn't catch on simply due to mentality. A gentleman wants a sword! Not a giant-ass bayonet. There was *a lot* of that going on around that time, all the way up and through WW1.
Matt's pronunciation of koncerz is pretty ok. Much better that his pronunciation of Jerzy Miklaszewski's first name which in Polish sounds nothing like "Jersey" at all ;-)
The German word is "Panzerstecher", which roughly translates as "mail sticker" in a 16th/17th century context. Panzer refered to mail at the time rather than being a word for armour in general.
edi The English verb "stick" comes from middle English "stiken" which means to stab or pierce. By way of Old English and Proto-Germanic it is related to the Low German word "Steken" and German "Stechen".
Sticken in German shifted it's meaning to embroid (by stitching) and English to stick has changed it's meaning also quite considerably... Languages are weird, but interesting.
A big reason triangular blades stoped being used was because they were banned. I can't remember which treaty or convention banned them. However they were seen as being needlessly cruel b/c the puncture wounds they created were harder to heal and more likely to get infected then the wounds created by single or double edged blades.
If you ever treated a wound you wouldn't repeat this legend. As a general rule all piercing wounds heal badly and infect easily. Spike bayonets were still used in WWII by the French, the Soviets and the British.
@@ramiabiakar2391 I didn't say it made since. I'm just saying that was the rational for the treaty banning use of knives with more than two edges. During WWI there was already a treaty in place that banned using gas in armillary shells. You see how that turned out.
I wonder though, whether the flat bladed pallash has a defensive advantage over the triangular blade in melee fencing against an oponent brandishing a light cavalry saber. Also, I'm curious as to what +scholagladiatoria thinks about the relatively lighty curved montmorency style heavy sabers presumably carried by the Guard's Carabinier, Grenadier à Cheval, and Dragons de l'Impératrice regiments. They seem to combine the length and stiffness of the pallash, with a defined cutting edge.
"stiffness aids penetration" Mr. M. Easton - 2018
Yep, this viking hater is a pervert.
"Stiffness is hard to attain" Mr. M. Easton - 2018
Do you think we can get that on a Scholagladatoria Tshirt?
Stiffness is generally increased after a few strokes, so it’s not really that big a deal.
“Stiffness is hard to attain without mass.” Chubby chaser confirmed.
Yay, I get to be the first to point it out! The property you are talking about, the resistance of a long bar to rotation, is called the *moment of inertia*. If two swords have the same mass, but one is longer, the longer one will have a higher moment of inertia, and therefore will resist more when you try to rotate it. (Assuming the two swords have similar distributions of mass along their length.)
Okay, I googled "pegging". What the hell were those guys doing on the battlefield?
"Tent pegging" - aiming to stick your lance in a tent peg on the ground; a training method for lancers to improve accuracy with a lance.
@@hobmoor2042 think he was referring to the other kind ;)
You can do that too, on the battlefield. Might be harder though
@@johnapple6646 Trust me, people absolutely did that on the battle field. Maybe not in dead man's land, but definitely in trenches.
At least that's what you can infer from several Army panflets of the era dedicated to talking about sexually transmitted infections.
But then again, what did people expect was going to happen when the Army literally encourages soldiers to masturbate to pass time?
"Let's see what's in your military backpack, Jack... medkit... ammo... condoms? why do you need condoms? Isn't it only men where you're statione--oh, Jack."
"That's what he said."
The patented Easton innuendo smile is the best part of videos
Matt, could you do a video on the different rapier styles, especially on the difference of civilian and military rapiers?
Yiss
All this talk of French bayonets has me hankering for a Matt Easton / Ian McCollum crossover.
John Harvey yas! Matt do it!
Please!?
And since InRangeTV is on PornHub now, you can make as many butt/penetration jokes as you like.
Avatrass 😹 Yes!
John Harvey Wait, what? InRange TV on PornHub?? That's... an unexpected attempt at widening the potential audience.
People need to stop obsessing about point of balance, but consider pivot points as well - both of them combined tell you much more about how it handles, rather than just POB. And weight. And what it's supposed to do. And some other stuff.
About pronunciation of koncerz - the second one was quite good, but the "c" is more like "zz" in pizza (it's almost always like that in Polish, unless it's next to H (as in "ch", then it's just H like in Hitler) or next to Z (as in cz, then it's just like ch in check))
here blog.subcaelo.net/ensis/documenting-dynamics-of-swords/
"Koncezh" is a pretty good pronounciation, provided that we're talking about "hard" zh, not "soft" zh. Something like in "mirage". "Rz" is a digraph, in modern times pronounced the same as "Ż", so the second time you said the word in the video is closer to the correct pronounciation :)
Also, I'm quite impressed with how you say "szabla", I think it's pretty uncommon for a non-Polish speaker to be so accurate.
