You will find Richard Harding Davis book Real Soldiers of Fortune worth reading. It covers a group of guys that were quite the adventurers in their day. If I remember Churchill is the first he covers. He was covering the Second Boer War and as Churchill's mother was an American they would get a long.
When young he was quite the thrill seeker and desperately wanted to make a name for himself - and get out of his illustrious fathers shadow.....so actively sought out contact with the enemy. He even escaped a POW camp.
He did escape but he was a corresondent at the time for a newspaper.He was in Boer territory at the time. Davis could cover both sides fairly safely. Churchill was a man of his time and wouldn't let things stand in his way. Pretty much like George S Patton but not that strict to the military. I would say his flexibility made him handle WW2 better than others. @@daemonharper3928
Matt, what about Churchill's service during WW1? He resigned his political post after the failure of Gallipoli and returned to active service in the Army. According to Wikipedia he was briefly with the 2nd Grenadier Guards and then was promoted to lieutenant-colonel and placed in command of the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers until May 6th when the unit was merged with the 15th Division. I know you have previously said that British Army officers by this time would have been ordered to put down their swords due to the conditions of trench warfare, but would Churchill have had to buy a new sword to have in his kit? What model would he have carried if he had to have one with these units?
One of my favorite historical figures, I have a number of his books, have read a couple of biographies, his books on WW1 and 2, as well as his accounts of his time in the Army. Fascinating person. I've been trying to find a reputable source that sells prints of some of his paintings, but while lots of people sell prints OF him, none seem to sell prints BY him.
This is a good question and as such deserves a much more in depth and chronological answer which we know you can deliver. It could also be expanded to include other historical figures from 1821-1945 using military sabres.
But Matt, what about his (presumably Wilkinson) 1897 Infantry Officers’ sword when he commanded the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers following Gallipoli?
I am an American veteran, Churchill is one of my favorite historical figures. Hard to say if England could've held out like it did in ww2 without him. He worked so well with FDR. Both sent by God to stop fascism in its tracks. 👍👍. Rest in peace gentlemen, job well done.
If I recall at Omdurman, Churchill due to a shoulder injury couldn't use his sword (or was it lances his unit was using?) and so was armed with his mauser pistol and that's how he lived while everyone else got hacked to bits when it was sword v sword
Can you give an in-depth explanation on how to use a saber with a thumb-up grip? I find it far more difficult to thumb the backstrap, especially for moulinets, than to hold it with a standard handshake grip.
Personally held one of them. Ceremonial gold hilt, and very thin guard shaped like a dragon with rubies. Some were missing. Thin straight blade. Beautiful. Visited my parents, it was on the table. Naturally started playing it. Father walked in and yelled at me. Told me what it was. He’s a woodworker and he was building a cabinet for it. At least one is in private collection. Oops.
So if an officer transferred to unit that had a different model of officers sword would he have to purchase the new sword or could he keep his sword from his original commission?
What difference does the handle curvature have on the performance of a sword? That is, handles curving towards the back (katana, tachi) vs handles curving towards the front (European military sabres, turko mongol sabres)?
Officers not only had to buy their own kit, but they often had to buy their commissions. Which begs the question, if a cavalry trooper is made an officer, does he have to turn in his old sword and buy a new one?
Yes, absolutely he would. Troopers swords were always owned either by the regiment or the War Department (as it was then). So he would’ve handed it back upon promoting.
A Türk here. My knowledge of Churchill is limited to Gelibolu and his prime ministry from WW2. Lovely to learn more about such a legendary British man. So many great photos too thank you.
@scholagladiatoria Would he have kept the same blade from his first purchase, and only had it re-hilted, or would he have needed to buy an entire weapon? Just curious...
If I was a young Royal Navy officer. would it have been ok. to buy a older officers sword or carry a grandfathers sword. if the sword was the right pattern and the former owner don´t need it. this sounds like it could be kind of expensive.
