I have practiced with Japanese swords for decades... while every tool has its job... the katana moonlights as a food processor and is seriously devastating in an elevator or bedroom per ce.
I laughed so hard... Actually, three legged bar stool would have offered reach of a longsword and great bind, provided it were the type in which the legs are joined by steel ring or rings at some intervals.It should make it easy to catch the incoming blade and thus counter a thrust. XD
My mind went to two different places at once. 1) A stool that can fold out/morph into a weapon at the press of a button, Final Fantasy XIII style 2) Literally fighting with shit Either are valid options.
I was varsity saber team in college (yes not sharp bendy steel), as well as Chinese broadsword and Chinese straight sword trained. I have been learning the Iaido (the katana). I believe it really is the quality of your sword instructor, and your dedication and focus. I agree that rapier is a great choice. But if I could have Charlemage's best knight teach me european long sword, then that would always be my choice. The advantage of Chinese and Japanese swordmanship is the tradition and skill set is less broken than with European weapons. The top Wudang and Iaido craft is still around for you to learn. While I love and respect those recreating the European sword fighting traditions, they are re-inventing the wheel to some degree. To re-cast his hypothetical challenge, if I got a year to learn before the duel from a 7th dan Iaido or a Wudang master, or just an SCA guy who is really good I would choose Jian or Katana. But if I had just basic fencing skills, all his points are valid IMHO. You fight with the quality of your instructor and your dedication more than the function of the blade.
I think it always come back to the rapier. A purpose built weapon for duelling. I too would prefer it over most any thing for a duel up to the firearm, even possibly including the flintlock.
***** Folded steel katana were actually pretty rare, considering how difficult they were to make, as opposed to other methods like clay tempering. Coating the edge of the blade in clay before quenching the hot metal in water allowed the edge to cool much slower, resulting in harder steel, while the rest of the sword back and core was softer and more flexible. Actually, the reason Japanese blacksmiths developed such difficult techniques is that, well, Japan isn't exactly known for producing lots of steel. They only had access to low quality iron, and had to compensate for that.
+Andrew Winters some small corrections: Some folding is an integral part of refining the steel from bloomery/tatara raw material, and necessary to produce a decent base material, like it was also done in pre 1000 A.D. Europe. Swords might not be laminated, but usually folded. The back is coated (thicker), not the edge. Quenching something in water is hardening not tempering, Japanese blades tent to be clay hardened not clay tempered. Tempering refers to heating the hardened steel after quenching, usually to make it less brittle. ... and, folding 100000 times was obviously a joke on Flandre's part, you'd need an oxygen-free environment, magic, or a ridiculously large amount of raw material to do so. Steel corrodes away rather quickly if you heat it up and hammer on it for about 100 years (at 1 minute per fold, and some time to sleep ... )
+NathanRomml Modern steel does not need to be folded, and you can break Katanas (or any other steel at the time) over your knee. the tech was good 500 years a go its a waste of time now.
I feel the same way about my custom Viennese Backsword, made by Michael Pierce (aka. "Tinker"). The blade is 28 inches. It has a beautiful distal tapper (gauge in thickness of blade and in width) it weighs 1.9 pounds, differentialy heat treated and with a Rockwell of 58. It feels like a large knife in my hands. I have tested in against rapiers, and though difficult, I did well. Problem was I damaged my opponents blade in the process. Good news was they now prefer back swords ;-)
I would use the saber because it has 2 defensive parts being the basket for the fingers and the blunt part of the blade close to the hilt. Also light weapons helps with speed, speed and faints determine the winner and yes faith in God can definitely determine the winner
great video that leads me to another question: What would you consider to be the best weapon fighting with armor ?(and maybe what armor/weapon combination would you prefer?)
Hey Matt, I love your content, I just wanted to say though you are right about the tsuba being poor deffense to protect the hand, BUT, at the same time the tsuba wasnt really meant to. The tsuba was mainly used to keep your hand from sliding onto your blade and avoid injury. And the way the katana is used it doesn't need a big guard to protect your hands it comes with skill. I hope this changes your outlook at least if only a little bit I think a katana with a cross guard would look cool and would benefit greatly that'd be sweet, and when I say "kanata" Im using it in the general sense meaning any Japanese sword And In my opinion a swordsman should pick one sword and stick with it instead of worrying about which sword is "better" than another, All sword have your strengths and weaknesses. If you train with one type of sword faithfully you will become way more efficient and true in your style and technique and you will know your sword well. At the end of the day it all comes down to skill. And stamina lol.
scholagladiatoria lol ???? I'm talking scientific fact. Because of the way it's made (folding) it is stronger, more flexible and won't blunt when contact is made with hard metallic substances.
That is not true, the reason why they folded it was to distribute the carbon in the steel and to remove impurities. If Old Japanese sword smiths had access to our modern steel they would be thrilled. They made steel in a huge fire put that burned for 2 or 3 days and then they took out sponge steel and folded it. They had to do that because they didnt have a better process.
When the first katanas were created & Used in battle not a single blade was broken or had a single dent. So you are wrong. Some of these blades are still on show in japan.
Very interesting, thanks! If you weren't restricted to one weapon - say in the old musketeering manuals where you had a 17 inch second weapon would your choice remain the same or change? Agreed from very limited experience that the lighter the weapon the faster you can move it so with Toledo steel a rapier would be very hard to beat one to one but does that advantage lower against multiple blades or am I still going to get my fore-arm opened from a distance? My ancestors preferred distance weapons for the first four opponents then .... :-)
The best sword for any type of fight is the one you have. lol in all seriousness tho i would likely pick the saber for the greater utility. Rapiers are specialized and that means while it does have a good thrust you know how its going to come at you 99% of the time. Its a lot easier to defend against when you know how the attack is going to come as with the saber there is a versatility which will keep an opponent guessing how you will attack and feints have more options.
The rapier can also cut quite effectively. Several manuals such as Giganti show different techniques for cutting and defending from cuts with rapiers. Granted, you won't decapitate the opponent, but it'll be bad enough. Saber is still a really good choice for this fight though.
Shouldn't only weapons of the same time period be compared? Of course a late-19th-century sword can be more lightweight, longer and yet stronger and be given additional bonus points of construction while due to the widespread use of firearms armor and helmets were no longer in use.
gustavo iglesias i know he is a genius i would go for a pike before this video And no ive never been in a duel untill tomorrow were im gonna fight the general cause i accidentaly killed his horse
exactly...the rapier is kind of the evolutionary peak of 1v1 duelling weapons. Rapiers came along BECAUSE backswords and longswords were at a disadvantage to them in that context. What always has struck me as odd is how little the katana/tachi evolved over the, what, 500+ or so years it was being actively used? I mean, a sword made in the 20th century for the Imperial army in ww2 wasn't substantially different in design to one made in the 14-1500s. You don't see that in western weapons. A 14-1500s infantry officer's sword compared to an 1800's one in European or American use? WAY different in almost every way.
Thank you so much. I have a duel coming up to acquire my local land owners daughter through combat. I was initially going to use a can of hair spray and a lighter but i found the rapier to be better suited to the task. Once again thanks! Duels happen every day gotta be ready.
They should come back, especially if you'd like a polite civil society. There is a reason they repealed the carrying of swords in Texas last year. Better than that, why do you think people conceal carry?
That happened to me once. I was about to go to a duel wielding a whole frozen chicken violently mounted on a plunger handle. On my way i found a desperate crackhead with a 9mm. Other dude had a knowife. Ten bucks and a frozen chicken is all it cost for me to win that duel. His daughter was a bitch tho. Wasnt worth it. I really wanted to eat that chicken.
Conclusion ( 15:35 ) "That doesn't make me want to be a rapierist, I want to learn how to beat rapierists." This is the argument I was having with the police too.
Hi folks - I want to add something on the effectiveness of thrusts vs. cuts. Yes it is true that there are historical examples of thrusts not stopping opponents. There are examples of someone getting run through (or even shot) and then going on to disable or kill their opponent. However, there are even MORE examples of people getting thrust and just dying! The real danger of making the thrust is twofold: 1) that the blade can get trapped in a person's body for long enough that you are undefended, either from their dying blow or from someone else attacking you, and 2) that the thrust has so little resistance that the person dying on the end of your weapon can come close enough to deal you a wound as they die or become incapacitated (this is why boar spears have lugs/wings, to keep the boar at bay, perhaps). However, there are LOTS of accounts of people getting thrust once through the body or head and becoming incapacitated or dying very quickly. It didn't happen all the time, but it happened often - and still does. If we look at modern crime stabbings, you'll see that sometimes people survive multiple stab wounds and sometimes people die from just one stab wound. It all depends on where the stab lands and what it damages (but remember a rapier penetrates much deeper than a knife, so will generally do more damage). Lastly, whilst it's fair to say that many stabs do not proove fatal, it is even MORE true to say that many cuts do not proove incapacitating. Cuts sometimes fail to cause any injury worth noting at all - across a wide period of history this has been noted. Many sources note that you can survive multiple cuts, but rarely survive multiple stabs. Quite simply also, it is easier to mess up a cut than a thrust. Cutting effectively enough to incapacitate a person is more difficult than poking someone with a pointy object. Cutting is more natural for humans (as we are a bludgeoning species like apes), but thrusting is statitically more likely to seriously wound. Remember lastly that a thrust that hits a hand or arm may well penetrate through and hit something else as well (like a gunshot) or travel up inside a limb, causing huge amounts of tissue damage. Thrusts penetrate SO easily and thrusts with an edged weapon cut as they penetrate as well. Cuts do not penetrate so easily, as they face much greater surface resistance.
All of your points make sense when understanding why a rapier would defeat any other one-handed sword, but I'm still surprised you'd take one over a longsword. Especially when considering the possibility of trading blows.
***** Trading blows? One fairly decent cut or thrust and you are fucking done, let me reiterate don't get fucking hit in 90% of fights the first real hit decides the outcome of a fight.
Hello Matt ! I the Cut VS Thrust is a never ending debate, I believe that thrusting swords are more effective in a cavalry charge but the cutting ones are far better in a melée , cutting swords can do apalling injuries to an opponent for example cutting a limb or cleaving a head , also cutting blades will not get stuck into the enemy's body . I think thrusts are more lethal in general but the cuts are more terrible ( Pscycological effect) .In the end i would say that each sword is designed to do a specific job . LOL i prefer two carry two swords a thrusting one for the charge and a cutting one for a melée. Take care and have a good day :)
Rami Bairi Thrust in a cavalry charge? Well, some armies through the years have agreed with you, notably Napoleon's Grande Armee, but I don't see it. You're far too much at risk of impaling a foot soldier TOO effectively, and getting your blade stuck in them, meaning you either have to let go and be disarmed, or hold on and be unhorsed.