Cheers.
From what I know, the Polish Koncezh (kon-tse-zh?) is a development of an earlier Turkic (not Turkish) blade whose name is a tiny bit easier to pronounce: Kandzar or Konchar.
To be honest, I've never heard of that kind of weapon, but what you wrote seems highly plausible. There were many Turkish and even Mongol influences in Polish arms, armour and clothing. Even the famous Polish szabla probably had Ottoman "ancestors", which is notable in the design of the karabela. Karabela in many ways resembled a kilij, both in the design of the crossguard as well as the curvature of the blade (although it was somewhat straighter).
Also, "kon-tse-zh" is probably a good pronounciation, the "c" in koncerz is soft :)
I blame Mongols for everything (cue Mongol-tage from Crash Course). Their conquests carried a lot of stuff westward: culture, technology, the bubonic plague... Middle Eastern curved sword traditions seem to be heavily influenced by the Chinese-made weapons the Mongol invaders carried, and Poland likely picked up quite a bit from them as well. After Rus got its ass thoroughly kicked by Batu Khan's forces, Poland-Lithuania kind of became European bulwark against Asia so some exchange had to happen.
As for Konchar, it is mentioned in the accounts of Mongol invasion of Khwarezm, where it probably originated, and some hundred years later a Russian "letopis" drops the name as well. So: territory of modern Turkmenistan -> modern Khazakhstan -> modern Russia -> modern Belarus -> moderrn Poland, some 3000 miles. A bit over trek, but it didn't happen overnight either.
Vadim Flaks Not to mention, they keep on destroying mr. Lu Kim's City Wall :)
Well, if you wanna make some good mongolian beef, you gotta burn down a few shitti... err, I mean, cities.
Giant smallsword = bigsword?
Sevorizzle The king of prawns.
The "Koncerz" was used like a spear in a charge. When the lance broke or got lost, koncerz would be used. The hilt would be placed against the front of the sattle pointing forward. Then a charge would be performed as usual, using the sattle to absorb the force of the hit it would pierce the opponent. It was mostly used vs. other cavalry as far as i know.
I've missed that triangular section cavalry sword, it's so unusual! I'm glad she was able to make another appearance.
"Klingenthal" literally translates to "blade valley"
Not in French though.
It's in Germany.
The town was founded in german speaking territory 1730 trying to replicate the efectiveness of Solingen.
The German Confederation came to be 80 years later
It's located in Alsace Lorraine and there is a historic reason the German empire annexed that territory from the French, namely that there were a lot of German culture and language in those regions from the times of the HRE with that area between France and core German lands being always that messy border region which then with the demise of Burgundy got annexed by France.
A lot of the eastern Lorraine place names are pretty German, sometimes only somewhat "frenchified".
Christian Changer Nop, it's in Alsace, a French region since the XVIIth century.
Could you talk about the medieval estocs? Or interview someone who might be more knowledgeable in that area? I hear lots of secondary sourced descriptions of them, but I don't know any sword/HEMA researchers who speak specifically about them.
Just a note on the winged hussar lance, generally, they were hollow glued design; wooden part meant to shatter upon impact. After the impact, they would throw away what remained of the lance and tried to turn and ride past the flack of the enemy formation to return to get another lance from their servants to return for another charge and if pulled of successfully winged hussars charged in a kind of continuous waves. In addition, this construction made lances extra long and extremely light for the relative size that it had.
8:00 I also find that stiffness aids penetration.
LOL I caught that too.
whenever you trust into something, you don't want any flex in your weapon
You see Matt smile at that one right after he says it :)
He almost lost it there too :)
Don't underestimate the value of those things as clubs when swung at a man on foot by a man on a cantering horse.
I see what you mean, its like a heavy stick if swung.
But their main function, used by heavy cavalry, the momentum due to the mass of the heavy horse and the tall horsmen gave it stopping power against armored opponents.
Kind of like a mini lance that didnt break.
Or dismounted.
"Stiffness obviously aids penetration."
Michael Scott never got past this part.
This is the 1816 modal . What about Cuirassiers swords used during the Napoleonic wars (1800-1815) ? Did they have similair features ?
Napoléonic have "katana point "
Forgot to put tent in front when I googled pegging, I'm both disturbed and aroused.
Oscar Coco In that case don't google 2 kids 1 sandbox...
In addition to Cuirassiers the French had formidable heavy cavalry known as horse grenadiers .
What are your thoughts on the swords of those Horse grenadiers ?
Rami sabreur And carabiniers.
