I really appreciate this post. So many people believe that all medieval swords are just slightly beveled bars of steel. When I examined an old backsword in an antique shop the last 8 inches were like a carving knife. Snicker Snack!
Always appreciate the insights. It’s gotta be a dream going back and forth between theorizing, tinkering & making at Arms and Armor and then researching/ handling the history at the Oakshott Institute. On another note: That 15th Century Italian Arming sword is beautiful. Would love to see you guys reproduce that one.
Plus, the hexagonal blade section on some swords makes the blades as durable as they get. Gotta go w/ the hexagonal blade section on certain swords, like the Master Sword's hexagonal blade section (not impossible to do).
quite a different school of thought on sword design when compared to military saber from Napoleonic through Victorian era. many sabers is around 10mm at the ricasso, especially cavalry swords, infantry is more in the 7-8mm range. They are not as wide though, knightly swords are twice as wide often, so get away with a thinner distal section.
I do not think that blade has been written up anywhere, though I believe Ewart mentions it in one of his books. Our plans are to hopefully get some xray work done o this piece in the future. We are talking to the local university about doing this at some point.
@@armsarmorinc.4153 I think it's such an interesting topic that it might be worthwhile revisiting as an opportunity to improve audio along with closer inspection/views of the blades. Thanks and regards.
I never knew medieval swords were so thin. It's interesting that when we look at British sabres from Georgian era, many had quite aggressive distal tapers that they could start from 8mm even to 10mm.
@@althesmith Disagree. Later military sabers often have more extensive hand protection that weighs probably the same. They generally balance further back toward the hand than medieval sword designs in my experience (not by a lot but a bit), so I don't think compensating for the lack of a pommel but actually counterbalancing it further. Another reason might be that the swords were the same narrow width all the way through the blade instead of the more aggressive profile tapers and/or wide blades of medieval swords. To replicate the stiffness the wide blade gives you just make it thicker instead.
@@armsarmorinc.4153 Very curious and surprising, like you said, we have this image of blades being thick hunks of metal. I am assuming you have seen lots of historic blades from the videos you make, have these thin blades taken much damage from battle? How have they held up? Bends and cracks?
@@WeAreUnity. We have studied surviving pieces in detail for the last 40+ years and have always strived to understand what the artifacts and sources of the past can teach us over what we assume is the way they were. Today popular culture has given many a false sense of what a medieval sword was. The damage they inflict is severe and the damage they took could be significant, but many examples show signs of long use and some nicks but they were not hewing away at each others blade as the movies of today imply :-) Swords are sharp, sharp edges will nick, but how you use the tool is as important if not more than the tools characteristics.
@@armsarmorinc.4153 Absolutely fascinating, thank you for sharing. All of this information and these artifacts will definitely change the perspective we see of the past. History to be rewritten. I hope you do some more videos on these topics as I know the audience would be captivated by them. We’ve had enough Hollywood, it is time for the truth.
theyare souvineer swords purchased as trinkets at a trip, pilgrimage or for a costume for a wedding or event or many other things, they are many times unusable.. just as some other fantasy weapons.. minature crossbows, pistol spears... swords with calenders on the blades... swords with glass or stone hilts.. swordswith metal sheaths.. a sword wasa sign of a man.. and people attended many evends with them on.. maybe to eat and dance even.. these were sharp toys.. just as later dress swords and court swords were too for the most part.. this isnt unique to europeans,, theres japanese, chinese, indian, persian and indonesian old but totally unusable weapons that fill museums aroud the world.. more souvineer weapons survive than real weapons in many occasions..
Besides the speed and cutting ability of a thin blade , I imagine a thinner blade would be much more advantageous at exploiting gaps in armour whilst also less likely to get stuck especially with a fairly even distal taper. And against lightly armoured individuals it would be very effective at slicing type cuts. Interesting they are as thin as they are .
Cutting lightly covered enemies, yes. For armor, no. These swords are thin meaning they are prone to flexing easier. For a sword to exploit gaps in armor you’d want it to be thicker and therefore rigid so it can properly transfer all the force you put in into the maille. If it were to flex, it would lose a lot of that force and you won’t get far. That’s why practice swords flex so much more than real ones as you don’t want all the force behind a thrust to hurt your sparring partner.