Robin Hersom Hell sir I hope u're fine , Yeah the thrust has so many disadvantages despite its effectivennes.But i have mentioned the thrust in a cavalry charge because it was done particulary by heavy cavalry like the French cuirassiers, and it was accepted by almost all armies and this is a proof that it was effective. All books and descriptions tell us about the use of the point " thrust" from horseback by European armies of the 18 and 19 th centuries.
Many people commenting on this video have stated that they would cut through a rapier with their longsword/katana or whatever - you need to watch this: ua-cam.com/video/cFRxZod-iI0/v-deo.html
Something I noticed from the other video, would hitting the raiper really hard not give you a massive opening? Ie a breaking force blow that connects would the shock not give you an opening? Also I do wonder if the person is more important than the weapon? Ie would a Gurka with a kukri beat most sword users. Would your Sabre not give you more of an advantage in skill level?
we are taking the person out of the equation assuming its two people who are of equal skill, experience, physical ability and physical + mental attributes
Sherratt Pemberton Sorry, think I wrote that really badly. I was trying to get across would a Kukri user of Matt's skill level not have anti-sword/bayonet drills from the start? Would a Katana user not just treat it like a spear? Does its speed and range get counted by how the other user is used to dealing with that sort of attack? I think the thing that bothers me is why did the sabre carry on when the raiper existed? Is there some sort of killing (war) weapon vs dueling weapon thing going on?
I studied kendo and kenjutsu for 15 years and everything you said about the katana as a weapon is spot on. It is a great weapon in some respects but it was really intended for use wearing lamellar armor and in a particular tactical context. In kendo competitions, one of the most common points scored is the "kote" strike to the hands/wrists. It doesn't take much practice before even a decently talented novice can successfully score that point. You learn defenses to avoid the strike but the bottom line is your hands and wrists are more exposed than they might be with a sword of a different design.
Of course, but a katana was thought to be used in a batteflied by people in armour. You can also easily strike hands of a knight wearing a longsword with a sword, but if you are using metal gauntlets with padding (and that is valid for knights AND samurai) you can for the most part shrug at sword hits at your hands.
@@eljanrimsa5843 It makes no sense. a katana is a sowrd designed to be used MAINLY two handed, in a battlefield, by people who wear armor to fight other people who possibly also wear armour. The rapier is exactly the opposite.
> Says the weapon has to be longsword length or less. > Picks rapier because it's longer than the longsword. I like the video, but this was pretty funny to me.
To be fair he did address this point by talking about how one could use a long-sword of rapier length. The advantage he was pointing to is that one has a much greater degree of control with a rapier at its maximum reach given its weight etc.
In fact a longsword can reach 1.4m or even become just a little shorter than a two-handed great sword. With that length longsword can carry out a serious blow to the rapierist's leg or fore arm. Statistics do change things. In some cases an experienced rapierist may lose against another experienced swordman using a 1.3m long feder. I doubt wether a rapier is generally longer than.a long sword, because most longswords I meet are no shorter than 1.2m. Also, though hand protection and nimble thrust are advantages, longswords are primarily two handed weapon which means they are very strong in binding. Longswords can, in most cases, strike much more frequently, giving it chances to do false attack and mislead the enemy or perform couter attack. Rapier can also do so but it's weaker in this area, and this video supposes the rapier using no buckler and no dagger. I dont think the rapier is still in advantage facing a longsword that is longer in blade.
+X Infinity No, the sword with the most hand protection is best for a duel. I was almost certain he was going to go with the basket hilt claymore for his number one pick.
+PerfectSnowball Lol, it's all about having fun at the end. Scythes can be a decent anti-cavalry weapon in a real life context. However, there are more efficient polearms for fighting people on foot.
I prefer pistols, I'm too fat to run and too old to take an ass beating, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with my aim my adrenaline control or my pain tolerance.
But but but. A katana doesn't need a long blade since they shoot laser beams whenever you swing them. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. I'll have you know I watched 50,000 ninja movies so I'm an expert on this subject.
+Quartz Yeah, but do YOU use it? Have you ever practiced? You can't learn just by watching T.V. and experts; you need to apply it in context and try it out for yourself. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about! And since when, in real life (NOT TV), have swords ever shot laser beams, that is a little too sci-fi!
Throw the Pommel? As in unscrew it and hurl it like a missile, or just use it as a cudgel, while still attached? Surely, in either case, these tactics could be sidestepped, and if he take his pommel OFF and misses (it would surely take a LONG time to detach) then he's completely unbalanced, and dismantled, his own weapon...he's toast. haha
Gary Ormond We know this, Skall has explained it in his video about it. And we're talking hurling it like a missile. Have you never heard of this joke before?
The katana grew up in a Japan: a closed society with a closed miliary, combat and weapons ethos - European swords evolved through a highly competitive history spanning many years, confilicts, and nations. So the katana "evolved" to be as good as a katana could be, excellent but limited by its context whereas European swords REALLY evolved in the unrestricted, open sense.
Thank you! Many people try to compare the two regions or say the Japanese were better when it simply isn't true! Up until the 20th century, Japan was a mostly isolationist country. This combined with a small relative population and limited iron resources meant they had far less opportunity to experiment than the West did. They were good, but no match for Western Europe.
Let's not replace one stereotype with another stereotype. The katana may not be some magical lightsaber, but Japanese swords are not stagnant either. The katana has its origins (basic shape, forging techniques, etc) in ancient and medieval China, and the modern shape of the katana evolved in Japan. The predecessors/prototypes of the katana experienced plenty of unrestricted open warfare. The katana also wasn't the only type of Japanese sword around, as Japan did have other types of swords such as straight swords, two handed swords, and polearm-sword hybrids.
@@CoffeeSnep That isn't true either. The Japanese swords aren't better, but let's not go to the other end of the extreme by denigrating them and claiming they weren't a match for Western Europe. The predecessors/prototypes of the katana was in ancient and medieval China, and they experienced plenty of development and opportunities to experiment in unrestricted warfare. By the time the katana shaped swords were evolving in Japan, the Japanese had been engaged in/would engage in wars against the Mongols, Manchus, Korean kingdoms, Ming Empire, etc. The katana was just one type of sword in Japan - the Japanese had other types of swords too (including straight swords, two handed swords, polearm swords, etc). Japan also wasn't that closed of a society - they were highly influenced by trade, exchange of ideas, and wars with continental Asia.
@@Intranetusa the katana was a nice sword, and the Japanese had a lot of great stuff. I'm not trying to say they didn't. My intention was to provide reason as to why I believe European weapons (swords in particular) evolved to have significantly more variety than in Japan. The Japanese had plenty of swords, but many of them were quite similar except for length. Japan wasn't entirely isolationist I know, but while they had contact with parts of eastern Asia, Europe had contact with most of the civilized world; with trade going from the middle East to Russia to China and so forth. The Japanese were and are a very respectable people, but there are practical reasons to explain why many parts of Europe had more advancements, rather than yelling that one is better than the other without reason, as I very often see people do.
@@CoffeeSnep I think one major reason why "European swords" have more variety than "Japanese swords" is because Europe has 27x-28x the area/landmass of Japan and had 11x-12x the population of Japan (90 million vs 8 million) by 1500 AD. So significantly more people with significantly more space will naturally lead to more diversity. Yes, you are correct that Europe also did have more contacts with other areas of the world like the Middle East. However, to make it a fair comparison, we should compare swords in Japan to swords in one European country with a similar population and area (like Spain or something).
+Lazy Spark look at a schiavonna or backsword both give most of the same advantages and only sacrifice length to take back some cutting ability and parrying strength
I don't get people's obsession with katanas, it's a nice weapon sure and great at cutting but most people wouldn't be trained with a katana and in a regular fight with someone who has mild understanding of how to use a sword, when it comes to practicality I prefer to use a long sword type of weapon. The good thing about long swords are their ability to break bone and cut as well. Plus I don't really see much parrying when it ones to katana use. If someone with a long sword blocked my katana slice, it could damage my blade. I have nothing against katanas it's just I don't see the obsession with the weapon because it sure as hell isn't the perfect weapon.
+Carlos Contreras I can't speak for everyone of course, but I really like the craftsmanship, and the spirituality that surrounds the sword. And they're simple looking beautiful swords. If I was to pick a weapon for actual fighting, I would go with the schiavona :-)
Katanas are overhyped as fighting swords. They lack the defensive qualities of other swords like longswords, rapiers, and most military sabres. Part of why katanas don't have some of those features is because of different philosophies of fighting (more emphasis on foot work and spacing than parrying and binding of blades). The katana is also just an older design of sword that many others of its time lacked in features as well. It's impressive how long it stayed in service over history! I think people are just attracted to them, because of their ornateness. Hand made Japanese swords can look really artistic. European swords can be extremely ornate as well, but overall they tend to be more utilitarian and emphasize usefulness/practicality in an actual fight. ...and people are just weaboos. Lmao.
Japanese cartoons hyped the shit out of katanas. It was conveyed as a symbol of japanese culture, pride, discipline. These cartoons were originally aimed at japanese boys. American boys like Quentin Tarantino bought the hype when they watched the japanese cartoons. So now you have this huge group of people that need to be taught that, uhh, no, katana is about as overrated as muscle cars.
A katana with a Slightly longer then average blade, and a D shaped handguard with a cross guard would be (in my mind) a “perfect” katana. Blend of “both worlds” in a way.
In a LARP I played in, the head rulesmaker, who was a Kendo and katana weeabo, changed the rules so that hand hits didn't count as a hit because he and the other Katana wielders were getting killed by hand hits. Your hands are incredibly vulnerable in the forward presenting stance and a katana.
"Hand on weapon" not counting as a hit is a common rule in LARP/foam fighting to leave room for creativity in the types of weapons used. Granted, this rule does inevitably lead to "punch blocking" as veterans of the sport follow the line of logic "the closer to my hand the opponent's blade impacts, the more leverage I have to parry with" to the extreme.
ssssooo, basically you're saying that the best sword for a 1-on-1 duel is a sword that was specifically designed for that purpose? sound dubious at best... i think one air pressure slash or ground elemental attack from a ranged katana would cut a rapier into atoms
I feel like the style of sword I'd be happy to rely on for this idea of random encounter 1v1 would have to be a transitional sidesword. Something like the munich town guard.... A proto-rapier with a blade like an elongated arming sword and the guard of a rapier. Sure you wouldn't have the reach of a rapier or longsword but you'd have the guard for good parry and riposte as well as the power to deny similar actions if facing a rapier.