I am a current-serving Army officer, and I routinely carry a mint-condition George V Wilkinson 1897-pattern (one of their “best proved” top-of-the-line models) from 1913 on parade. It was carried in WW1 and has been service sharpened very nicely. Since it’s still the current uniform pattern, it’s perfectly acceptable. I even have the original protective case, and it still has the original sword knot on it. I happen to also collect antique swords, so naturally I had to have the best. Further, it was about the same price (slightly cheaper, actually) than a brand new one. But the new ones are poor quality in comparison, and have none of the handmade feeling and historical value.
how do you change from a lance to a sword? did they just discard the lance...throw it away, and draw a sword? what's happens the rest of the campaign? they just don't have a lance after the first engagement? did they have like a mule or an Indian sepoy carrying a bunch of backup lances incase they need to retreat and can't pick up the laces they discarded?
The lance may get stuck in a person after skewering. When the lance cannot be retrieved, it is not a question whether to discard it. They probably had a supply of lances in the armoury as loosing one would be the norm.
Not knowing anything about actual sword use, what do you think was the more effective secondary weapon, the typical sword of that period or his broomhandle? 👍🏼
The sword does not run out of ammo and it did not have stopages. That could make it the better choice. Bear in mind that the broom hanlde Mauser did not have a detachable magazine. It was reloaded with a stripper clip. That could be fumbled in the heat of a battle.
All good points, but how often do you figure someone would put 10 different people out of the fight with a sword in a single battle? At sword distance, that wouldn’t be to difficult with a broomhandle 🤷🏽♂️
@@dgoodman1484With a pistol the distance needs to be bigger. When your target is in sword range so are you. The pistol does not have any defensive capacity against swords and a hit does not always equal an immediate incapacitation. In actual battle it may depend. I have an educated opinion but I might be wrong.
That is a catastrophically bad take on Churchill’s contribution to military success in both world wars that you should be embarrassed to even voice publicly.
@@alfrede.neuman9082 like all humans Churchill had good and bad points which I pointed out....if you think he was a good military leader and tactician I think you should do some research he killed thousands of troops because he was attack attack attack against the advice of people who were smarter and better trained in tactics..he was a liar and most definitely corrupt look at his income against his expenditure big questions
@@bobfaam5215 Could you elaborate on that please? I know it's a bit over the top this idea that Churchill wanted to "destroy" Germany, but he certainly didn't like the third reich or the direction it had taken in general. There are even maps of Churchill's recorded proposed post-war borders for Germany, and yes while it did break up a centralised Deutschland, it was actually seemingly quite a thoughtful plan, one were the "reich" although mainly broken into 2 was still actually very generous and expanded. But I'm not sure what points you're referencing.
Those are the swords he used in military, meaning in his twenties. If you had approached him just before he died, he wouldn't have touched a sword for half a century at that point in life. Probably forgot how to hold one too. This is to me the reason why it's not interesting whatsoever what swords did he carry. His most important impact done for humanity wasn't done by the sword he carried, but by his voice and his character, later in life. To me this is the same sort of question what shoes did Gandhi wear.
Then why even click on the video? Churchill’s life wasn’t just as prime minister. Focusing only on that portion of his life leaves out how he even got to that point in the first place. Military service can greatly shape a person’s view on the world. Seeing as this is a largely sword based channel, that’s what the focus was on. Finally, comparing it to Gandhi’s shows is a false equivalency since his life never depended on them.
