Does Bronze Age to Medieval SWORD SIZE relate to SHIELD TYPE?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- The length of one-handed sword blades has a complex relationship with shield type and method of use. We can perhaps use this data to help understand historical weapon use in periods where we have almost no precise written or artistic clues.
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easto...
www.pinterest....
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-sw...
#romans #bronzeage #archaeology
This is what i like about Matt; just providing the basis for his assertions to us. No false authority, no claims to definitive answers, just sound, demonstrable logic.
Exactly.
If the bronze age people were so well defended, why are they all dead?
Old age?😊
Humanity did not survive the bronze age. We don't exist.
Bronze poisoning?
Well, it ended about 3000 years ago. Which is quite a bit over the maximum human age expectancy
How dare you... I was going to make that joke!
Hi matt I think you might find the book Bronze Age Combat: An Experimental Approach interesting.
You can find one of the chapters "Bronze Age Swordsmanship: New Insights
from Experiments and Wear Analysis" online
The book is very well written and insightful
As for if sword length correlate to shield size and grip I think you'll find it interesting to look at ancient near east shield and swords in the Iron age, from what we can see the most popular swords were rather short, shorter then the bronze sword you shown in the video (of course plenty of bigger longer swords are also present with some reaching 70+cm and one even reaching more then a meter)
But they were often paired together with rather large Shields with a central grip.
There is a book titled THE NEO-ASSYRIAN SHIELD
Evolution, Heraldry, and Associated Tactics by Fabrice De Backer
Perhaps it will interest you to read it too
Did sword length accommodate shields, or the reverse? Seems like you could make almost any size or shape of shield, but making a long sword took a lot of improvements in metallurgy over a long period of history.
Interestingly if you dive into classical mythology swords are very rarely mentioned while spears, bows, shields, armor (especially helmets) are richly described and often mentioned which would imply that swords were not seen as something that exceptional.
It should be also taken to account that in bronze age a chariot was the thing of martial classes and unlike for horseman who can reach other horsemen or infantry with a sword, same can't be said for the charioteer even on lightest of chariots and even if chariots were used in more Greek style as fast transport for infantry, you would probably retreat on chariot to reform your spearline further afield before you gone for sword and shield combination.
Could you do a video on the mycanean shield.. mabey mention the elf shield from the hobbit
I have to disagree with you on a few points
-the fact "that they cant make longer bronze swords" there are several surviving examples of long bronze blades theres one in the Copenhagen museum that is a 36" blade and several others that are close in size. so we know they could and did do it. How popular and effective the are i have no idea sonce i haven't seen much research or testing of them but they are there.
- im not sure the shield size impacts sword size as much as the spear impacts sheild size and shape. There are plenty of cultures that had big shields and long blades (medieval Europeans, Celtic letene, some roman gladii are bigger than the average spatha) and their are cultures with small swords and smaller shields though those likely have financial and cultural considerations tied to that.
Maybe the area the sword thrived was after the initial push, where the shields are pushed up against each other and you need something that you can use in a tighter space, like the landsknecht katzbalger
I made my viking/Rohan shield 80 cm in diameter and I honestly regret making it that big and heavy (probably a little too thick too). It looks badass as anything but boy is it a pain to carry around.
Probably it's way too thick, I speak from experience 😂 my first shields were Hobbit doors...
Make it was thinner and cover it in linen, front and back. Way better.
And if you want to be really fancy, make it thicker in the center (about 1 cm) but give it a strong distal taper to the rim, down to 3 or 4 mm.
@@Glimmlampe1982 Mine is made of 1cm plywood with several layers of the cheapest cloth we could find (3 or 4 layers on the front and one on the back, overkill I know). I also decided it would be easier to nail the rawhide edge instead of stitching it, so add a not insingnificant amount of weight in nails.
@@HoJu1989 yep, figured that. Because that's the exact description of my first shield. With the exception that I didn't use rawhide as I had leather from an old chair laying around. It now has it's decorative resting point on my garden gate ;)
Also modern buy of the shelf shield buckles are bigger than historic ones, also adds a lot of weight.