Kinda late with the reply, but arguably that's the reason why basket-hilted swords are second place on Matt's list (which evolved from the complex-hilted swords of the Renaissance).
Why not a side sword? Nice mix of the longsword and the rapier, grip and cutting/stabbing versatility of the longsowrd, hand protection and reach of a rapier.
a side sword is onehanded and therefore nothing like a longsword and far too small to be sompared with a rapier. It is comparable to a basket hilt broadsword in lighter.
To be honest I don't think there is any real difference between a sidesword, basket-hilted broadsword or a sabre. They are so much in the same ballpark that you can more or less call them the same swords, for the purposes of this video.
The sidesword/broadsword/sabre is, IMO, the most versatile, do-it-all sword. Rapiers are made for dueling, though, so in a one-on-one situation, they're the way to go. If you may end up in a mixed-weapons melee, sidesword wouldn't be a bad choice by any means.
Even 16th century koncerz is not exactly the best dueling weapon, lacking slightly in hand protection though not agility - no basket or swept hilt. Designed to be used by heavy cavalry. These are longer than many rapiers so could have an advantage. An earlier estoc would be even less desirable, these had crossguards and were not as long. There is a reason there were specialized dueling swords and most of them thrust oriented.
I had this from a workshop about Renaissance-era weaponry and I can't entirely vouch for the instructor, so I don't know how reliable it is, but his contention was that the rapier was designed specifically for 1-on-1 duels in the narrow alleyways of Italian cities. This accounts for why they felt it worthwhile to sacrifice cutting ability to favor lightness, speed, and reach: The alleys were too narrow for any cuts except to the head.
This analysis is exactly what I was looking for when I searched "which sword is the strongest against all other swords." Although, now it makes me want videos which expand the scenario further and further, such as "what is the strongest non-ranged non-polearm weapon in a one-on-one fight" or how those rankings change if different types of armor are thrown into the mix.
Isaac Doggart True :) I was leaving it open to include various polearms. I suppose I should say "in a duel in full plate harness what contemporary weapon would you choose?"
+Robert R I assume you do not get a shield, the duel starts at close range and there are no horses? If so I think I would go for long greek sword (kopis maybe) or a 1800ish British naval boarding sword, or just a nice big crossbow shot from the hip.
I think a longsword would have an advantage over the rapier as far as trying to deflect. If you get the jump on someone the rapier would be great, but I don't think it would do very well clashing against a longsword because of weight and mass. I'm not saying you couldn't parry a longsword with a Rapier, but I think it would be more difficult; especially head on. Not to mention a Rapier is only truly effective at thrusting, making you draw your arm back to go for the kill leaving yourself vulnerable and making your attacks predictable.
im fencing in my freetime and trust me if your a good fencer with a rapier you are soooo much better than sb with a longsword because if the rapier isnt too heavy you do some random stuff wait for the other one to shift his weapon to one side and if you sting then he wont see that coming that quick he could do much about it. you just have to watch the distance isnt too close and the other one doesnt shatter your blade but it is easy to maneuver your blade to avoid that
Tip of advice for katana fanatics: watch the damn video all the way through before ranting. His review of the katana, in my opinion, was fairly good. He wouldn't complain much if he had to fight with it, and he said its offensive capabilities are at an exceptionally good level. Heck, it was similar to his review of the arming sword. All they lacked was the hand protection. See? So really, there's no reason to get butthurt.
Reading through the comments I have found only one comment that is defending the katana and well over 10 comments that bash katanas and katana fans. It's the same in the comments of pretty much any video that features a comparison of katanas and European weapons.
First off, for all of the people making gun comments, stop it. You're not clever, you're not cute. You're just wasting time. For those who keep saying "it's not the weapon, it's the wielder", this is assuming that both fighters are equal in skill. So you're not saying anything special either. We all know that a master swordsman is going to beat a novice swordsman regardless of the weapon.
Yes, a self-appointed fun-police officer is EXACTLY what UA-cam needs right now. Keep up your important, original, and most serious work, shadowknyght.
I need no channel youtube! Certainly not shit, the steel and forging techniques used to make Japanese swords was on par with Europe up until the proliferation of the blast furnace. Even then, lots of quality steel was imported from China, which was some of the best in the world.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 That makes zero sense. The steel used to make a sword has nothing to do with the type of sword made. Unless you are assuming that people only make European swords out of spring steel, and katanas get the shitty low carbon leftovers for some strange reason.
I'd use the sabre over the rapier. The rapier was what first came to mind when the rules for this hypothetical situation were stated, but I like the sabre's versatility which gives you enough extra combat options to offset the reach difference.
As a sabre specialist, as someone who loves sabres, but also as someone who fences against rapiers regularly, let me tell you that the rapier has the advantage in a one-on-one fight. It is a marked advantage.
scholagladiatoria The only worry I got with a rapier is that it produces tiny holes and if you don't place the hit well it might not even be noticed by the enemy that would disable you with any sabre hit. There were enough cases were people actually ran up the rapier blade to hilt to cut down their attacker and succeded (but often died thereafter).
scholagladiatoria loved this vid. As far was western blades are concerned, I agree with you. I much prefer a to use a sabre (curved blades in general). I actually have two questions for you. 1-which sabre do you prefer? 2-I'm looking for a good book on sabre combat to study on. Are there any that you can personally recommend?
10 років тому+9
edi The problem about "tiny holes" is that they are more likely to be deadly than cuts. In the good old "de re military" of "Vegetius", a roman, it is widely explained why thrust was deadly : it goes deep, it hit frequently an organ, and is rarely stopped by a bone. Cuts goes superficial, rarely touch an organ and is generally blocked by bones, . Thrust have not to be very strong, it can pierce deep without too much force. If you want your cut to be good, it must be well made AND must be strong enough to slice through. (even if our body is vulnerable) The source is ancient, but it has never failed to be true. Most of the moves in "medieval" manuals are piercing. Conclusion: if cuts are not strong, they have to be numerous to be deadly. Victims of knifes attacks in real life are often dead or badly wounded when hit once by the knife, when using piercing. When using slashing, you see often a lot of cuts on the victim and some stays alive after that. (but the physiological shock is enormous and can kill) That's why those "tiny holes" just can't stop to amaze me !
***** I think Matt once stated in his video that while thrust are more likely to be deadly, cuts are more likely to stop an opponent fighting. Severing a few fingers or a thumb on the sword hand or hamstringing an opponent does not take a lot of strength when done with the proper technique and a sharp sword, and would generally render your opponent quite helpless. There were many instances in history of rapier fighters being run through multiple times and only dying quite a while after. Like Matt said in his videos, a rapier fighter must be sure that he is not exposing himself to a counterattack as he is lunging for a kill. He really cannot depend on his thrust "stopping" his opponent dead on the spot (hence no practice of "tagging" as done in modern sport fencing), and must be prepared for a prolonged fight. www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php Most knife attacks in modern times involve multiple stab wounds, often dozens, and the majority of people stabbed actually survived, given modern medical treatment. I still think a rapier is the best weapon for unarmored one-on-one encounter, but I would take Vegetius' statement with a large dose of salt. After all if the Romans believed so absolutely in the thrust why didn't they use a long thrusting-oriented weapon, and opt for one so broad-bladed and obviously very capable of cutting?
They didn't use rapiers exactly - they were mostly using sideswords. But most of the fighting was done with missile weapons and polearms. Swords are just sidearms in most situations, not primary weapons.
Could be, I suppose, yeah. If so, then no. The legionnaires used, primarily, the gladius. Though the pilum was part of the standard equipment, this is true.
longer than that particular longsword he used for illustrative purposes, not nessisarily longer than any and all long swords there's quite alot of variation
Not at all, I like the katana, looks good, the making method is interesting to me, but I don't say that it will cut through an other blade if you pull it from the scabbard from your back, in reverse grip.
No, I'm the same way. I *do* think that Matt is mildly underestimating the tsuba's utility as a handguard in this video; tsuba meant to go on a katana in serious combat were often quite a bit more robust than the one on his and pretty effective at stopping an opponent's blade sliding down onto your hands. Most of the rest of his points on it are totally valid though--reach is its biggest weakness against a lot of other swords. Not insurmountable a weakness, but a weakness nevertheless.
***** Yep--that's why I said *mildly* underestimating it. A Euro crossguard gives you much better margin for error, ESPECIALLY with side rings. But a good solid metal tsuba will at least cover the top of your fist and should arrest a blade well enough without buckling.
I would imagine that the best weapon to take into your scenario would be the one you are trained best in. Training is just about always far more important than the tool.
Even if you are fighting someone with far more experience than you in using a long sword, if you have a spear, you still have a little advantage, as long as you have the same physical condition
Hi Matt, great video and thanks for all your work on the channel. I was wondering if you had seen the film Alatriste with Viggo Mortensen. It features some very nice duels with rapiers and also some nice battle scenes - but are they authentic?
Well, films can never be truly authentic. But I really liked the fighting in the film, it was very well done. I just wish that they had employed a better editor and constructed the story in a more coherant way.
scholagladiatoria A better editor and a better director and a better scriptwriter. As much as I enjoyed (even if not loved) the books, the movie is so badly constructed and even the acting is quite poor, I think more due to the director than to the actors. While historically it might be quite decent in the details, it is a overall a bad movie.
Sentrygun84 Yup yup. even if you watch high level fencing videos with people that aren't using rapiers, they still use mostly quick thrusting attacks, as if they're fighting with rapiers
Because its a very effective for dueling. Harder to evade/block/parry than cuts, easier and faster to execute with a smaller chance for telegraphing your moves.
In a true sword fight a rapier will get you killed. Sure you have the reach but one of the skills a good sword fighter should have is the ability to get inside an opponents reach not hard if the opponent has a heaver shorter blade. Remember folks fencing is a sport sword fighting is not. You need something that can thrust as well as slice. And speed = over extension. you over extend in a real sword fight your as good as buzzard food.
In this scenario, the weapon built directly for it will win. Not a surprise. If any melee and any kind of armor goes, I don't think I'd choose a rapier.
What if you were to have a trial by combat? Then what weapon would you use, also what type of armor would you go for as well? Now that would make a great video don't you think?