That would be the saber a la montmorency. From just looking quickly at pictures it seems very similar to the British 1821 pattern cavalry saber, a slightly curved and fullered blade, although it looked like the blade is slightly narrower. If thats indeed the case then it would be a fairly good cutter and thruster, though it would be impossible to really judge without handling them.
Better blade on Horse back. Having a edge on a pointy weapon assists penetration of fabric because it is cutting threads as it goes in. On a horse, you generating so much force that feature doesn't matter as much. Crap, sorry, you said something implying that in the video.
nearly a ton of horse and rider plus 30 odd miles an hour equals a metric horse poop ton of energy.
Yeah, so the horse man wouldn't need to worry as much about necessary force reduction becuase he has plenty of force to spare.
Philip Dyer yup, its an excellent point well made.
Alistair Shaw
Not really a ton, an average cuirassier on an average cuirassier horse would probably get closer to 6-700 kg. The horses they rode were bigger than those of the average cavalrymen, but were not draft horses by any means (most breeds of draft horses were not really suitable for riding, much less riding in a combat environment! Draft crosses could work though). More like warmblood breeds like Hanoverian and Trahkener, which would weight around 500-600 kg at most. The French cuirassier did use the Percheron breed extensively, but in the early 19th century the Percheron were not the 900 kg weight-pulling giants of today, that only came later in the late 19th century with selective breeding to get the desired massive size.
I've read about napoleonic commanders commenting on how soldiers in a melee ended up chopping wildly with their swords, even if they were trained in fencing with the point. I don't remember where. Maybe that's also a reason why thrust-only swords like that didn't get popular
But thrust only swords did catch on. As Matt mentioned, the British eventually ended up adopting thrust only swords, although I don't know if they kept that up to the end of use of swords in combat. The US, for its last cavalry sword, adopted a sword designed by Patton and was thrusting only design as well.
Riceball01 Yup, he also mentioned thats because by that point in history, advances in firearm technology meant that mounted actions were not considered the cavalrymen's main function anymore. British cavalrymen were issued the same rifles as their infantry counterparts, and were well trained to use it on foot. Cavalry charges were to be used sparingly and opportunistically; charge through and through vulnerable enemy formations, hoping that they would rout and flee, and nevet got yourself entangled in a melee.
Since that was the only use envisioned of the cavalry, issuing them with a proper cut and thrust sword, and taking the time to teach the troopers a whole repertoire of mounted swordmanship was seen as waste of time. And hence the 1908 pattern cavalry sword was born.
Yeah, the winged hussars did carry a lot of weapons. Lances up to 6 meters in length, a saber, koncerz (tucked on the left side of the horse, under the saddle), a pair of pistols (again, saddle-mounted), sometimes a horseman's pick or hammer. Initially they also had shields, and that's how their formations were distinguished in the register, by the acronym p.t.d.p. (pancerz, tarcza, drzewo, przyłbica - literally: armour, shield, tree, helmet; tree meaning the lance).
I read one source (16th c) claiming that the horseman axe/pick (czekan, nadziak or obuch) was EDC for Polish nobility along with their sabre.
@@joejoelesh1197 If I remember correctly, the pick (czekan etc.) was on the list of obligatory equipment for the Polish Hussar, while Sabre was not... but this was because sabre was just too obvious too mention.
You weren't a nobleman if you didn't have a sabre, a horse and couldn't speak Latin. These were basically the identification marks, because there was no registry of nobility.
I'm sure though at wartime situation, they would carry it EDC because it gets through armour, is really easy to hurt your opponent with it however you swing it, and it could be a good backup to the sabre.
They could carry everything, because they weren't soldiers the state had to equip, but knights who paid for everything from their own pockets. Also, they had separate horses for march and separate for combat, so weight of equipment wasn't an issue.
I have one of those marked "K.5.5.106." It was listed as a rusty old sword. I could not resist it at auction. feels lovely.
This saber was used by the Cuirassiers, Carabiniers and Dragons. I don't think it's really more expensive to call it by its proper name then: "sabre de Cavalerie de Ligne" (line cavalry saber), as the predecessor of this saber, the An IX pattern was called by General Gassendi (who actually designed and put the saber in production as "superintendent of armament") in his book of 1809, "Aide-mémoire à l'usage des officiers d'artillerie". Just like you don't talk about the 1796 Hussar saber or 1796 Scots Greys sword. It could also be called by its French colloquial name: "latte" de cavalerie (pronounce "latt", means slat/lath), which describes a straight blade saber, so pretty much only this single-edge, double-fullered kind of blade as it was by far the longest lived and more common of the straight blade sabers.
The triple fullered, smallsword-like blade has a very specific name: it's called a Preval blade, from General Preval who submitted it multiple times, and there are recorded instances of this kind of blade being submitted in 1832, 1847, and 1891, with a very likely first presentation in 1822, according to Michel Ariès. No reason is given to why it was refused. It might simply have been politics.