Speaking as someone who spent many years in the Army before moving into industry, and who knows a number politicians who are also ex-Army, and who has actually read Churchill own accounts of both WW1, WW2 and also Lord Randolph Churchill’s biography of him, I can tell you that that you have a CATASTROPHICALLY bad take on Churchill. If it wasn’t patently obvious, his ENTIRE ethos throughout his life (yes, even later in life) was a military one. He was - in EVERY sense - a soldier until the day he died. In fact, he can only be understood expressly in that light. This is hardly surprising, because anyone who spends their formative years in the army simply WILL bear strong traces of it forever. That is part-and-parcel of soldiering. In fact, SO strong was Churchill’s identity as a soldier that he spent many years writing the seminal work on his ancestor, Sir John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, after who’s victory at Blenheim the palace in which Winston was born is named. I honestly can’t think of anyone who has ever been MORE defined and shaped by their military service than Winston Churchill, from his breeding to his hobbies, to his politics, rhetoric and mentality. He even titled his book on his wartime speeches in the Commons “Into Battle”, just in case there were ANY doubt that he was still a soldier in a politician’s clothing.
American here. Up to now I've only thought of Churchill as the Prime Minister in WW2. This was fascinating. Thanks for the insight to the young man.
Try to watch the film 'Young Winston', I think you'd enjoy it.
You will find Richard Harding Davis book Real Soldiers of Fortune worth reading. It covers a group of guys that were quite the adventurers in their day. If I remember Churchill is the first he covers. He was covering the Second Boer War and as Churchill's mother was an American they would get a long.
When young he was quite the thrill seeker and desperately wanted to make a name for himself - and get out of his illustrious fathers shadow.....so actively sought out contact with the enemy. He even escaped a POW camp.
He did escape but he was a corresondent at the time for a newspaper.He was in Boer territory at the time. Davis could cover both sides fairly safely. Churchill was a man of his time and wouldn't let things stand in his way. Pretty much like George S Patton but not that strict to the military. I would say his flexibility made him handle WW2 better than others.
@@daemonharper3928
Back in the day when our leaders had to walk the walk before talking the talk.
Matt, what about Churchill's service during WW1? He resigned his political post after the failure of Gallipoli and returned to active service in the Army. According to Wikipedia he was briefly with the 2nd Grenadier Guards and then was promoted to lieutenant-colonel and placed in command of the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers until May 6th when the unit was merged with the 15th Division. I know you have previously said that British Army officers by this time would have been ordered to put down their swords due to the conditions of trench warfare, but would Churchill have had to buy a new sword to have in his kit? What model would he have carried if he had to have one with these units?
One of my favorite historical figures, I have a number of his books, have read a couple of biographies, his books on WW1 and 2, as well as his accounts of his time in the Army. Fascinating person. I've been trying to find a reputable source that sells prints of some of his paintings, but while lots of people sell prints OF him, none seem to sell prints BY him.
This is a good question and as such deserves a much more in depth and chronological answer which we know you can deliver. It could also be expanded to include other historical figures from 1821-1945 using military sabres.
Ok Matt soo a nice chat about Winston's sword wonderful but what about Mad Jack's sword or swords ... tell us
But Matt, what about his (presumably Wilkinson) 1897 Infantry Officers’ sword when he commanded the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers following Gallipoli?
This would make a cool series. What swords did Patton use? etc.
I am an American veteran, Churchill is one of my favorite historical figures. Hard to say if England could've held out like it did in ww2 without him. He worked so well with FDR. Both sent by God to stop fascism in its tracks. 👍👍. Rest in peace gentlemen, job well done.
Thanks for the information
If I recall at Omdurman, Churchill due to a shoulder injury couldn't use his sword (or was it lances his unit was using?) and so was armed with his mauser pistol and that's how he lived while everyone else got hacked to bits when it was sword v sword
Hardly anyone got hacked to bits really. There were a handful of casualties.
Ok how about doing one on the sword of Stalingrad, also associated with Churchill and that razor blade manufacturer?
Thanks. I forgot he was actually an Army officer.
A couple times, hated both times.
Also in the admiralty, and hated
He was fairly liked in the army, his time in the navy did end in disaster though..@wingatebarraclough3553
Can you give an in-depth explanation on how to use a saber with a thumb-up grip? I find it far more difficult to thumb the backstrap, especially for moulinets, than to hold it with a standard handshake grip.
Would be interested in that as well.
Maybe it has something to do with how you hold it during a cavalry charge?