Rapier is *the* dueling sword, so it's the most sensible choice. But what if you throw a Claymore into the mix? Do you think that the massive reach and force would be sufficient to make it a sensible choice? It would be able to cut at a range outside of a rapier, as well as thrust....assuming the person is able to wield it. Would its size be too cumbersome for it to be usable when you don't have armor to rely on? I guess it now gets to nuanced specifics of individuals and what is the optimized weapon for that person's size/strength/ability. Still curious if Matt or anyone has thoughts, though.
Anguel Roumenov Bogoev I think Matt was trying to compare only swords that historical people would actually wear on a daily basis as self-defense weapon. Two handed swords in most cultures are strictly weapons of war, and they are really more comparable to spears and polearms rather than sidearms. So if we are to throw in claymores into the equation, then we will also have to include those things as well.
John Huang I know, I'm just curious what he (and others) thinks of the logistics. Assuming typical dueling attire, but with the atypical aspect that one has a claymore for some bizarre reason. I know it's a little absurd. I'm honestly asking because I'm going to be animating something along those lines, and obviously I'm giving myself some leeway XD But I'm still curious what an educated opinion would be on the matter. Assuming all else is of a typical duel, does the one have any distinct advantage over the other? Now that I'm thinking about it again, I'm also curious if a buckler or main gauche would help, or if a free hand would be more useful. I dunno, just ruminating.
Anguel Roumenov Bogoev I think Matt has stated numerous times that range is a huge advantage in an unarmored fight provided there is enough space to use it, and that polearms will beats all other comers. As the really big two handed swords really count as polearms, you probably could guess the answer from there. Certainly a buckler or main gauche would help, otherwise historical people wouldnt be carrying around the extra weight would they? ;) Probably the odds still lies with the giant two handed sword rather than the rapier and a main gauche, or an arming sword and a buckler though.
John Huang Yeah, just looked up that the length difference would be 20cm at *minimum*. I guess a steel polearm is just overwhelmingly unfair. Thanks for the input :D
Anguel Roumenov Bogoev Rapier is still at advantage, because of how nimble it is. Except for that, two hander is used with, well, two hands, so in the end, even if the whole weapon is longer, thrust with a rapier ( held in single hand ) is going to fall very short from claymore ( if not beat it, depends on body parameters of fighters ) in terms of range. Yes, rapiers are very durable weapons. Away with the cutting through it / breaking it nonsense. Buckler would change a lot, any kind of offhand protection/weapon always is, because it gives you ability to parry AND attack in the very same second. Grapling isn't much of a deal for rapier fighters, you have enough reach to just hit & run harass your enemy, stepping in witha strike, and then moving away. Reach advantage makes this a very dangerous ( for the opponent ) and safe to execute tactic . And if your footwork is good, chance of grappling situation is minimal. Bucklers for rapierists. ( I'd personally go with a knife though. ) As with the longsword and buckler - depends on the training person received and the tactic he/she is planning to use. Both buckler and free offhand can come in handy ( grappling bit less against the rapier ), although i should mention that the buckler, even if can be used with the longswords and great swords, works the best with arming sword.
"Folded fifty zillion times, and can cut through a tank..."
I laughed
It's funny cause it's true.
A Katana sharp enough to to slice through a Chevy suburban rushing at you at over 40 mph don’t take my word for it ask Larry Fishburne.
that was a joke right? i wasnt sure from way he said it
I have practiced with Japanese swords for decades... while every tool has its job... the katana moonlights as a food processor and is seriously devastating in an elevator or bedroom per ce.
But did you consider the Katanas ability to teleport you behind your opponent leaving them with a huge gash seconds later?
but you can't end them rightly
Natveri no, that's only if you put it back in its sheath once you struck.
Or the katana's ability to cut through space and time???
Thats the wielder or from blades made by the Gods/Dwarves. Though in my expeirience I see it mostly done by superhuman swordsmen.
@@JohnJohnson-kd2vp
Never saw that, where did you see that?
I wouldn't know, I'm still pondering the advantages of the battlestool.
Heft, hand protection AND comfortable mid-battle resting options.
:-)
The strength of the Four Leg style, or the nimbleness of the Three Leg?
I laughed so hard...
Actually, three legged bar stool would have offered reach of a longsword and great bind, provided it were the type in which the legs are joined by steel ring or rings at some intervals.It should make it easy to catch the incoming blade and thus counter a thrust. XD
LOL we should go to the next gen battlestool now, which is actually designed for the purpose
My mind went to two different places at once.
1) A stool that can fold out/morph into a weapon at the press of a button, Final Fantasy XIII style
2) Literally fighting with shit
Either are valid options.
Any time he says sword we take a drink...
+MAXCOBRALAZERFACE I'll see you in A&E
+MAXCOBRALAZERFACE Challenge... accepted.
I'll report back with results!
1 year later... still hasn't reported back. the pour soul
I was varsity saber team in college (yes not sharp bendy steel), as well as Chinese broadsword and Chinese straight sword trained. I have been learning the Iaido (the katana). I believe it really is the quality of your sword instructor, and your dedication and focus. I agree that rapier is a great choice. But if I could have Charlemage's best knight teach me european long sword, then that would always be my choice. The advantage of Chinese and Japanese swordmanship is the tradition and skill set is less broken than with European weapons. The top Wudang and Iaido craft is still around for you to learn. While I love and respect those recreating the European sword fighting traditions, they are re-inventing the wheel to some degree. To re-cast his hypothetical challenge, if I got a year to learn before the duel from a 7th dan Iaido or a Wudang master, or just an SCA guy who is really good I would choose Jian or Katana. But if I had just basic fencing skills, all his points are valid IMHO. You fight with the quality of your instructor and your dedication more than the function of the blade.
A gunblade, a nuclear tipped gunblade!
I generally just would shoot a rapist....
I think it always come back to the rapier. A purpose built weapon for duelling. I too would prefer it over most any thing for a duel up to the firearm, even possibly including the flintlock.
FOLDED 100000 times
SUPERIOR NIHONJIN STEEL
No.
The sword would bend itself before even touching the katana, so afraid it would be.
***** Folded steel katana were actually pretty rare, considering how difficult they were to make, as opposed to other methods like clay tempering. Coating the edge of the blade in clay before quenching the hot metal in water allowed the edge to cool much slower, resulting in harder steel, while the rest of the sword back and core was softer and more flexible. Actually, the reason Japanese blacksmiths developed such difficult techniques is that, well, Japan isn't exactly known for producing lots of steel. They only had access to low quality iron, and had to compensate for that.
+Andrew Winters
some small corrections:
Some folding is an integral part of refining the steel from bloomery/tatara raw material, and necessary to produce a decent base material, like it was also done in pre 1000 A.D. Europe.
Swords might not be laminated, but usually folded.
The back is coated (thicker), not the edge.
Quenching something in water is hardening not tempering, Japanese blades tent to be clay hardened not clay tempered. Tempering refers to heating the hardened steel after quenching, usually to make it less brittle.
... and, folding 100000 times was obviously a joke on Flandre's part, you'd need an oxygen-free environment, magic, or a ridiculously large amount of raw material to do so.
Steel corrodes away rather quickly if you heat it up and hammer on it for about 100 years (at 1 minute per fold, and some time to sleep ... )
+NathanRomml Modern steel does not need to be folded, and you can break Katanas (or any other steel at the time) over your knee. the tech was good 500 years a go its a waste of time now.
I feel the same way about my custom Viennese Backsword, made by Michael Pierce (aka. "Tinker"). The blade is 28 inches. It has a beautiful distal tapper (gauge in thickness of blade and in width) it weighs 1.9 pounds, differentialy heat treated and with a Rockwell of 58. It feels like a large knife in my hands. I have tested in against rapiers, and though difficult, I did well. Problem was I damaged my opponents blade in the process. Good news was they now prefer back swords ;-)
If in a fantasy setting there would be a rapier that can easily penetrate anything it would be a rapier.
I would use the saber because it has 2 defensive parts being the basket for the fingers
and the blunt part of the blade close to the hilt. Also light weapons helps with speed, speed and faints determine the winner and yes faith in God can definitely determine the winner
you should collaborate with skallagrim.
I would say the best sword is the one you're the most skilled at using
great video that leads me to another question: What would you consider to be the best weapon fighting with armor ?(and maybe what armor/weapon combination would you prefer?)
poleaxes, halberd, spears and bidenhanders also included
Spear or pollax in a duel. In formation pike or halberd.
Hey Matt, I love your content, I just wanted to say though you are right about the tsuba being poor deffense to protect the hand, BUT, at the same time the tsuba wasnt really meant to.
The tsuba was mainly used to keep your hand from sliding onto your blade and avoid injury.
And the way the katana is used it doesn't need a big guard to protect your hands it comes with skill.
I hope this changes your outlook at least if only a little bit
I think a katana with a cross guard would look cool and would benefit greatly that'd be sweet, and when I say "kanata" Im using it in the general sense meaning any Japanese sword
And In my opinion a swordsman should pick one sword and stick with it instead of worrying about which sword is "better" than another, All sword have your strengths and weaknesses. If you train with one type of sword faithfully you will become way more efficient and true in your style and technique and you will know your sword well.
At the end of the day it all comes down to skill. And stamina lol.
Still, a larger crossguard opens up a lot of defensive and offensive options. You can't Zornhau with a katana, for instance.
Give me the rapier every time! Excellent choice.
From here I'm going to watch the duel in Rob Roy.
The SAMURAI sword is proven to be the best sword for battle and duel combat.
lol
scholagladiatoria
lol ????
I'm talking scientific fact. Because of the way it's made (folding) it is stronger, more flexible and won't blunt when contact is made with hard metallic substances.
That is not true, the reason why they folded it was to distribute the carbon in the steel and to remove impurities. If Old Japanese sword smiths had access to our modern steel they would be thrilled. They made steel in a huge fire put that burned for 2 or 3 days and then they took out sponge steel and folded it. They had to do that because they didnt have a better process.
When the first katanas were created & Used in battle not a single blade was broken or had a single dent. So you are wrong. Some of these blades are still on show in japan.
Nice bait
Very interesting, thanks! If you weren't restricted to one weapon - say in the old musketeering manuals where you had a 17 inch second weapon would your choice remain the same or change? Agreed from very limited experience that the lighter the weapon the faster you can move it so with Toledo steel a rapier would be very hard to beat one to one but does that advantage lower against multiple blades or am I still going to get my fore-arm opened from a distance? My ancestors preferred distance weapons for the first four opponents then .... :-)
The best sword for any type of fight is the one you have. lol in all seriousness tho i would likely pick the saber for the greater utility. Rapiers are specialized and that means while it does have a good thrust you know how its going to come at you 99% of the time. Its a lot easier to defend against when you know how the attack is going to come as with the saber there is a versatility which will keep an opponent guessing how you will attack and feints have more options.