Another thing: by the napoleonic period, there were two main saber manufactures: Klingenthal (which would later become Coulaux as it is privatised) and Versailles. Chatellerault and Saint-Etienne would only take on later.
In a heavy cavalry role, I would take a French line cavalry saber (An IX, 1816 or 1854 pattern) any day over the most ugly 1796 British heavy cavalry saber or 1908 saber (which is about as unimpressive as a saber can be). I'd like to see a comparison of stiffness, maniability and cutting capacity of these three. And the fact is the An IX/1816/1852 double fullered blade was used muuuch longer than the British 1796 HCS (almost a century if you count the tail end of their service life). The Preval blade would have made it even better, for sure, but it can be strongly argued that this blade design is the best ever adopted on a large scale for a national heavy cavalry (of the three successive patterns this blade was attached to, the hilt variations were very marginal, it was mostly a different pommel cap and slightly different guard design).
MadNumForce French swords! Shots fired!
I don't remember if he was referring to those specific models, but Matt has actually said that the double fullered french blades are better and to go to war he would have preferred one of those... with an English hilt, as they give more hand protection.
Thanks Matt. I have been Waiting for a video like this from you. Always great to hear your perspective.
Thank you Matt for welcoming a couple of Americans to your class. You are as passionate and knowledgeable in person as you seem in your videos . A true credit to HEMA and all who seek to understand the sword.
Hi Matt ! Interesting video as usual
I have a question :
- Were 19th century British Horse guard swords similair to those of the Cuirassiers ? and what do you think about them ? I know they had very long swords (+38 inches)
I love hollow ground triangular section blades.
Is there any truth to the hearsay that wounds caused by triangular blades don't close, or at least don't close properly? I see it come up a lot and have even had small-time arms dealers (sword merchants? Not sure on the best term) try and sell me on this point. It sounds iffy.
I heard it more in regards to bayonets, unless you get fully run through by this sword the hole wont be triangular
the problem with triangular wounds is that they are way harder to stitch back together by a surgeon.
specially in battlefield conditions, which leads to a way higher rate of infection
is not that the body cant heal them just as well if the "flaps" dont move too much and there was no danger of bleeding out.
its just that getting the parts to stick together, and thus keep the wound clean, is much harder with a triangular wound
Gotcha, that's kind of what I figured in regards to wound shape. Thanks for the reply.
I have heard that as well. Although I have never seen any actual data to back it up. Mostly I think the triangular cross section has to do with blade rigidity.
One thing overlooked, a rubbish sword for cutting, but.......... as a club, you break a man's arm with this he's "hors de combat". Generally, Cuirassiers were big men, so a big man with a big sword.... look out!
1. I love that giant tri-edge sword. That is definitely what I would want as a piercing thrust sword.
2. That sword above your head with the reddish grip (that disappears after 15:00) is my favorite blade design.
3. OMG so many double entendres.
Man, that is an absolutely beautiful example you have there in the beginning.
Matt don't you think that the late 1908 is a better cavalry sword ?
I mean it has a better hand protection and it can arguably thrust better . As for cutting both are crap .
How would the cuirassier sword compare to the British 1908 cavalry sword though which is almost as heavy?
The important thing with the long rapiers is not the point of balance (which many manufacturers today create with far to heavy pommels, adding to the overal weight) but the weight distribution in the blade. They have an extreme distal taper from around 9-11mm at the ricasso, down to around 1mm at the tip.
I'd just like to point out that Klingenthal literally translates to "blade valley"
If you had to pick a cut and thrust saber/backsword, which model/style of blade do you consider the best compromise between cutting and thrusting performance?
Is it too difficult to get an estoc? I have never seen one in videos before :S
Matt should bring me on to pronounce weapon names for him. I'm as studied in phonetics as he is in swords, and as little studied in swords as he is in phonetics. We'd make a fine (if clumsy) team.
But are you experienced in historical pronunciation?
Always dig the longer videos, Matt. Thank you. .
"Stiffness obviously helps penetration" Mat Easton 2018
Further: «But stiffness is hard to achieve without mass»… Matt likes big butts and he cannot lie 😅
Most interesting. I enjoy the way you describe and explain things.
I remember reading some articles written by a modern surgeon who collected anything related to surgery , battle field and hospital surgeries , during the American civil war. He had come across letters and other documents written by military surgeons that mentioned the almost always fatal wounds made by the super cheap light weight triangular bayonets used, especially by union troops. Apparently the wounds to the body created by the triangular blade, were difficult to close and presented many problems to the insanely over loaded battle field and near battle field surgeries.