And it depends on the wood type, I have a book on shield finds in Illerup Adal (probably butchered that name) and depending on what wood the diameter and thickness varied a lot. Oak was thinner (and way rarer) while pine was thicker (and if I remember correctly the most common wood).
historicaly there is a great variaty in shilds. in the sagas we are told of duels with three sets of linden shields smashed. but there are also finds of thick oak shield. so if you are a chief you may have a linden one easy to handle, and you will get a new one if this is damaged from your shield bearer. but if you are a poor gay standing in line, you better take the toughest you can bear, cause you will get no replacement...
@@marting1056 but then you have a door that might be near indestructible, but pretty useless because you can't move it were you need it to be fast enough.
Archeological findings in bogs might be misleading because there were offerings, but those I know of are all far off from that overly heavy oak shield.
I think these are pretty fair assumptions overall, but something that I immediately find perplexing in all of this is the extant bronze swords found archaeologically that far exceed the length of a typical xiphos or gladius, or typical 'short-sword' blade length.
Were these just ineffective weapons? It seems to me like there should be a more reasonable explanation; our ancestors were not morons, they wouldn't make a bronze sword that long if it couldn't hold up to a bit of abuse, right? Maybe they had specific techniques that were used to harden bronze that we aren't fully aware of & don't properly replicate when making reproductions, and evidence of hasn't survived for the millennia these weapons were interred? Maybe not, just a thought; it does seem odd to me though. I guess there could be a number of explanations including prestige or cavalry use, but still, if they are just going to bend or snap on impact, I don't find either of those answers to be very compelling.
The other thing that immediately comes to mind is that your theories tend to come from the context of fighting one on one. For example, the Romans or the Greeks would not have been (in most cases excepting the semi-legendary) fighting one another or foreigners in one on one duels. I think what you are saying makes perfect sense in the context of a duel, but might mean less when you are considering tons of massed troops bracing one another, and each defending the man on their left. I mean, the Greeks & Romans were famous for their tight relatively orderly formations, and by some (including their own) estimations that is what gave them the edge over their competitor cultures. Just as an example, the likes of the Tolistobogii, Goths & other early Germanic peoples would have likely been using boss-gripped shields with spatha-like swords, and the Romans contended with them just fine for the most part(of course, until they didn't-- but, by that point they were mostly using spathae themselves anyway). To what extent this type of thing might apply to bronze age peoples in northern Europe or elsewhere in Europe, it's kind of hard to say.
But, I think the ultimate thing also comes down to the fact that you mention at the end; for the most part, in most ancient armies, the sword was effectively a side-arm. The ultimate complement to the shield has always been the humble pole-arm/spear. I think it's very probable this held true in the bronze age as well. The big exception people always think of is of course the Roman legionnaire; but in my opinion, though we tend to hyper-fixate on the infantry, which obviously was evidently world-class for the time, there was a hell of a lot more to Rome's success than just their infantry's prowess; their cavalry was no joke, they had tons of variety in skirmishing auxilia, the best siege equipment of the day, weapons of terror, engineers, and never mind their insane implacable administrative/logistical ability to absorb massive loses and keep coming back with new armies ready to fight... and for reach, the infantry did always have their pilae in a pinch.
5:00 ... I was yelling Silver, that's just Silver, good old George Silver was saying that some 500 years, come one Matt you must know this as an Englishman. And then Matt mentioned him and everything was alright with the world. 😅
Easy answer, Bronze Age warriors used a lot of jump attacks. Haven’t you ever seen Troy? Brad Pitt demonstrates the technique.
When you compared it to the gladius, I find a better comparison is to consider velites and caetrati as they had small round shields. My idea is to look at other cultures to compare such as Filipino martial arts noting they used short swords with smallish shields (despite now using two sticks).
For Infanterie swords are back ups, how does these argument correlates to cavalry?
Matt, you mention that you can't make bronze swords longer, which is true.