The rapier can also cut quite effectively. Several manuals such as Giganti show different techniques for cutting and defending from cuts with rapiers. Granted, you won't decapitate the opponent, but it'll be bad enough. Saber is still a really good choice for this fight though.
What if you were allowed shield, and also spears which would you pick?
"The one in my hand." Said the Victor.
Weapon choice provides logistical advantages which make someone more likely to be the "victor."
@@davidm8135 Yup and i've won with almost every weapon Vs every other type of weapon. So whichever one is in my hand is the best one ^^
Shouldn't only weapons of the same time period be compared?
Of course a late-19th-century sword can be more lightweight, longer and yet stronger and be given additional bonus points of construction while due to the widespread use of firearms armor and helmets were no longer in use.
Ok but you didn't show sabre
lol, he said balisong, how you gonna fight someone with a butterfly knife? kill him with your sick flips?
Spear. Lindybeige sent me.
....can a katana cut off an elephant's trunk?
PresidentWordSalad it's just soft tissue, probably a rapier could do it.
Being an expert fencer I’d use the sabre
So, for a 1vs1 duel, you'll pick the swords that were designed for 1vs1 duels.
Sounds good.
gustavo iglesias i know he is a genius i would go for a pike before this video
And no ive never been in a duel untill tomorrow were im gonna fight the general cause i accidentaly killed his horse
exactly...the rapier is kind of the evolutionary peak of 1v1 duelling weapons. Rapiers came along BECAUSE backswords and longswords were at a disadvantage to them in that context. What always has struck me as odd is how little the katana/tachi evolved over the, what, 500+ or so years it was being actively used? I mean, a sword made in the 20th century for the Imperial army in ww2 wasn't substantially different in design to one made in the 14-1500s. You don't see that in western weapons. A 14-1500s infantry officer's sword compared to an 1800's one in European or American use? WAY different in almost every way.
roentgen571 katanas where used up untill 1877
@@viggoeriksson878 they were used during WW2.
Personally, I’d pick an uzi
Thank you so much. I have a duel coming up to acquire my local land owners daughter through combat. I was initially going to use a can of hair spray and a lighter but i found the rapier to be better suited to the task. Once again thanks! Duels happen every day gotta be ready.
Daniel W. for real? if so, where at?
They should come back, especially if you'd like a polite civil society. There is a reason they repealed the carrying of swords in Texas last year. Better than that, why do you think people conceal carry?
That happened to me once. I was about to go to a duel wielding a whole frozen chicken violently mounted on a plunger handle. On my way i found a desperate crackhead with a 9mm. Other dude had a knowife. Ten bucks and a frozen chicken is all it cost for me to win that duel. His daughter was a bitch tho. Wasnt worth it. I really wanted to eat that chicken.
@Johannes Liechtenauer (Invader Zim voice) MMMhhhhhmmmm..... CHICKEN!
LOL, Briliant. Can of Hairspray and a Lighter.
Conclusion ( 15:35 ) "That doesn't make me want to be a rapierist, I want to learn how to beat rapierists."
This is the argument I was having with the police too.
Wait what?
Nani?!
Broad sword or heavy sword
Epic comment!!!
epee... officer, not a rapier. she got it wrong when she yelled rapierist. lol
"Assuming he's not a complete noob" he says, to an audience of noobs.
Not complete noobs. Any who watch the video are alightly less noobs and therefore better than any noobish opponent.
How dare you sir! I have been offended and now demand satisfaction!
**sniff** I mean , I guess...
@@blackscales7830 and only a noob would think watching swords on UA-cam makes you less noob, says the guy watching sword videos when I don’t own one.
@@ED-es2qv well I think it's safe to say we've learned something from the video. Especially since he directly points out how to counter noob tactics.
"I don't need to cut through a buffalo here or cut an elephants trunk off........."
Clearly I clicked on the wrong video.
You never know Spenc?
lol
But definitely fragile humans wear armour gears which are tuff protection to break this Baldy talks half assed talk
@@mdshafqatulhaq8515 the scenario is not armored duel. then his answer would be different. you dont understand english very well maybe
Hi folks - I want to add something on the effectiveness of thrusts vs. cuts. Yes it is true that there are historical examples of thrusts not stopping opponents. There are examples of someone getting run through (or even shot) and then going on to disable or kill their opponent. However, there are even MORE examples of people getting thrust and just dying! The real danger of making the thrust is twofold: 1) that the blade can get trapped in a person's body for long enough that you are undefended, either from their dying blow or from someone else attacking you, and 2) that the thrust has so little resistance that the person dying on the end of your weapon can come close enough to deal you a wound as they die or become incapacitated (this is why boar spears have lugs/wings, to keep the boar at bay, perhaps). However, there are LOTS of accounts of people getting thrust once through the body or head and becoming incapacitated or dying very quickly. It didn't happen all the time, but it happened often - and still does. If we look at modern crime stabbings, you'll see that sometimes people survive multiple stab wounds and sometimes people die from just one stab wound. It all depends on where the stab lands and what it damages (but remember a rapier penetrates much deeper than a knife, so will generally do more damage). Lastly, whilst it's fair to say that many stabs do not proove fatal, it is even MORE true to say that many cuts do not proove incapacitating. Cuts sometimes fail to cause any injury worth noting at all - across a wide period of history this has been noted. Many sources note that you can survive multiple cuts, but rarely survive multiple stabs. Quite simply also, it is easier to mess up a cut than a thrust. Cutting effectively enough to incapacitate a person is more difficult than poking someone with a pointy object. Cutting is more natural for humans (as we are a bludgeoning species like apes), but thrusting is statitically more likely to seriously wound. Remember lastly that a thrust that hits a hand or arm may well penetrate through and hit something else as well (like a gunshot) or travel up inside a limb, causing huge amounts of tissue damage. Thrusts penetrate SO easily and thrusts with an edged weapon cut as they penetrate as well. Cuts do not penetrate so easily, as they face much greater surface resistance.
All of your points make sense when understanding why a rapier would defeat any other one-handed sword, but I'm still surprised you'd take one over a longsword. Especially when considering the possibility of trading blows.
***** Trading blows? One fairly decent cut or thrust and you are fucking done, let me reiterate don't get fucking hit in 90% of fights the first real hit decides the outcome of a fight.
Hello Matt ! I the Cut VS Thrust is a never ending debate, I believe that thrusting swords are more effective in a cavalry charge but the cutting ones are far better in a melée , cutting swords can do apalling injuries to an opponent for example cutting a limb or cleaving a head , also cutting blades will not get stuck into the enemy's body . I think thrusts are more lethal in general but the cuts are more terrible ( Pscycological effect) .In the end i would say that each sword is designed to do a specific job . LOL i prefer two carry two swords a thrusting one for the charge and a cutting one for a melée. Take care and have a good day :)
Rami Bairi Thrust in a cavalry charge? Well, some armies through the years have agreed with you, notably Napoleon's Grande Armee, but I don't see it. You're far too much at risk of impaling a foot soldier TOO effectively, and getting your blade stuck in them, meaning you either have to let go and be disarmed, or hold on and be unhorsed.
Robin Hersom Hell sir I hope u're fine , Yeah the thrust has so many disadvantages despite its effectivennes.But i have mentioned the thrust in a cavalry charge because it was done particulary by heavy cavalry like the French cuirassiers, and it was accepted by almost all armies and this is a proof that it was effective. All books and descriptions tell us about the use of the point " thrust" from horseback by European armies of the 18 and 19 th centuries.
Many people commenting on this video have stated that they would cut through a rapier with their longsword/katana or whatever - you need to watch this: ua-cam.com/video/cFRxZod-iI0/v-deo.html
Bernard Tremblay
if they broke why would they be so popular for so long?
What i mean is breakages must not have been common or they wouldn't have been such popular and famous weapons
Something I noticed from the other video, would hitting the raiper really hard not give you a massive opening? Ie a breaking force blow that connects would the shock not give you an opening?
Also I do wonder if the person is more important than the weapon? Ie would a Gurka with a kukri beat most sword users. Would your Sabre not give you more of an advantage in skill level?
we are taking the person out of the equation assuming its two people who are of equal skill, experience, physical ability and physical + mental attributes
Sherratt Pemberton Sorry, think I wrote that really badly. I was trying to get across would a Kukri user of Matt's skill level not have anti-sword/bayonet drills from the start? Would a Katana user not just treat it like a spear? Does its speed and range get counted by how the other user is used to dealing with that sort of attack? I think the thing that bothers me is why did the sabre carry on when the raiper existed? Is there some sort of killing (war) weapon vs dueling weapon thing going on?
The keyboard is a perfect sword in online discussions xd
Oof
Witty :)
Alas, the pen is no longer so mighty as the sword. It is, as the youth of our day say, the board upon which keys lie.
Don't forget the armchair!
Impenetrable defense behind the screen!!
I studied kendo and kenjutsu for 15 years and everything you said about the katana as a weapon is spot on. It is a great weapon in some respects but it was really intended for use wearing lamellar armor and in a particular tactical context. In kendo competitions, one of the most common points scored is the "kote" strike to the hands/wrists. It doesn't take much practice before even a decently talented novice can successfully score that point. You learn defenses to avoid the strike but the bottom line is your hands and wrists are more exposed than they might be with a sword of a different design.
Finally, someone who's honest.
Why can't you add a rapier-like handguard to a katana?
@@eljanrimsa5843 He said that the armor compliments the sword, so a handguard is unneeded.
Of course, but a katana was thought to be used in a batteflied by people in armour. You can also easily strike hands of a knight wearing a longsword with a sword, but if you are using metal gauntlets with padding (and that is valid for knights AND samurai) you can for the most part shrug at sword hits at your hands.
@@eljanrimsa5843 It makes no sense. a katana is a sowrd designed to be used MAINLY two handed, in a battlefield, by people who wear armor to fight other people who possibly also wear armour. The rapier is exactly the opposite.
Best sword for 1 on 1 duel is a spear.
its actually a glock but i'll let it pass
@@chrisw7188 depending on the size and shape of the arena you could give it to the sniper, or even some other rifle
Hold my howitzer.
@Tuzcuoğlu no they don't
MOAB 😂
> Says the weapon has to be longsword length or less.
> Picks rapier because it's longer than the longsword.
I like the video, but this was pretty funny to me.
I was thinking the exact same! 😆
To be fair he did address this point by talking about how one could use a long-sword of rapier length. The advantage he was pointing to is that one has a much greater degree of control with a rapier at its maximum reach given its weight etc.