However wounds were more survivable if the bayonet was stopped by a bone. The bayonets were very light weight and tended to twist when it stabs bones. It would get stuck in ribs and heavy clothing. Things that a heavy edged blade could pierce more readily.
They probably cost a penny each to manufacture. Some times, they were actually used for the purpose they were intended. Not as often as one might think.
The horse is the weapon, the cuirassier sword is to wave around and scare people as you bear down on them.
It's all explained in a educational way but no matter how good the delivery "Stiffness aids penetration" is gonna crack me up. I had to stop the video a bit. Great video as usual though!
Fucking epic video! Lots of information and unique explanation. Great images and physical representations. Good job on this one.
On WWI and WWII bayonets, at least one of the reasons for the very long bayonets in WWI was to maintain reach during the switch to short rifles. I'm fairly certain that this was the case with the long enfield bayonets. But once almost every army had switched, well what do you need it for? Also long bayonets were unwieldy and the whole point of a short rifle was a handier gun.
But then you had the Japanese who, during WWII, had full length rifles with long bayonets. Of course, Japanese doctrine at the time did place a certain emphasis on the bayonet charge, so much that they put bayonet lugs on everything but pistols and artillery. At least one of their light machine guns was famously equipped with a bayonet lug and they even (for a while at least) put a bayonet lug on one of their SMGs.
Jeff Acheson I believe that part of the rational was to allow infantry formations to stand up against cavalry charges. You need a certain minimum length to do that. Of course that was more of a consideration in the 19th century but there is a certain inertia in the way people think about things.
As far as I’ve read the Hussar lances were manufactured specifically to shatter on impact. Their multiple charge tactics involved picking up new lances from dedicated wagons between charges.
And yes stiffness does aid in penetration.
I have waited for another estoc related video. Now the estoc was the main focus of the video. Me happy
Could the same be said about the 1908 sword? That is not good for a melee?
That first sword certainly looks really heavy.
*sees second sword* Dear God, that looks much lighter.
Ah! Better than your other video on the subject... ;) !!! Yes it seems air pressure is at work here, sticking steel to flesh and blood when pulling out a blade.
What about French carabineer swords, are they pretty much the same? The top quality historical source of mount and blade napoleonic wars has them as different swords, but are they effectively the same in reality?
6:25min.: "Panzerstecher" is the word you were looking for...
Few points about Winged Hussars.
Their horses ware rather small and fast, so they had to limit weight of the equipment, if not horses would get tiered to quickly on a battlefield.
So Hussar was caring koncerz or sabre, situations where both types of weapons were carried by one Hussar were rare.
Basically Winged Hussars had a lot of different equipment on carts and just before battle they made a choice what to take to the battlefield and what to leave on a cart in the camp.
Choice which weapon to to take and which to leave depended mostly on type of opponent.
jhjkhgjhfgjg jgjyfhdhbfjhg
Actually period accounts described the hussars carrying both the pallash or koncerz AND the saber (and other weapons) at the same time. The weight of a sword were rather insignificant to the overall load (2-3 lbs).
Starowolski wrote - "usars are those (cavalry) who wear metal kaftans, that is body armour, helmets and forearm protection, long lances seven and a half elbows long, sabres on their left side, a rapier or koncerz under their left leg near the saddle and at the front one or two pistols ... on their armour they wear lynx, tiger and bear skins and on their own and horses' heads wear feathers."
Charles Ogier (1635) wrote - "never have I seen a more peculiar sight than this. Polish nobility all on beautiful chargers, in superb shining armour, with panther, lion and tigers skins thrown over their shoulders, having long lances held up by cords hanging from the saddle, on the end of which, beneath the point, were silk pennons which fluttered in the air and confused the enemy's eyes. This was all very brilliant, but it was hard not to laugh at the sight of the tall wings fixed to their backs, from which, as they say, enemy horses are frightened and escape from ... at their side they wear sabres and near the saddle pistols, maces, hammers, axes and swords. In battle only the first one or two ranks can use the lance, for the others it is almost useless so they choose other weapons."
Since the hussars were generally accompanied by vast number of camp followers, spare horses and baggage trains, they carried almost no provisions or logistical equipment on their war horses. Because of this the load a hussar horse would be carrying was in fact similar to that of an unarmored cavalryman's horse of the Napoleonic War, who has to carry all his personal equipment plus rations for himself and his horse, on his horse's poor back! Hence the hussars could get away with carrying all those weapon and armor.
Matt, you are thinking like a swordsman, not as an officer. It's cheaper and simpler to produce a flat, even fullered, blades then a triangular section ones. Both money and time are major issues when you are equipping large numbers of man, and good enough is good enough if it means that you shell put more weapons quicker in the arms of your soldiers.