Can you recommend u.k sites for buying swords.. loving the channel so far..cheers
Personally held one of them. Ceremonial gold hilt, and very thin guard shaped like a dragon with rubies. Some were missing. Thin straight blade. Beautiful. Visited my parents, it was on the table. Naturally started playing it. Father walked in and yelled at me. Told me what it was. He’s a woodworker and he was building a cabinet for it. At least one is in private collection. Oops.
First ❤
Would love to see a video on the sword of Lieutenant Mecham of the mutiny 🙏
Simon Ward from the film Young Churchill.
So if an officer transferred to unit that had a different model of officers sword would he have to purchase the new sword or could he keep his sword from his original commission?
What difference does the handle curvature have on the performance of a sword? That is, handles curving towards the back (katana, tachi) vs handles curving towards the front (European military sabres, turko mongol sabres)?
And then..........the Queen's Own Hussars arrived!
“Sword of Churchill” sounds *almost* like a swashbuckling novel…almost.
Officers not only had to buy their own kit, but they often had to buy their commissions. Which begs the question, if a cavalry trooper is made an officer, does he have to turn in his old sword and buy a new one?
Yes, absolutely he would. Troopers swords were always owned either by the regiment or the War Department (as it was then). So he would’ve handed it back upon promoting.
Probably. Pretty sure enlisted weapons were typically issued and owned by the unit.
Matt can you do a show on Tipoo Sultans weapons ie swords ,cannons ,armor weird stuff his tiger motifs and rockets Please ?
Good idea
@@scholagladiatoriaThats gona be a scorcher :)
A look through Wilkinsons blade proof pages may find an entry with Churchills name on it?
Even here in the US officers still have to purchase much of their own uniform and regalia.
A Türk here. My knowledge of Churchill is limited to Gelibolu and his prime ministry from WW2. Lovely to learn more about such a legendary British man. So many great photos too thank you.
Probably a fake hilt in a high capacity (2 or 3 pints) scabbard filled to the brim with Johnny Walker Red
@scholagladiatoria Would he have kept the same blade from his first purchase, and only had it re-hilted, or would he have needed to buy an entire weapon? Just curious...
What about the swords of Napoleon?
If I was a young Royal Navy officer. would it have been ok. to buy a older officers sword or carry a grandfathers sword. if the sword was the right pattern and the former owner don´t need it. this sounds like it could be kind of expensive.
I am a current-serving Army officer, and I routinely carry a mint-condition George V Wilkinson 1897-pattern (one of their “best proved” top-of-the-line models) from 1913 on parade. It was carried in WW1 and has been service sharpened very nicely. Since it’s still the current uniform pattern, it’s perfectly acceptable.
I even have the original protective case, and it still has the original sword knot on it.
I happen to also collect antique swords, so naturally I had to have the best.
Further, it was about the same price (slightly cheaper, actually) than a brand new one. But the new ones are poor quality in comparison, and have none of the handmade feeling and historical value.
how do you change from a lance to a sword?
did they just discard the lance...throw it away, and draw a sword?
what's happens the rest of the campaign? they just don't have a lance after the first engagement?
did they have like a mule or an Indian sepoy carrying a bunch of backup lances incase they need to retreat and can't pick up the laces they discarded?
The lance may get stuck in a person after skewering. When the lance cannot be retrieved, it is not a question whether to discard it. They probably had a supply of lances in the armoury as loosing one would be the norm.
An indian sepoy would NEVER EVER "carry a bunch of..." anything for anyone
oh yes, the hilt 9.7 churchill edition?
The bots are out in force on this one
Swords with solid provenance are much more interesting 🧐
Mauser ammo 7,63 was the 👑. Fast, flat trajectory , 1935 came .357 Magnum.