@@outsideiskrrtinsideihurt699 its an interesting topic. What sort of sword was used in full combat and how were they used? Judging by what this video shows thin swords were commonplace throughout the ages. A talented swordsman would be exceptionally adept with the pointy end. Full armour battles may not be a great place for most swords? But then how often were encounters against full armoured adversaries?
@@robmcilroy1894 you’re right it is a super interesting topic. Men at arms that would have been fully armored make up an extremely small percentage of an army with many of the rest only having some sort of torso protection and some sort of head protection as those are the vitals and need to be covered first. Many leveed peasants may not have even been wearing any armor at all. Encountering a full armored opponent would also depend on where you are on the battlefield (ranged soldiers obviously are far less likely than infantry or cavalry as knights primarily fought in infantry and cavalry). And you’re right again. Having a full set of armor greatly hinders the effectiveness of the overwhelming majority of swords. Contrary to popular belief, not every longsword is adept at getting through maille, in fact most aren’t. If you want to pierce maille, you would either need very specialized longsword or, more optimally, a truly dedicated anti-armor sword. An estoc/tuck or a judicial dueling longsword would be best at simply bypassing armor, however, they aren’t the best for the battlefield.
no they are souvenirs and decorative items.. its no mystery.. many surviving swords were never weapons (just even as today there is many souvineer katanas) nearly all the sudanese swords you can buy even older ones are actuially dance swords with thin floppy blades or flexable.. but sharp blades ect.. some medieval swords for dress or costume are very light and some have sheath hangers making it nearly impossable to draw.. think of it this way.. a machete lets say a martindale is more than 3.5mm in the tang but you cannot stab with it and its blade mass is greater than some of these swords.. people are foolish not to admit that many of these swords are toys.. just as many surviving crossbows were toys.. the real weapons survived much less in relation to their number as after all which was used and which was kept
I want to note here that, nothing wrong with the content, but the way it is presented can suggest that those "rigid diamond sectioned" swords don't actually exist. They do; but many wide, cutting, one handed blade were indeed pretty thin, as they would be used against lightly armored opponents. A thick, narrow, rigid blade would be a dedicated anti-armor weapon, and so not something commonly carried around. Also, hearing the metal calipers scrape and bang against those antiques hurts me inside :(
many of these swords, even when they are sharp were never meant to be weapons.. many arw nothing more than costume peices.. souvenir or dress items. even in the middle ages.. due to the cheap price of swords many were made as trinkets... just as now
While we are the first to admit that the wearing of a personal side arm has carried a bit of the look at me component since humans fist decided his stick looked better than your stick, I would say in the medieval period that vast majority of weapons were quite serviceable. As with all human made artifacts the quality can vary and be less than perfect but what you are describing would not seem to fit the surviving items very well. In the case of some very high status pieces it's obvious the bling factor was more important than anything else. If you were a soldier and were issued a weapon or had to get your self one odds are it would work well enough to meet your needs.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 86 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs ชาติพยัคฆ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m3q_dRYDuU8/mqdefault.jpg)
I really appreciate this post. So many people believe that all medieval swords are just slightly beveled bars of steel. When I examined an old backsword in an antique shop the last 8 inches were like a carving knife. Snicker Snack!
Yep, right tool for the right job :-)
Always appreciate the insights. It’s gotta be a dream going back and forth between theorizing, tinkering & making at Arms and Armor and then researching/ handling the history at the Oakshott Institute.
On another note: That 15th Century Italian Arming sword is beautiful. Would love to see you guys reproduce that one.
Hi, It may very well be such a thing happening soon :-)
Plus, the hexagonal blade section on some swords makes the blades as durable as they get. Gotta go w/ the hexagonal blade section on certain swords, like the Master Sword's hexagonal blade section (not impossible to do).