:) The correct answer. And then couple that aspect with a cross-section of the wisdom of many opinionated arm-chair generals (like the comment section on here) - and you have basically the decision-making process of the vast majority of militaries, throughout history.
It's the same as putting bayonets on modern rifles. Any solider would vastly prefer slugging someone with the stock than to mess around with attaching the bayonet. Not in the least because after you've used it, the thing is going to be stuck to the rifle-rungs, it's going to be bent, and the rifle is going to be beat up beyond repair forever. Even if you go back to ww1 and ww2 where charges over trenches actually happened - aiming with a bayonet is something not many actually could do. And if you try yourself, you realize why instantly - you're back-heavy, you can't aim, and you're just going to drop the weapon unless you hold it up by the barrel anyway. On top of that, bayonet wounds are ridiculous, pushing stabs that ideally go straight through, and cause as little damage as possible - on the other side, they then weer off and don't actually cut.
And yet, the bayonet has a significant place in all militaries even to this day. We train and put it in people's gear. And no one knows why. I asked a captain about this once, and he said: "Shut up". I asked someone else, and they said: "It looks intimidating!". And yet, it arguably never was something actual soliders ever thought looked intimidating, but instead was just stupid, even in the context of a war.
So personally, I think that the bayonet - and the useless penetration implements issued to soliders, and the speculation as to why... - is the most significant things you can study when it comes to warfare.
I miss how you used to wield the weapons in your videos as you talked about them, it's what impressed me the most when I first discovered this channel.
Yeah, now that I look at French weapons and uniforms, I see how they look like US stuff. It's cool to see how the different nations make a saber and why, rather than only think of sabers as those 1 general type of thing. Thanks.
Are the triangular blades more difficult to produce? I wonder if that's another reason they might have not caught on, if you need to equip an army, cost and ease of production would matter a lot.
If you have to choose or make a sword for all purpose, which one will you choose? Not just for duel or war again plate but for everything that can send at you. Also, which sword do you think is the best cutter, piercing or other advantage you can think?
Were the edges of these triangular blade ever sharpened at all? Not so that you could cut effectively with them, but so that anyone trying to grab the blade would at least cut their hand?
What if the edge was not intended to "cut" but rather to aid in disengaging the blade from the body of horse or man as the Cuirassier passed? The back of the blade serving as a fulcrum, the semi-sharp edge would tear through the flesh much more easily than a square, round, or flat, thus allowing the blade to be easily disengaged. Just a thought.
I have a question if all type of French straight two fuller Cuirassier Sword has a bad control and bad cutting? if it's so bad in melee, does longer stab range in charge is a good trade-off? in my thought, the chance of charge attack less than one second, if you lose this chance and your sword is awful in melee. you will be beaten in melee.
Or, It's only a problem for M 1816 Cuirassier Swords, because it's a big & heavy version?
This video made me realize that the winged hussar is my spirit-animal, I often jokingly get called Asemies (which is the Finnish translation of the He-Man character Man at Arms, but the Finnish version loses all the proper military connotations and basically just means Weapon Man) at my HEMA club because I always bring a ton of weapons with me. I think the most I've carried to a training session is a longsword, two daggers, a sidesword, a transitional smallsword, a sabre, a pollaxe, and a buckler.
Also, that carbine-mounted sword looks cool as hell, and I think it could have become more common if the system for attaching the sword was quick and sure so you could shoot without having that long bugger attached and then quickly put it on for close combat. But then again I guess doing Gurkha-style fighting with the carbine and the sword in separate hands is more suited for the types of on ground combat situations those mounted troops were likely to have to take part in.
i got 3 ads in this video, can anyone confirm if this video is monetized? Just curious
Some point in time the Winged Hussar Lances should have been hollow, so they are lighter and break on first impakt. Reduking the danger of injuring the Lancer on Impact i think.
Njarl Black yes, then go back, get a new lance and charge again. That's why their horses were trained for sharp turns
Never heard of the long lances only being used sometimes. From what I know, they were the standard weapon they all used unless it would be disadvantageous. Especially since they were the only weapon that the hussars would receive from the state instead of providing by themselves.
Lances were the only part of winged hussars equipment provided by state. Horse, armour, koncerz, sabre, now and/or pistols were bought privately.
Are you sure that they were hollow? I find some references to it, but is seems quite difficult to produce a hollow wooden shaft in preindustrial times for something that is essentially disposable. I once read that they were actually made from two lenghts of wood glued in the middle on the long axis. It was in a fiction book, from the 1632 series, but they are usually extremely well researched.