But with that in mind, I've always wondered: if reach was an issue, why they couldn't just make the hilt/grip longer while keeping the blade the same length (kind of like a Burmese dha)? You could then hold the grip closer to the pommel instead of closer to the guard to get a few extra inches of reach. The fact that they didn't do this has led me to speculate that reach WASN'T an issue for them. Perhaps because the spear was their main weapon, they only used their swords at extremely close range (punching distance, essentially)?
All speculation, of course, but that's my thought on it.
Someone send that man a Gladius!
I keep thinking about something I once heard or read about "Alexander the Great", who also used bronze weapons. I heard, that in cases when he was unable to fight with a long spear, he preferred a broken spear over his sword. Maybe the reach problem was the reason for that. When you use sword and shield in combination, you (for the most part) only hit with the upper third of the blade to strike at your opponents head or legs. So what if you use a slightly longer spearhead mounted on a shorter shaft? That way you would have the reach of a longer sword without the material limitations and you could get past the shield. Not saying they did that but they could have and maybe Alexander came to the same conclusion.
I would love a bronze age sword.
Close shields also tend to have a curve.
It helps strengthen the most forward edge, which is always a vulnerable point in defense in any fight. Lead wrist, lead foot, blade tip, shield edge. Shield it is max leverage point for enemy to mess with.
As you say the reach past edge also is important, curved doubly good.
Also depends on opponent. Heavy unit of pike or hoplite, wide shield, Discipline troop. Big shield good.
Late Roman, different area, often wider recruit area, but against less solid formations, and mobility becomes needed
I think sword relates more to material science and metallurgy and their expected use, this is true not just between bronze and iron, but also iron and steel, and of course the quality that these materials could be produced at. For instance they couldn't build great big rapiers that were 4' to 5' long until the period they actually got invented. The swords had to be smaller and shorter to be strong enough and stay sharp enough enough to not get ruined through normal use. Or they had to be much heavier, which obviously doesn't work very well. If you wanted a longer sword you had to put it on the end of a stick. That said the development of weapons and defensive systems are always totally interrelated, they each respond to each other always and always at the same time.
some words about "combat agate" from Pylos, please.
Absolutely. I was trying to remember what it was called.
Seems to me like this logic would imply that one handed maces and axes would end up having somewhat the same length as swords for a given period. I may be wrong, but they tend to be shorter, from what I've seen.
As you said, it also doesn't work for the spear. In the end, I'd say it's an oversimplification that works mostly for those two cases, which are often backup weapons ... In other words, that may as well be the exception.
The material hypothesis holds most water here i think. I mean, we do have some exceptionally (for the era) long bronze blades, actually reaching length of medieval arming swords on the larger side, but they are rather rare. So one could argue if those aren't perhaps specialized weapons, like status symbols or perhaps chariot/cavalry weapons. But difficulties in production and wieldability would probably limit those in numbers.
I remember mention of bronze age "rapiers." And a brief search has found references to Mycenaean and Caucasian bronze swords with blade lengths in the range of 100 to 215 cm. The images are of clearly thrusting weapons. Thoughts?
The short ones were probably somewhat functional while the long ones can be chalked off as status symbols, decorations or ceremonial arms. Bronze just doesn't hold up to any stress whatsoever at that length.
@@mnk9073 There are actually plenty of traces of use and resharpening on these swords showing they were overused, especially the long ones! The "ceremonial arm" is an unknown notion in Bronze Age Europe as far as the archaeology of traces show.
Personally, whenever i lose my bronze tipped spear, i only use my sword until i can prize a spear from the dead hands of a worthy adversary. Then, I'm right back to spear.
I saw a video of a reconstruction of Roman legions and a guy suggested that RAMMING the enemy was a way to get around the problem of short swords. The enemy was simply crushed by the charge of legionnaires with large shields, so the fight took place at a very short distance, regardless of what kind of shield the opponent had. As for the advantage of longer swords, well, they are more versatile and give you some chance of defending yourself without a shield. They won't be great at this without hand protection, but still...
Hey Matt , I got to ask two things.