Gosh those are so beautiful... I want replicas of all of them
quite a different school of thought on sword design when compared to military saber from Napoleonic through Victorian era. many sabers is around 10mm at the ricasso, especially cavalry swords, infantry is more in the 7-8mm range. They are not as wide though, knightly swords are twice as wide often, so get away with a thinner distal section.
Yep, we will look at some of these blade types in future videos.
Did y'all ever do a follow up to this video?
We have not but good idea. I'll put it on this list.
Any references to where I can read more about the first sword? For a 1000 year old sword that blade is in excellent condition.
I do not think that blade has been written up anywhere, though I believe Ewart mentions it in one of his books. Our plans are to hopefully get some xray work done o this piece in the future. We are talking to the local university about doing this at some point.
@@armsarmorinc.4153 Nice, looking forward to any updates. Thanks.
what a cool channel, thank you !
Glad you enjoy it!
PARDON? .... just glad there were subtitles.
Sorry, our sound was not the best on this one.
@@armsarmorinc.4153 I think it's such an interesting topic that it might be worthwhile revisiting as an opportunity to improve audio along with closer inspection/views of the blades.
Thanks and regards.
I find this very interesting, but I'm having allot of trouble hearing you
I never knew medieval swords were so thin. It's interesting that when we look at British sabres from Georgian era, many had quite aggressive distal tapers that they could start from 8mm even to 10mm.
Some sword had thin blades. Some of 'em had more stout blades (not too stout 'cuz that'd be too heavy).
I think the thickness at the base was at least partially due to compensate for the lack of a true pommel to counterbalance.
@@althesmith Disagree. Later military sabers often have more extensive hand protection that weighs probably the same. They generally balance further back toward the hand than medieval sword designs in my experience (not by a lot but a bit), so I don't think compensating for the lack of a pommel but actually counterbalancing it further. Another reason might be that the swords were the same narrow width all the way through the blade instead of the more aggressive profile tapers and/or wide blades of medieval swords. To replicate the stiffness the wide blade gives you just make it thicker instead.
What purpose do these thin lightweight blades serve?
the lighter the faster, the proportional weight and design are what matter most in a sword. If its to heavy it will be difficult to use properly.
@@armsarmorinc.4153 Very curious and surprising, like you said, we have this image of blades being thick hunks of metal. I am assuming you have seen lots of historic blades from the videos you make, have these thin blades taken much damage from battle? How have they held up? Bends and cracks?
@@WeAreUnity. We have studied surviving pieces in detail for the last 40+ years and have always strived to understand what the artifacts and sources of the past can teach us over what we assume is the way they were. Today popular culture has given many a false sense of what a medieval sword was. The damage they inflict is severe and the damage they took could be significant, but many examples show signs of long use and some nicks but they were not hewing away at each others blade as the movies of today imply :-) Swords are sharp, sharp edges will nick, but how you use the tool is as important if not more than the tools characteristics.
@@armsarmorinc.4153 Absolutely fascinating, thank you for sharing. All of this information and these artifacts will definitely change the perspective we see of the past. History to be rewritten. I hope you do some more videos on these topics as I know the audience would be captivated by them. We’ve had enough Hollywood, it is time for the truth.
theyare souvineer swords purchased as trinkets at a trip, pilgrimage or for a costume for a wedding or event or many other things, they are many times unusable.. just as some other fantasy weapons.. minature crossbows, pistol spears... swords with calenders on the blades... swords with glass or stone hilts.. swordswith metal sheaths.. a sword wasa sign of a man.. and people attended many evends with them on.. maybe to eat and dance even.. these were sharp toys.. just as later dress swords and court swords were too for the most part.. this isnt unique to europeans,, theres japanese, chinese, indian, persian and indonesian old but totally unusable weapons that fill museums aroud the world.. more souvineer weapons survive than real weapons in many occasions..
Besides the speed and cutting ability of a thin blade , I imagine a thinner blade would be much more advantageous at exploiting gaps in armour whilst also less likely to get stuck especially with a fairly even distal taper. And against lightly armoured individuals it would be very effective at slicing type cuts. Interesting they are as thin as they are .