That's exactly how they were done. After gluing the halves together they were also doused with pitch, and bound with leather straps, which strengthened it quite a bit and protected from the weather. At the end of the day, they were still disposable tools, and almost always broke after being used once. Which was probably the intended effect so as to avoid the problem of extracting them from the corpses of the enemies.
the edge is to reduce resistance to the thrust there for making it easier to pull it out
Do you think Matt that the flexibility of the cuirassier sword was to aid in durability? Having it flex a little would reduce its chance of breaking, where it would hopefully bend first.
Is there a specific name or type for the triangular bladed sword? I acquired one a couple years ago, but the blade had been cut down.
estoc
BTW I just came across one in a Czech museum, described as "končíř" in Czech and "tock" in English.
Well done video mate, thanks for saying koncerz. Nice to hear this word. Greetings PL
What I got out of the discussion of the edge and cross section is that perhaps a dedicated thrusting sword for the cavalry charge was designed with an edge, not to cut with in a melee, but simply to aid in it coming out of whatever target it hits with less probability of pulling out of the hand. Is there commentary in any of the sources about the stickiness of triangular cross section weapons being due to the fact that they weren't aided by a cutting edge to help them slide free?
Cutting sticks to bone, at least in my meat cutting experience.
OK. Would that apply with a thrusting weapon that has an edge, or just for heavy cuts? My reasoning was that, if the angle of the blade changes (because the sword wielder or the target moves) and there is resistance to the blade withdrawing from compacted tissue around the blade, an edge might be able to cut through a bit and ease the tension. From what you're saying, a not especially sharp edge might be better than a razor sharp edge for this, because it might be less likely to itself become stuck on an obstacle, like bone.
I would wonder if the momentum of being on a horse changes the dynamic of what is effective. Especially earlier Napoleonic versions that were a tiny bit better designed for cutting (clipped tips). With the momentum the poor profile may not have been as ineffective at cuts and perhaps there is some other advantage like as you mentioned getting stuck less.
Wow. You even said koncerz right on the second attempt. Well, almost... Yes, it was a replacement after the kopia (not really a lance, as it was hollow and much longer to reach pikemen from beyond their weapon reach) was broken. Usually the unit of hussars would retreat after a charge to get new batch of kopie, as these were designated one use weapons. Sometimes that was impossible due to tactical considerations and koncerz was used. Unless the opponents were unarmored (Tatars, most infantry, lighter Sipahi cavalry) when normal karabela - type sabers were more than enough.
Did you feel something in the handle when you flexed that second sword? I seen you look at it with concern ?
How good are the triangular blades at opening Champaign bottles? From what I have read of 19th century European military culture, that would be an important consideration. Perhaps Matt could make the experiment in his back yard when the weather warms up. I don't know about British tax laws but possibly the cost of the Champaign could be deducted as a business expense.
Do you mean Panzerbrecher or Kettenbrecher? I saw those referring to Estocs and slim and stiff daggers.
I have extensively handled an 1815 model cuirassier sword--it handled almost like a small sword due to the balance point. But the issue I think you may be underplaying in the comparison is this: In a cavalry melee, you need heft in the blade for a successful parry. The light triangular blade you favor would be excellent for the thrust--the clear intention of the "Give Point!" cuirassier blade--but it would suck for parrying blows. If wound up in a cavalry melee...I might just want that beef in the blade. Defense does matter when it's your own body on the line...
Did anyone ever consider a lance with breakaway tips? If a series of tips could break away after penetration, then the lance would get shorter with every successful thrust, but the fighter wouldn't lose the lance entirely.
When you talked about French technology during that time, I thought back to the French building the Suez Canal. I think these swords predate that effort a little bit, but French did some big engineering feats during that time. Of course, civil engineering isn't quite the same as weapons engineering, but civil engineers need effective tools. The tool-buliding technology would apply to weapons.
The Suez Canal was dug between 1859 and 1869. Way down in the industrial era, when you think about it (and using cheap labour quite extensively too)
Vamos la, as armaduras normalmente não estavam novas, já chega na guerra com alguns anos de vida (muitas com qualidade inferior), com alguns danos já sofrido em outros combates, a cota de malha por de baixo podia ser herdada e ter décadas. Já vi estudos mostrando o quanto a espessura de elmos é armaduras variam, havendo alguns pontos fracos e outros super fortes.
"Panzerstecher" is the german word for "armor penetrator".
So the polish winged hussars were basically 19th century Rambo.
Mattias the leopard they carried a lance, koncerz, szabla, two pistols, a breastplate, wings on their backs and had a helper with additional lances and reserve horses and if I remember correctly they had to afford all of this by themselves.
I'll take that as a yes.
Avatrass You mean...I made a time period mistake...in front of Matt Easton?
8:00 Cracked me right up.