Still Sir WC had 10 capacity vs 6 shooter revolver’s in late 1890’s❤ 🫡
Not knowing anything about actual sword use, what do you think was the more effective secondary weapon, the typical sword of that period or his broomhandle? 👍🏼
The sword does not run out of ammo and it did not have stopages. That could make it the better choice. Bear in mind that the broom hanlde Mauser did not have a detachable magazine. It was reloaded with a stripper clip. That could be fumbled in the heat of a battle.
All good points, but how often do you figure someone would put 10 different people out of the fight with a sword in a single battle? At sword distance, that wouldn’t be to difficult with a broomhandle 🤷🏽♂️
@@dgoodman1484With a pistol the distance needs to be bigger. When your target is in sword range so are you. The pistol does not have any defensive capacity against swords and a hit does not always equal an immediate incapacitation.
In actual battle it may depend. I have an educated opinion but I might be wrong.
George Washington next!
Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat
🙂👍🤺
Churchill the most incompetent military leader in British history..great speaker and motivator
That is a catastrophically bad take on Churchill’s contribution to military success in both world wars that you should be embarrassed to even voice publicly.
@@alfrede.neuman9082 like all humans Churchill had good and bad points which I pointed out....if you think he was a good military leader and tactician I think you should do some research he killed thousands of troops because he was attack attack attack against the advice of people who were smarter and better trained in tactics..he was a liar and most definitely corrupt look at his income against his expenditure big questions
Who cares, they were for decoration only
He sided with Stalin. That is all I need to know.
Are you insane?
@@damirblazevic4823 She has a one-dimensional view of the world.
@@damirblazevic4823He actually wanted to support Ger:many .
British establishment supported Stalin .
@@faithlesshound5621He actually wanted to support Ger:many .
British establishment supported Stalin .
@@bobfaam5215 Could you elaborate on that please? I know it's a bit over the top this idea that Churchill wanted to "destroy" Germany, but he certainly didn't like the third reich or the direction it had taken in general. There are even maps of Churchill's recorded proposed post-war borders for Germany, and yes while it did break up a centralised Deutschland, it was actually seemingly quite a thoughtful plan, one were the "reich" although mainly broken into 2 was still actually very generous and expanded. But I'm not sure what points you're referencing.
Those are the swords he used in military, meaning in his twenties. If you had approached him just before he died, he wouldn't have touched a sword for half a century at that point in life. Probably forgot how to hold one too.
This is to me the reason why it's not interesting whatsoever what swords did he carry. His most important impact done for humanity wasn't done by the sword he carried, but by his voice and his character, later in life. To me this is the same sort of question what shoes did Gandhi wear.
Then why even click on the video? Churchill’s life wasn’t just as prime minister. Focusing only on that portion of his life leaves out how he even got to that point in the first place. Military service can greatly shape a person’s view on the world. Seeing as this is a largely sword based channel, that’s what the focus was on. Finally, comparing it to Gandhi’s shows is a false equivalency since his life never depended on them.
Speaking as someone who spent many years in the Army before moving into industry, and who knows a number politicians who are also ex-Army, and who has actually read Churchill own accounts of both WW1, WW2 and also Lord Randolph Churchill’s biography of him, I can tell you that that you have a CATASTROPHICALLY bad take on Churchill.
If it wasn’t patently obvious, his ENTIRE ethos throughout his life (yes, even later in life) was a military one. He was - in EVERY sense - a soldier until the day he died. In fact, he can only be understood expressly in that light. This is hardly surprising, because anyone who spends their formative years in the army simply WILL bear strong traces of it forever. That is part-and-parcel of soldiering.
In fact, SO strong was Churchill’s identity as a soldier that he spent many years writing the seminal work on his ancestor, Sir John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, after who’s victory at Blenheim the palace in which Winston was born is named.
I honestly can’t think of anyone who has ever been MORE defined and shaped by their military service than Winston Churchill, from his breeding to his hobbies, to his politics, rhetoric and mentality. He even titled his book on his wartime speeches in the Commons “Into Battle”, just in case there were ANY doubt that he was still a soldier in a politician’s clothing.