In fact a longsword can reach 1.4m or even become just a little shorter than a two-handed great sword. With that length longsword can carry out a serious blow to the rapierist's leg or fore arm. Statistics do change things. In some cases an experienced rapierist may lose against another experienced swordman using a 1.3m long feder. I doubt wether a rapier is generally longer than.a long sword, because most longswords I meet are no shorter than 1.2m.
Also, though hand protection and nimble thrust are advantages, longswords are primarily two handed weapon which means they are very strong in binding. Longswords can, in most cases, strike much more frequently, giving it chances to do false attack and mislead the enemy or perform couter attack. Rapier can also do so but it's weaker in this area, and this video supposes the rapier using no buckler and no dagger. I dont think the rapier is still in advantage facing a longsword that is longer in blade.
Yeah its a tad inconsistent.
Rapiers are within longsword length. There's not just one size of longsword, there are those longer or shorter than your average rapier
My choice : A ball pen, for the pen is mightier than the sword....
You can simply slander your opponent until he is shunned from the public eye, forced to take his own life in complete shame!
The penis mightier than the sword...
To quote terry Pritchett “provided the sword is very small and the pen is very sharp”
Anton Short or provided the pen isn’t in the same room as the sword
Until the sword is about to plunge in you, then youll know the pen wasn t mightier then the sword
I think Indiana Jones did it best.
XD You just made my day.
I don't call it cheating, I call it winning.
if you actually look at him you can see how ill he is - he's dripping with sweat
The sword with the biggest pommel is the best for 1v1 duel
+X Infinity No, the sword with the most hand protection is best for a duel.
I was almost certain he was going to go with the basket hilt claymore for his number one pick.
Where is the light saber? It says historical fencing and light sabers where used a long long time ago.
...In a galaxy far far away ;-)
Just throw a bunch of rocks at the light saber, hopefully the blade melts the rocks, and hits the jedi with a bunch motlen rock pieces.
An elegant weappon from a better age
Lol
@@maxmuller445 a more civilized age
I watch these kind of things before I make a character in a Dark Souls game.
Yes! Dark Souls player character creation is also what brought me here.
Fuck this video, I'm going straight for the great scythe when Dark Souls 3 arrives.
+PerfectSnowball Lol, it's all about having fun at the end. Scythes can be a decent anti-cavalry weapon in a real life context. However, there are more efficient polearms for fighting people on foot.
Robert R
lmao [hits u w/ a tree trunk]
+SolidBren Not the kind featured in Dark Souls. Those are good for cutting grass, not so much blokes in armor.
"How to beat rapierists"
My sides have reached escape velocity.
Citizen_Butt easy, grab a bigger weapon and suit up into your plate armour.
Marcellus but muh fencing
@@RockerMarcee96 Лучше нету каратэ, чем мой старенький ТТ
@@RockerMarcee96 just suiting up is enough lol
I came here only for the dumb comments I knew I would find. I wasn't let down.
Yeah. It's about 70% the same crappy jokes repeated over-and-over. 29% serious but dumb comments.
So glad we served you well, that was the whole intent... fuck!!!!!!!
@@mmestari and the remaining 1% are discerning intelligent people like you and me, eh?
Neckbeards love katanas.
Well, that was a stupid comment.
My opponent brings a sword to a duel ? Too bad for him, Indiana Jones showed me how to deal with this situation.
*Always* bring a gun to a sword duel.
The katana can create shock waves that will instantly kill the opponent
+Sigurd Torvaldsson The shock wave consists of a broken katana.
+Sigurd Torvaldsson But they don't have a pommel to throw at an opponent.
+Sigurd Torvaldsson But only if your heath is full.
+Sigurd Torvaldsson Skill opened only in 80Lvl.
+Sigurd Torvaldsson *dies* ROTFLMAO!!!
I'd be pretty upset at being forced to use any weapon in a fight to the death...
Ah a true gentleman.
Fisticuffs it is!
I prefer pistols, I'm too fat to run and too old to take an ass beating, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with my aim my adrenaline control or my pain tolerance.
@@mrspeigle1 Your frankness is refreshing
folded a zillion times and can cut though a tank.
T.J. Hollidge Maybe a light saber
T.J. Hollidge Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword!
It made me chuckle
Arthur Mongelli As a Warhammer 40k player, this sums it up... that and CHAINSAWS!
"Rapierists"
like to dig another hole
when you drop your kid of at the new kindergarten and the teachers ask what you do
He's not a rapist - honest!
4:10 deal with Rapists with my Saber!!!
The Rapierist's sword has a lot of thrusting power if you know what I mean.
But the rapier is vulnerable to the “Neeson Maneuver”. Just ask Tim Roth!
Not a rapier, but kind of "spadroon-ish" type of sword.
I see.
1) Take rapier or estoc
2) Spam R1
3) You win
:D
#MetaWeapons
haha
#Danksouls
Respawning....
I was about to make the same joke :D
The best sword is a chain sword.
Alternatively a sword that contains the soul of a demon is very effective as well.
Good choices.
Swords whose blades are made of laser are also pretty nice.
But but but. A katana doesn't need a long blade since they shoot laser beams whenever you swing them. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. I'll have you know I watched 50,000 ninja movies so I'm an expert on this subject.
+Quartz Yeah, but do YOU use it? Have you ever practiced? You can't learn just by watching T.V. and experts; you need to apply it in context and try it out for yourself. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about! And since when, in real life (NOT TV), have swords ever shot laser beams, that is a little too sci-fi!
+Samuel Franceschi you took this a little too seriously.
No shit, I'm a serious guy
And that's why you clearly failed to perceieve the sarcasm in that comment.
No kidding
“Folded fifty-zillion times and can cut through tanks“ fking dead
Often when i want to kill someone in a one on one fight, i pick the Sabre. Next time i will try the Rapier- Thanks!
but what if your opponent chooses a longsword, then proceeds to throw his pommel at you?
Then you're dead
+Ola Johannesson Borge Well, then you've been ended rightly.
Throw the Pommel? As in unscrew it and hurl it like a missile, or just use it as a cudgel, while still attached? Surely, in either case, these tactics could be sidestepped, and if he take his pommel OFF and misses (it would surely take a LONG time to detach) then he's completely unbalanced, and dismantled, his own weapon...he's toast. haha
Gary Ormond We know this, Skall has explained it in his video about it. And we're talking hurling it like a missile. Have you never heard of this joke before?
Bro... you wouldn't EVER use that move in the arena unless you want to kill everyone around you (the audience) too.
The katana grew up in a Japan: a closed society with a closed miliary, combat and weapons ethos - European swords evolved through a highly competitive history spanning many years, confilicts, and nations. So the katana "evolved" to be as good as a katana could be, excellent but limited by its context whereas European swords REALLY evolved in the unrestricted, open sense.
Thank you! Many people try to compare the two regions or say the Japanese were better when it simply isn't true! Up until the 20th century, Japan was a mostly isolationist country. This combined with a small relative population and limited iron resources meant they had far less opportunity to experiment than the West did. They were good, but no match for Western Europe.
Let's not replace one stereotype with another stereotype. The katana may not be some magical lightsaber, but Japanese swords are not stagnant either. The katana has its origins (basic shape, forging techniques, etc) in ancient and medieval China, and the modern shape of the katana evolved in Japan. The predecessors/prototypes of the katana experienced plenty of unrestricted open warfare. The katana also wasn't the only type of Japanese sword around, as Japan did have other types of swords such as straight swords, two handed swords, and polearm-sword hybrids.
@@CoffeeSnep That isn't true either. The Japanese swords aren't better, but let's not go to the other end of the extreme by denigrating them and claiming they weren't a match for Western Europe. The predecessors/prototypes of the katana was in ancient and medieval China, and they experienced plenty of development and opportunities to experiment in unrestricted warfare. By the time the katana shaped swords were evolving in Japan, the Japanese had been engaged in/would engage in wars against the Mongols, Manchus, Korean kingdoms, Ming Empire, etc. The katana was just one type of sword in Japan - the Japanese had other types of swords too (including straight swords, two handed swords, polearm swords, etc). Japan also wasn't that closed of a society - they were highly influenced by trade, exchange of ideas, and wars with continental Asia.
@@Intranetusa the katana was a nice sword, and the Japanese had a lot of great stuff. I'm not trying to say they didn't. My intention was to provide reason as to why I believe European weapons (swords in particular) evolved to have significantly more variety than in Japan. The Japanese had plenty of swords, but many of them were quite similar except for length. Japan wasn't entirely isolationist I know, but while they had contact with parts of eastern Asia, Europe had contact with most of the civilized world; with trade going from the middle East to Russia to China and so forth.
The Japanese were and are a very respectable people, but there are practical reasons to explain why many parts of Europe had more advancements, rather than yelling that one is better than the other without reason, as I very often see people do.
@@CoffeeSnep I think one major reason why "European swords" have more variety than "Japanese swords" is because Europe has 27x-28x the area/landmass of Japan and had 11x-12x the population of Japan (90 million vs 8 million) by 1500 AD. So significantly more people with significantly more space will naturally lead to more diversity. Yes, you are correct that Europe also did have more contacts with other areas of the world like the Middle East. However, to make it a fair comparison, we should compare swords in Japan to swords in one European country with a similar population and area (like Spain or something).
How to defend yourself from rapierists...Well don't dress provocatively.
Considering that the rapier is a thrusting weapon, I see a little connection between both topics.
I agree. Shame I hate rapiers.
+Lazy Spark look at a schiavonna or backsword both give most of the same advantages and only sacrifice length to take back some cutting ability and parrying strength
chargar1122 Hmm. I'm liking the look of the schiavonna.
+chargar1122 ohh wow, schiavonna is freakkn awesome xo
Yes, but you have to buff rhe rapier whit Darkmoon Blade and spam r1
dracopo .... r1 spam ? Parry !!!!!!
Laughs in poise
_tis been patched..._
Also , it's estoc not rapier.
Nothing wrong with having a good blaster at your side.
Mr Jones?
Kangal No Han Solo.
Funny its the same guy.
So uncivilized
Okay.
[switches his EDC to a wooden box with a T-shaped plunger handle for detonating dynamite.]
I don't get people's obsession with katanas, it's a nice weapon sure and great at cutting but most people wouldn't be trained with a katana and in a regular fight with someone who has mild understanding of how to use a sword, when it comes to practicality I prefer to use a long sword type of weapon. The good thing about long swords are their ability to break bone and cut as well. Plus I don't really see much parrying when it ones to katana use. If someone with a long sword blocked my katana slice, it could damage my blade. I have nothing against katanas it's just I don't see the obsession with the weapon because it sure as hell isn't the perfect weapon.