Firstly, wouldn't it be possible to fight like this for ethical reasons ?
Secondly, I thought viking age weapons were mainly iron , not steel made and I am quite sure bronze ( neither brass , nor copper ) is actually stronger than wrought iron .
I agree with a lot of your ideas... altho I'd wager that it's the opponents defense (ie mostly shield and tactics) that dictates more influence on sword length more than your own. BUT in general, localized populations tend to share a lot in attributes so you probably could measure yourself to get an idea of what you would likely face in an opponent in many places.
Very interesting video. I agree that the size and/or position of the shield determines the length of the sword. In the Roman case the pilium is thrown and the Roman soldier attacks with his sword. The short gladius is perfect with the large shield being held close. I remember an old friend of mine that said, "it's all connected. It's only a matter of finding the connecting points." I think you did it. Thanks. Dan
I'd suggest its much more about being able to still reach past your own defence easily than striking the other person despite their defence. Allowing you to actively push opponent with your shield, create an opening and still have some hope to exploit it - a blade of that sort of length just lets you use the shield actively and even offensively without taking the opponent safely out of range of your more dangerous weapon.
Which would also make more sense to sizing the sword to your own reach, rather than going as long as you can possibly wield just in case you meet a giant - most folks with sword sized to them would be by the time that few inches difference in our wingspan is applied both ways falling so far short of being able to reach past my shield while I can stick the pointy end right through them still...
I suspect the size of weapon and shield is based on mass and structural integrity. Sword length is limited by metallurgy. Generally people had swords as long as they could make and easily wield. Shields were similar. Obviously structural integrity is not an issue, you could build a shield the size of a barn door but you couldn't use it. So weight is the limiting factor. Lighter shields are more wieldy and can be held further from the body and large heavy shields closer. Sword construction often limits length, unless there was another factor - dictated use - Spartan and Roman shorter swords. Shield size and shape is governed by anticipated use - close/loose formation, foot or mounted.
I believe the variations are independent they just often produce a pattern.
Thought provoking topic.😊
I you look at rock carved pictures, helleristninger, from scandinavian bronze age, you dont see anybody holding a sword with the so called shields, to my knowledge. I doubt shields were used in Scandinavia untill the late bronze age. And the big axes you see men holding were not weapons. There are some pictures of horse back riders with shields and spears, but they are probably late.
50 cm in diameter for the bronze shields which appeared in the Carpathian basin, around 1200 BC.
Bronce swords are a symbol of might and power. just think of drawing it, and its polished surface will shine bright and golden like the sun! just remember that the average guy would have an wooden club as a backup weapon to his speer
I loved the observation that you can't physically make a long bronze sword. I always wondered why the ones in museums were short swords.
I think you are correct in your theory, maybe they used short spears if they needed to fight at half range. Wondering if most weapons during the Bronze Age weren't balanced for stabs and the small bronze ax as a secondary weapon and cleaver.
it makes sense but like you said I think they relied a lot more on spears. maybe yes, swords were used more for selfdefence and backup, or in a "civilian" environment. or maybe they didn't fully figured out a complex fighting system based on swords like happened later. I believe the limitation of the technology might be the culprit here. also during that time we see a change of civilizations, the famous bronze age collapse, so there's been a bit of a remix of cultures and probably war tactics back then, to face these new invading people and adverse conditions, especially in the middle east. In britain probably the wave reached a bit later through trade, I'm not sure what kind of evidence we have of that.
but remember that yes, in the greek and roman world they used short swords and large shields, but other people like the gauls liked longer blades too. it is reported that they bent quite a lot, so limitations were also in the use of early iron and steel. it makes a lot of sense if we look at the whole picture. lots of spears and metallurgy limitations favoured short stabby swords, until they got better at forging, in the early middle ages. I mean, they tried, of course, but it was not ideal. and the romans didn't like "less than ideal" 😆
I know of a Mycenaean rapier blade 74 cm long - many are probably longer. They are made of bronze and are very thin, reinforced by a central ridge.