Someone needs to do a compilation because theres a few good pieces.
Hungarians have a similar cavalry estoc to the koncerz, we call it hegyestőr or nyárs and I believe both that and the sabre as it became famous (there were sabres in Poland even before that) were introduced by Hungarians.
Well thinking about it, Báthory introduced the heavy hussars (Hungarian speaking Polish king).
Panzerschreck means tank/(plate)armour - fright(ener)
But in Germany I have the suspicion that most people would think of the anti tank weapon,not something of before the 2 WW
I wish i could find people making functional reproductions of swords like these
17:41 - You do realize that people will now be saying that the fullers really were "blood grooves" designed to not stick in an opponent (in comparison to a triangular blade)?
I wonder, with Triangular blades like this, could you make them out of iron or mild steel or maybe even brass or bronze instead of high carbon steel ?
Chinese Bar Maces were often made out of iron or brass and these swords are basically just really long bar maces.
14:50 Presumably the biggest drawback of the carbine-sword lance arrangement is that, unlike if you have a separate sword, lance and firearm, if you were to get the thing stuck in someone, you've then lost your lance, sword and gun, all in one stroke
I HAVE A 1732 PRUSSIAN PALLASCH ENLISTED MAN..ANY CHANCE REVIEWING THIS WEAPON?
Matt, why aren't cuirassiers swords meant for cutting? are they just meant to charge in then break away?
im mainly asking what a cuirassiers main role is
Depends on the country and time period. IIRC, 18th and early 19th century Prussian cuirrassiers (who didn´t use cuirasses from around 1790-1813, but used captured french ones at Leipzig and Waterloo) used shellguard broadswords. They should be well suited for melee.
Their role was that of armoured (or not, but still riding large horses) shock cavalry, what happens after the charge depends on doctrine. The French clearly wanted them to use repeated charges, trying not to get bogged down in a melee. British heavy cavalry on the other hand used swords primarily oriented towards the cut (1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword).
Forget melee, the role of cavalry is to drive through infantry slashing left and right, polo with a crowbar.
Wouldn't a heavier blade have better penetration on horseback as it has more kinetic energy and also be more stable due to higher inertia (when charging the enemy)?
I feel like anyone who has ever gone camping on a horse or done some hiking: put the weapons on the scale, take the lightest ones. I can only imagine dragging that giant hilt and meter blade on campaign, your back would be hurting whatever side that thing is on. I'd much rather pack an extra pound of jerky or some whisky than cart that beast of a sword around all day. I totally would pick the lighter sword.
What about swedish Caroleans rapiers/ komissvärja M/1685 and kavallerivärja M/1680?
Are there any manuals on how to use a Estoc?
They likely also didn't catch on simply due to mentality. A gentleman wants a sword! Not a giant-ass bayonet.
There was *a lot* of that going on around that time, all the way up and through WW1.
Matt's pronunciation of koncerz is pretty ok. Much better that his pronunciation of Jerzy Miklaszewski's first name which in Polish sounds nothing like "Jersey" at all ;-)
The German word is "Panzerstecher", which roughly translates as "mail sticker" in a 16th/17th century context. Panzer refered to mail at the time rather than being a word for armour in general.
Daniel Staberg stechen is stabb/pierce
edi The English verb "stick" comes from middle English "stiken" which means to stab or pierce. By way of Old English and Proto-Germanic it is related to the Low German word "Steken" and German "Stechen".
Sticken in German shifted it's meaning to embroid (by stitching) and English to stick has changed it's meaning also quite considerably... Languages are weird, but interesting.
What model of sword is the triangular lighter weight one? You never mentioned it.
A big reason triangular blades stoped being used was because they were banned. I can't remember which treaty or convention banned them. However they were seen as being needlessly cruel b/c the puncture wounds they created were harder to heal and more likely to get infected then the wounds created by single or double edged blades.
If you ever treated a wound you wouldn't repeat this legend. As a general rule all piercing wounds heal badly and infect easily. Spike bayonets were still used in WWII by the French, the Soviets and the British.
@@ramiabiakar2391 I didn't say it made since. I'm just saying that was the rational for the treaty banning use of knives with more than two edges. During WWI there was already a treaty in place that banned using gas in armillary shells. You see how that turned out.
I wonder though, whether the flat bladed pallash has a defensive advantage over the triangular blade in melee fencing against an oponent brandishing a light cavalry saber. Also, I'm curious as to what +scholagladiatoria thinks about the relatively lighty curved montmorency style heavy sabers presumably carried by the Guard's Carabinier, Grenadier à Cheval, and Dragons de l'Impératrice regiments. They seem to combine the length and stiffness of the pallash, with a defined cutting edge.