+Carlos Contreras
I can't speak for everyone of course, but I really like the craftsmanship, and the spirituality that surrounds the sword.
And they're simple looking beautiful swords.
If I was to pick a weapon for actual fighting, I would go with the schiavona :-)
Katanas are overhyped as fighting swords. They lack the defensive qualities of other swords like longswords, rapiers, and most military sabres.
Part of why katanas don't have some of those features is because of different philosophies of fighting (more emphasis on foot work and spacing than parrying and binding of blades). The katana is also just an older design of sword that many others of its time lacked in features as well. It's impressive how long it stayed in service over history!
I think people are just attracted to them, because of their ornateness. Hand made Japanese swords can look really artistic. European swords can be extremely ornate as well, but overall they tend to be more utilitarian and emphasize usefulness/practicality in an actual fight.
...and people are just weaboos. Lmao.
Japanese cartoons hyped the shit out of katanas. It was conveyed as a symbol of japanese culture, pride, discipline. These cartoons were originally aimed at japanese boys. American boys like Quentin Tarantino bought the hype when they watched the japanese cartoons. So now you have this huge group of people that need to be taught that, uhh, no, katana is about as overrated as muscle cars.
Katanas weren't used that much in large-scale battles. They were usually reserved for duels. The Naginata was the primary weapon used in battles.
A katana with a Slightly longer then average blade, and a D shaped handguard with a cross guard would be (in my mind) a “perfect” katana.
Blend of “both worlds” in a way.
In a LARP I played in, the head rulesmaker, who was a Kendo and katana weeabo, changed the rules so that hand hits didn't count as a hit because he and the other Katana wielders were getting killed by hand hits.
Your hands are incredibly vulnerable in the forward presenting stance and a katana.
+shortstop4313 Really? Wow, it's like the annoying childhood friend who changes the game's rules when he is at a disadvantage :)
"Hand on weapon" not counting as a hit is a common rule in LARP/foam fighting to leave room for creativity in the types of weapons used. Granted, this rule does inevitably lead to "punch blocking" as veterans of the sport follow the line of logic "the closer to my hand the opponent's blade impacts, the more leverage I have to parry with" to the extreme.
Next video, katana vs. tank
katana+tank vs. pommel
Goldfish tank or SCUBA tank?
I would've first produced my pistol, and then produced my rapier.
Stand and Deliver or the devil he may take ya
"I saaaaaid a Kareeem Abdul Jabaaaaarr" or something like that
Musha ring dum a doo dum a da...
"crying stand and deliver, for he were a bold deceiver"
I would a first kicked that Jenny to the curb.
ssssooo, basically you're saying that the best sword for a 1-on-1 duel is a sword that was specifically designed for that purpose? sound dubious at best... i think one air pressure slash or ground elemental attack from a ranged katana would cut a rapier into atoms
Rapier is 300 years more advanced. Toledan steel is not only more flexible, but also stronger and sharper than any medieval japanese steel.
@@principetanguero His comment was... somewhat sarcastic to say the least.
I'd pick a spas 12.
A sword is a type of bladed weapon.
yeah but other than knowing which end of a sword to hold, I would be utterly inept at using one. :)
Slap a bayonet on it.
A sword with a bayonet affixed, what a sight to behold.
With a bipod attached too - for long range encounters.
I feel like the style of sword I'd be happy to rely on for this idea of random encounter 1v1 would have to be a transitional sidesword.
Something like the munich town guard.... A proto-rapier with a blade like an elongated arming sword and the guard of a rapier.
Sure you wouldn't have the reach of a rapier or longsword but you'd have the guard for good parry and riposte as well as the power to deny similar actions if facing a rapier.
Kinda late with the reply, but arguably that's the reason why basket-hilted swords are second place on Matt's list (which evolved from the complex-hilted swords of the Renaissance).
Why not a side sword? Nice mix of the longsword and the rapier, grip and cutting/stabbing versatility of the longsowrd, hand protection and reach of a rapier.
It's not as long, because it has to be wider to deliver good cutting blows.
a side sword is onehanded and therefore nothing like a longsword and far too small to be sompared with a rapier.
It is comparable to a basket hilt broadsword in lighter.
To be honest I don't think there is any real difference between a sidesword, basket-hilted broadsword or a sabre. They are so much in the same ballpark that you can more or less call them the same swords, for the purposes of this video.
Fair enough, my bad. Sorry, I'm more of a firearms guy than swords, just now getting into them. Thanks for the info, everyone!
The sidesword/broadsword/sabre is, IMO, the most versatile, do-it-all sword. Rapiers are made for dueling, though, so in a one-on-one situation, they're the way to go. If you may end up in a mixed-weapons melee, sidesword wouldn't be a bad choice by any means.
Estoc bestoc
Indeed, fuck the meta.
Hype train much?
Well the estoc is basically the rapier, only adapted for armored opponents.
Even 16th century koncerz is not exactly the best dueling weapon, lacking slightly in hand protection though not agility - no basket or swept hilt. Designed to be used by heavy cavalry. These are longer than many rapiers so could have an advantage.
An earlier estoc would be even less desirable, these had crossguards and were not as long.
There is a reason there were specialized dueling swords and most of them thrust oriented.
Lightsaber is still best
very true,
Its not funny to make rapierist jokes. Some people have actually been rapiered. Have to take some things seriously you guys.
"i prefer the extra length" That's what she said. Great video though.
Haha
LOL !
I had this from a workshop about Renaissance-era weaponry and I can't entirely vouch for the instructor, so I don't know how reliable it is, but his contention was that the rapier was designed specifically for 1-on-1 duels in the narrow alleyways of Italian cities. This accounts for why they felt it worthwhile to sacrifice cutting ability to favor lightness, speed, and reach: The alleys were too narrow for any cuts except to the head.
Your best video yet, Matt. Very informative and I'm glad you shared your reasoning behind all your decisions.
And actually made me laugh out loud at the katana analysis!
Thanks :-)
This analysis is exactly what I was looking for when I searched "which sword is the strongest against all other swords."
Although, now it makes me want videos which expand the scenario further and further, such as "what is the strongest non-ranged non-polearm weapon in a one-on-one fight" or how those rankings change if different types of armor are thrown into the mix.
Out of interest, in the equivalent duel in full plate harness, what weapon would you choose?
+Robert R That's for a future video :-)
A 0.50 caliber sniper rifle with a x10 night vision scope, you did not specify a sword
Isaac Doggart True :) I was leaving it open to include various polearms. I suppose I should say "in a duel in full plate harness what contemporary weapon would you choose?"
+Robert R I assume you do not get a shield, the duel starts at close range and there are no horses? If so I think I would go for long greek sword (kopis maybe) or a 1800ish British naval boarding sword, or just a nice big crossbow shot from the hip.
Isaac Doggart well no missile weapons, would you really want a kopis or cutlass against someone with a halberd?
You are reasonable man.
Timbyte I
Maybe you should have a grammar and spelling competition.
I think a longsword would have an advantage over the rapier as far as trying to deflect. If you get the jump on someone the rapier would be great, but I don't think it would do very well clashing against a longsword because of weight and mass. I'm not saying you couldn't parry a longsword with a Rapier, but I think it would be more difficult; especially head on. Not to mention a Rapier is only truly effective at thrusting, making you draw your arm back to go for the kill leaving yourself vulnerable and making your attacks predictable.
im fencing in my freetime and trust me if your a good fencer with a rapier you are soooo much better than sb with a longsword because if the rapier isnt too heavy you do some random stuff wait for the other one to shift his weapon to one side and if you sting then he wont see that coming that quick he could do much about it. you just have to watch the distance isnt too close and the other one doesnt shatter your blade but it is easy to maneuver your blade to avoid that
Tip of advice for katana fanatics: watch the damn video all the way through before ranting. His review of the katana, in my opinion, was fairly good. He wouldn't complain much if he had to fight with it, and he said its offensive capabilities are at an exceptionally good level. Heck, it was similar to his review of the arming sword. All they lacked was the hand protection. See? So really, there's no reason to get butthurt.
Leroy Gallagher That's true. Everyone and their mothers know that a katana can obviously cut through nuclear bomb shelters like it was butter.
Katana can't melt steel beams! Clearly, this is an inside job!
Reading through the comments I have found only one comment that is defending the katana and well over 10 comments that bash katanas and katana fans. It's the same in the comments of pretty much any video that features a comparison of katanas and European weapons.
I like gladius a lot
What about a spear or in this scenario only swords are available
First off, for all of the people making gun comments, stop it. You're not clever, you're not cute. You're just wasting time. For those who keep saying "it's not the weapon, it's the wielder", this is assuming that both fighters are equal in skill. So you're not saying anything special either. We all know that a master swordsman is going to beat a novice swordsman regardless of the weapon.
A person with a brain! Thank you! :-D
Well said!
Yes, a self-appointed fun-police officer is EXACTLY what UA-cam needs right now. Keep up your important, original, and most serious work, shadowknyght.
*knight
but would a novice gunsman beat a master swordsman?
I love the katana, But its really is not the super blade people think it is.
In fact its a shit blade. Specifically a compromise of poor quality iron and abismally shit smithery.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 Not as abysmal as your spelling.
I need no channel youtube!
Certainly not shit, the steel and forging techniques used to make Japanese swords was on par with Europe up until the proliferation of the blast furnace. Even then, lots of quality steel was imported from China, which was some of the best in the world.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 That makes zero sense. The steel used to make a sword has nothing to do with the type of sword made. Unless you are assuming that people only make European swords out of spring steel, and katanas get the shitty low carbon leftovers for some strange reason.
Blasphemer!
I really don't give a shit. I'm just bored, and it's way past my bedtime.
Katana...with longer blade, proper hand-guard and if possible modern steel... KRIEGSMESSER/SWISS SABER
woah, an intelligent human being. Weird
A long sword with a modern ak47 attached.
Gorki XXX Would be not very useful. Not maneuverable enough to be a sword and too long and unwieldy to be an effective gun
Gorki XXX Combination weapons are fairly useless, don't do it.
ShellPie Boring people..
I'd use the sabre over the rapier. The rapier was what first came to mind when the rules for this hypothetical situation were stated, but I like the sabre's versatility which gives you enough extra combat options to offset the reach difference.