How much was metallurgy advances involved in the switch from Gladys to Spatha
Soz Matt thinking out loud 🤔
I'd really like to know: surviving Scandinavian Norse shields from sunken ships. Please point me in the right direction here.
So if shields dictated sword choice, were there transitionary periods where they had a mismatch? Or did they roll out a new package all at once?
And why did they make the change? Was it in response to their own tactics or resources (or something more esoteric)? Was it in response to a changing threat profile?
I'd also imagine in a straight tussle (maybe in a self defense situation) you'd do what you can to make sure your assailant or opponent is at arm's length either by pushing or pulling and trying to get your point in line.
What about the really long Bronze age swords - don't some bronze 'rapiers' reach 38 inches?
Bronze is mostly copper. That would bend under its own weight
@@samsonsoturian6013 I think you should try it out. Bronze has none of the properties of copper, it is super tough compared to it.
hi mat
I have tryed the same thorth experiment, ads you and came to allmost identical conclusion, ads a backup weapon the sword have to get around the shield. Because it is not heavy enogh or balanced in the right way, to break a shield in a feu blows like the axe or a mace for instens and there for it needed to become longer the father the the shield are held from the body of the aponent.
Really interesting and nice to see an 'ancient' vid, re arm / sword length theory, sorry
I'm not convinced, at least not in the way it is often put forward as scientific reasoning ,
rather than just 'I could do with a longer sword.'
The bronze rapier found at Hattousa has a blade 79 cm long, which is not that short I think.
As an alternative theory that length of sword would be long enough to stab an opponent that's been knocked to the ground without having to bend over and expose yourself to an attack from one of his friends.
It's probably the same old sword as back up weapon thing.
If I wanted reach, I'd use a spear as well.
Shorts swords are preferred today in London because its harder to carry a long sword around or conceal it
Big shields are used close to the body which means short swords, small shields you can use with a stretched out arm mean long swords or spears.
At the end you get to the point: they would have made their bronze swords longer if they had the material technology to do so.
A very interesting ramble. Never thought about this relationship. thanks.
The Bronze Age shields may be actually made for the early halberd rather than sword
im pretty sure there were some swords like that in the hands of Vikings before the Viking age
Consider shield width to forearm length
It has been suggested by modern research that Roman soldiers were primarily used as (super heavy) skirmishers, who used their gladii preferably to hunt down small enemy groups that got seperated from their main force.
So, their shield should first and foremost protect from enemy missiles. Add to that, that the Romans probably copied that fighting style from the Celts - so their opponents fought similarly - that most people don't like to charge, that charging in hilly terrain that the Romans favoured is difficult, and that most engagements were not major battles but skirmishes as part of "Vegetian Warfare", it makes sense to focus on skirmishing tactics and equipment.
Hence, the shield had probably nothing to do with the sword, but was designed to protect from thrown spears.
However, the question was whether swords would chance size with shields. And, well... didn't the Germanic tribes favour longer swords while the legions still used short swords - but both used long, center-gripped shields that were very similar to each other? So, no. Longer is generally speaking better. But if you are a (super heavy) skirmisher first, who is not even that well equipped for prolonged frontline combat - else you would have f.cking thrusting spear! - a side weapon for dire emergencies and for hunting down and finishing isolated enemy groups (you don't need a long weapon for that) is more than enough. And it weights less.
The Romans definitely had line of battle formations but the battle was usually decided by literal pushing. Collision of two main lines of defense is actually rare in history
very interesting video as always matt thanks!
Bronze sword blades of 95 cm are not uncommon at least in the Carpathian basin: you find it in the Podhering hoard at the museum of Budapest (there is a new book dedicated to it and to bronze swords at the National Museum). So the limit to the length of a bronze sword may not be that determined by metallurgy, but perhaps by size of the warrior (sword lengths vary extremely in the same hoards).