Cutting lightly covered enemies, yes. For armor, no. These swords are thin meaning they are prone to flexing easier. For a sword to exploit gaps in armor you’d want it to be thicker and therefore rigid so it can properly transfer all the force you put in into the maille. If it were to flex, it would lose a lot of that force and you won’t get far. That’s why practice swords flex so much more than real ones as you don’t want all the force behind a thrust to hurt your sparring partner.
@@outsideiskrrtinsideihurt699 its an interesting topic. What sort of sword was used in full combat and how were they used? Judging by what this video shows thin swords were commonplace throughout the ages. A talented swordsman would be exceptionally adept with the pointy end. Full armour battles may not be a great place for most swords? But then how often were encounters against full armoured adversaries?
@@robmcilroy1894 you’re right it is a super interesting topic. Men at arms that would have been fully armored make up an extremely small percentage of an army with many of the rest only having some sort of torso protection and some sort of head protection as those are the vitals and need to be covered first. Many leveed peasants may not have even been wearing any armor at all. Encountering a full armored opponent would also depend on where you are on the battlefield (ranged soldiers obviously are far less likely than infantry or cavalry as knights primarily fought in infantry and cavalry).
And you’re right again. Having a full set of armor greatly hinders the effectiveness of the overwhelming majority of swords. Contrary to popular belief, not every longsword is adept at getting through maille, in fact most aren’t. If you want to pierce maille, you would either need very specialized longsword or, more optimally, a truly dedicated anti-armor sword. An estoc/tuck or a judicial dueling longsword would be best at simply bypassing armor, however, they aren’t the best for the battlefield.
What's your angle? 🤨
the thickness of the handles of historical swords also differs a lot.
this is what I was hoping to see more about,, specific dimensions of where the tang and blade transition is
you didn't measure the tang and right before the tang, that I think is where most people would expect them to be thicker.
cant hear jack but its a good video
are thin swords easier to wear?
no they are souvenirs and decorative items.. its no mystery.. many surviving swords were never weapons (just even as today there is many souvineer katanas) nearly all the sudanese swords you can buy even older ones are actuially dance swords with thin floppy blades or flexable.. but sharp blades ect.. some medieval swords for dress or costume are very light and some have sheath hangers making it nearly impossable to draw.. think of it this way.. a machete lets say a martindale is more than 3.5mm in the tang but you cannot stab with it and its blade mass is greater than some of these swords.. people are foolish not to admit that many of these swords are toys.. just as many surviving crossbows were toys.. the real weapons survived much less in relation to their number as after all which was used and which was kept
@@manchagojohnsonmanchago6367 It's amazing how wrong you are yet still act super smug, truly a pseudo-intellectual at heart.
@@phoonbazinga4851 cucked
I want to note here that, nothing wrong with the content, but the way it is presented can suggest that those "rigid diamond sectioned" swords don't actually exist. They do; but many wide, cutting, one handed blade were indeed pretty thin, as they would be used against lightly armored opponents. A thick, narrow, rigid blade would be a dedicated anti-armor weapon, and so not something commonly carried around.
Also, hearing the metal calipers scrape and bang against those antiques hurts me inside :(
Oh yes, rigid diamond section blades for sure existed, there were lots of them, they were just one kind of medieval sword.
many of these swords, even when they are sharp were never meant to be weapons.. many arw nothing more than costume peices.. souvenir or dress items. even in the middle ages.. due to the cheap price of swords many were made as trinkets... just as now
While we are the first to admit that the wearing of a personal side arm has carried a bit of the look at me component since humans fist decided his stick looked better than your stick, I would say in the medieval period that vast majority of weapons were quite serviceable. As with all human made artifacts the quality can vary and be less than perfect but what you are describing would not seem to fit the surviving items very well. In the case of some very high status pieces it's obvious the bling factor was more important than anything else. If you were a soldier and were issued a weapon or had to get your self one odds are it would work well enough to meet your needs.
I wonder why they would put so many trinkets (non-weapons) in city armouries throughout Europe.....
This seems like the same logic as saying, guns in the old west were cheap, so it was a costume piece.