As a sabre specialist, as someone who loves sabres, but also as someone who fences against rapiers regularly, let me tell you that the rapier has the advantage in a one-on-one fight. It is a marked advantage.
scholagladiatoria The only worry I got with a rapier is that it produces tiny holes and if you don't place the hit well it might not even be noticed by the enemy that would disable you with any sabre hit. There were enough cases were people actually ran up the rapier blade to hilt to cut down their attacker and succeded (but often died thereafter).
scholagladiatoria loved this vid. As far was western blades are concerned, I agree with you. I much prefer a to use a sabre (curved blades in general). I actually have two questions for you.
1-which sabre do you prefer?
2-I'm looking for a good book on sabre combat to study on. Are there any that you can personally recommend?
edi The problem about "tiny holes" is that they are more likely to be deadly than cuts. In the good old "de re military" of "Vegetius", a roman, it is widely explained why thrust was deadly : it goes deep, it hit frequently an organ, and is rarely stopped by a bone. Cuts goes superficial, rarely touch an organ and is generally blocked by bones, . Thrust have not to be very strong, it can pierce deep without too much force. If you want your cut to be good, it must be well made AND must be strong enough to slice through. (even if our body is vulnerable)
The source is ancient, but it has never failed to be true. Most of the moves in "medieval" manuals are piercing.
Conclusion: if cuts are not strong, they have to be numerous to be deadly. Victims of knifes attacks in real life are often dead or badly wounded when hit once by the knife, when using piercing. When using slashing, you see often a lot of cuts on the victim and some stays alive after that. (but the physiological shock is enormous and can kill)
That's why those "tiny holes" just can't stop to amaze me !
*****
I think Matt once stated in his video that while thrust are more likely to be deadly, cuts are more likely to stop an opponent fighting. Severing a few fingers or a thumb on the sword hand or hamstringing an opponent does not take a lot of strength when done with the proper technique and a sharp sword, and would generally render your opponent quite helpless.
There were many instances in history of rapier fighters being run through multiple times and only dying quite a while after. Like Matt said in his videos, a rapier fighter must be sure that he is not exposing himself to a counterattack as he is lunging for a kill. He really cannot depend on his thrust "stopping" his opponent dead on the spot (hence no practice of "tagging" as done in modern sport fencing), and must be prepared for a prolonged fight.
www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php
Most knife attacks in modern times involve multiple stab wounds, often dozens, and the majority of people stabbed actually survived, given modern medical treatment.
I still think a rapier is the best weapon for unarmored one-on-one encounter, but I would take Vegetius' statement with a large dose of salt. After all if the Romans believed so absolutely in the thrust why didn't they use a long thrusting-oriented weapon, and opt for one so broad-bladed and obviously very capable of cutting?
Knights of St John went to rapiers against Islamic invaders of Malta, and won.
They didn't use rapiers exactly - they were mostly using sideswords. But most of the fighting was done with missile weapons and polearms. Swords are just sidearms in most situations, not primary weapons.
The single instance, in fact, where I can think of a sword NOT being just a sidearm would be the gladius for the Roman legions.
@@mooneyes2k478 And they primarily used the Polymer didn't they?
...polymer? Sorry, not clear on what you mean?
Could be, I suppose, yeah. If so, then no. The legionnaires used, primarily, the gladius. Though the pilum was part of the standard equipment, this is true.
“Weapon must be longsword length or less” & immediately chooses weapon longer than a long sword. Best way to win a duel is to cheat😈
longer than that particular longsword he used for illustrative purposes, not nessisarily longer than any and all long swords there's quite alot of variation
0:32 - "I'm going to keep it brief"
Video length: 15 minutes 43 seconds
That IS brief, believe me.
Lindy : "I'll keep it short"
Video : 1.5 hours long
Trust me , that's short.
I would chose... RUN AWAYYYYYY!!!
Wild sillaari got away safely.
there are alternatives to fighting :D
I choose farting in their general direction
[Frenchie] That's right run! Just like the hamster your mother was! (Continues cursing with French accent.)
Rapierist - my new favorite English word
Rapier is the most optimal weapon to rapier your opponent.
"..to *rapier* opponent."
Am I seriously the only person who loves the Katana but doesn't think it's the go to weapon that beats all others and cuts through anything?
Nope. I love it & think it a fine weapon, but for many situations it wouldn't be my go to weapon either.
Not at all, I like the katana, looks good, the making method is interesting to me, but I don't say that it will cut through an other blade if you pull it from the scabbard from your back, in reverse grip.
No, I'm the same way. I *do* think that Matt is mildly underestimating the tsuba's utility as a handguard in this video; tsuba meant to go on a katana in serious combat were often quite a bit more robust than the one on his and pretty effective at stopping an opponent's blade sliding down onto your hands. Most of the rest of his points on it are totally valid though--reach is its biggest weakness against a lot of other swords. Not insurmountable a weakness, but a weakness nevertheless.
Jukkaimaru
Yes but not as effective as a crossguard + sidering or the rapier/smallsword/saber handguard.
*****
Yep--that's why I said *mildly* underestimating it. A Euro crossguard gives you much better margin for error, ESPECIALLY with side rings. But a good solid metal tsuba will at least cover the top of your fist and should arrest a blade well enough without buckling.
I would imagine that the best weapon to take into your scenario would be the one you are trained best in. Training is just about always far more important than the tool.
Even if you are fighting someone with far more experience than you in using a long sword, if you have a spear, you still have a little advantage, as long as you have the same physical condition
Hi Matt, great video and thanks for all your work on the channel. I was wondering if you had seen the film Alatriste with Viggo Mortensen. It features some very nice duels with rapiers and also some nice battle scenes - but are they authentic?
Well, films can never be truly authentic. But I really liked the fighting in the film, it was very well done. I just wish that they had employed a better editor and constructed the story in a more coherant way.
scholagladiatoria A better editor and a better director and a better scriptwriter. As much as I enjoyed (even if not loved) the books, the movie is so badly constructed and even the acting is quite poor, I think more due to the director than to the actors. While historically it might be quite decent in the details, it is a overall a bad movie.
Thanks for the question, It got me to find & watch the movie!
Before I watch, I'm guessing that his opinion is that rapiers are the best
Nailed it. It's all about that speed and reach.
Sentrygun84 Yup yup. even if you watch high level fencing videos with people that aren't using rapiers, they still use mostly quick thrusting attacks, as if they're fighting with rapiers
Because its a very effective for dueling. Harder to evade/block/parry than cuts, easier and faster to execute with a smaller chance for telegraphing your moves.
In a true sword fight a rapier will get you killed. Sure you have the reach but one of the skills a good sword fighter should have is the ability to get inside an opponents reach not hard if the opponent has a heaver shorter blade. Remember folks fencing is a sport sword fighting is not. You need something that can thrust as well as slice. And speed = over extension. you over extend in a real sword fight your as good as buzzard food.
In this scenario, the weapon built directly for it will win. Not a surprise.
If any melee and any kind of armor goes, I don't think I'd choose a rapier.
Correct answer: A sword with a gun on it.
They exist.
The Profaned Greatsword....duhhhh
"...Longsword length or less..."
Oh...Dark Sword!
Dark Sword got nerfed so stick to the Carthus curved sword.
I was just being goofy. I use the Black Knight Glaive with the Darkdrift (For turtles).
I can see that UA-cam has been recommending people who've been watching DarkSouls 3 sword tutorials. xD
What if you were to have a trial by combat? Then what weapon would you use, also what type of armor would you go for as well? Now that would make a great video don't you think?
I would go for a Kriss Vector sub machine gun and no armor
Rapier is *the* dueling sword, so it's the most sensible choice.
But what if you throw a Claymore into the mix? Do you think that the massive reach and force would be sufficient to make it a sensible choice? It would be able to cut at a range outside of a rapier, as well as thrust....assuming the person is able to wield it. Would its size be too cumbersome for it to be usable when you don't have armor to rely on?
I guess it now gets to nuanced specifics of individuals and what is the optimized weapon for that person's size/strength/ability. Still curious if Matt or anyone has thoughts, though.
Anguel Roumenov Bogoev
I think Matt was trying to compare only swords that historical people would actually wear on a daily basis as self-defense weapon. Two handed swords in most cultures are strictly weapons of war, and they are really more comparable to spears and polearms rather than sidearms. So if we are to throw in claymores into the equation, then we will also have to include those things as well.
John Huang I know, I'm just curious what he (and others) thinks of the logistics. Assuming typical dueling attire, but with the atypical aspect that one has a claymore for some bizarre reason. I know it's a little absurd. I'm honestly asking because I'm going to be animating something along those lines, and obviously I'm giving myself some leeway XD
But I'm still curious what an educated opinion would be on the matter. Assuming all else is of a typical duel, does the one have any distinct advantage over the other? Now that I'm thinking about it again, I'm also curious if a buckler or main gauche would help, or if a free hand would be more useful.
I dunno, just ruminating.
Anguel Roumenov Bogoev
I think Matt has stated numerous times that range is a huge advantage in an unarmored fight provided there is enough space to use it, and that polearms will beats all other comers. As the really big two handed swords really count as polearms, you probably could guess the answer from there.
Certainly a buckler or main gauche would help, otherwise historical people wouldnt be carrying around the extra weight would they? ;) Probably the odds still lies with the giant two handed sword rather than the rapier and a main gauche, or an arming sword and a buckler though.
John Huang Yeah, just looked up that the length difference would be 20cm at *minimum*. I guess a steel polearm is just overwhelmingly unfair. Thanks for the input :D
Anguel Roumenov Bogoev Rapier is still at advantage, because of how nimble it is.
Except for that, two hander is used with, well, two hands, so in the end, even if the whole weapon is longer, thrust with a rapier ( held in single hand ) is going to fall very short from claymore ( if not beat it, depends on body parameters of fighters ) in terms of range.
Yes, rapiers are very durable weapons. Away with the cutting through it / breaking it nonsense.
Buckler would change a lot, any kind of offhand protection/weapon always is, because it gives you ability to parry AND attack in the very same second.
Grapling isn't much of a deal for rapier fighters, you have enough reach to just hit & run harass your enemy, stepping in witha strike, and then moving away. Reach advantage makes this a very dangerous ( for the opponent ) and safe to execute tactic . And if your footwork is good, chance of grappling situation is minimal. Bucklers for rapierists. ( I'd personally go with a knife though. )
As with the longsword and buckler - depends on the training person received and the tactic he/she is planning to use. Both buckler and free offhand can come in handy ( grappling bit less against the rapier ), although i should mention that the buckler, even if can be used with the longswords and great swords, works the best with arming sword.