All weapons were personal arms at that time, meaning it's also a fuction of how rich a warrior was
I don’t recall any reference to swords in the Iliad, lots of references to spears, don’t recall anything about swords. That leads me to concur with the assessment that the primary weapon in Bronze Age combat was the spear. Bronze Age warfare was also the age of the chariot, and chariots were the primary weapons platform of the era. I don’t think there were many Bronze Age infantry battles, certainly nothing like those that later Greek and Roman armies fought in. I’m not so sure individual foot soldiers in the Bronze Age carried anything other than their spear, a shield, and their own personal knife. Chariot warriors had little need for a sword.
Mycenaen graves are full of swords with about 80 cm long blades that are thin like rapiers. These were the actual weapons the Achaeans might have used at Troy. They are also represented used with shields on Mycenaean seals.
Crazily plausible nonsensical theory?!?! In any case, I can not see anything to directly refute your assertion. It does make sense, but at the same time is technically irrelevant because the sword has never been the main weapon when carrying a shield. Our current sensationalist tendency has heaped the acclaim on the sword because it's shinier; our view of the past is skewed. I think the length of sword is more related to the fitness of both the troops wielding the swords and the materials the sword is made of. With a possible nod to the money backing the army in general. So long as there isn't the need for personal achievement, like the knights, the army takes what it is given into battle.
In the past the sword was a more prestigious weapon than the spear, just as it is now, albeit not that democratic as the spear.
Thanks for the video ⚔️
I know the Spartans Xiphos was quite short and was really intended only to be used at distances you could not use a spear, basically when lines of infantry came into grappling/arms length distance with their shields pressed against each other and with other shoulders around, you shoulder to shoulder, you really didnt have room to use anything bigger.
The xiphos becoming shorter was a function of time rather than location. There is no evidence that the Spartans used shorter swords than the other Greeks other than a Laconic clap back written down in the 2nd century AD by Plutarch. By the 3rd century BC the 30-40cm short xiphos seems to be the norm and if anything is correlated with the abandonment of hoplite warfare - one of the best depictions of the short xiphos is a terracotta figure of two Pergamese youths training with thyreos shields.
I suspect larger shields were a necessity in Bronze Age because armor than rarer than in later periods and you needed them to be able to resist missile weapons.
And I suspect missiles weapons were much more of a concern than sword on sword fighting which would have been much less common.
Except all fighting was 1 on 1 or small groups. This is before lines of battle
🤔but didn't the Chinese make longer blades bronze swords? I believe they did, so it's possible although it may be technically difficult.
They did, but it was very late in the Chinese bronze age, really at the transition between the bronze age and the iron age (and after the start of the iron age in Europe).
7:25 What sword is that?
sounds reasonable
Couldn’t you make bronze sword thicker and heavier and longer?
The longer it is, the more likely it is to take a set when striking an opponent. Bronze bends without springing back and straightening a blade work hardens it which creates a spot where it will break later.
Quickly becomes too heavy
Roman auxiliary infantry, at least some, are also said to have used the spatha before the legions. And while there is supposedly some
evidence some used the
scutum, most are depicted with various shaped flat shields . Thoughts as it relates to this topic?
Tradition is the answer here. Celts, Gauls and Germans all used long swords for a long time before the Roman conquest and continued to do so when they were brought into the fold as Auxilia.
Yes. But my point was the combination of type of long sword alongside a different shield type. The combo similar to what the Legions eventually when too, but much earlier,
@@189Bearshed The shields the Auxilia used are virtually identical to what those peoples used before: flat, bossgripped and smaller and lighter than a Scutum. The late roman Auxilia who reintroduced the long swords are basically the cousins of the earlier, now romanised, Auxilia fighting with the same style equipment, just improved material wise. It's basically a circle of Barbarians being Romanised only to get re-Barbarised.
Every video on your channel is a little work of art. I look forward to the new episodes!💖🌖🦊
Your channel is like a bright firework in the world of entertainment and funny stories. Keep on being so funny and inspiring!😆🐅🦍
Mein Freund hat dieses Video gesehen und hält sich jetzt auch für einen Handwerker. Ich werde mein Werkzeug verstecken💋
😂