Why were Swords so important in Medieval Warfare? 6 Ways SWORDS are better than POLEARMS
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 сер 2021
- Install Mech Arena for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID: clcr.me/MA_scholagladiatoria_Aug and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days
Often when we try to 'myth bust' ideas about medieval warfare, in emphasizing how important spears and other polearms were, we downplay what an important part swords also played.
Patreon & Extra Videos: / scholagladiatoria
Support & extra content on Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/matt-ea...
Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfightinglondon.com
Matt Easton's website and services:
www.matt-easton.co.uk/
Easton Antique Arms:
www.antique-swords.co.uk/ - Розваги
Install Mech Arena for Free ✅ IOS/ANDROID: clcr.me/MA_scholagladiatoria_Aug and get a special starter pack 💥 Available only for the next 30 days
What about hybrids of swords and polearms such as swordstaffs? Shadiversity and a few others did a video on swordstaffs, and LK Chen recently released a Han Dynasty swordstaff called the "Sha."
Could you please do a video on the ghiavarina for your unique/forgotten weapons series? It’s such a cool weapon and I read a favorite of Fiore’s but content on it is so rare online. It would be so amazing to see a video from you on it!
There should really be a song about the sponsor...
*Heeeeeey, Mech Arena! Alright!"*
Swords are the melee weapons of choice in Mech combat, because reach is better achieved with a ranged weapon in the offhand.
Are you (and the devs of this game) aware that there are more platforms than just 2 mobile app stores? Because... not sure if you noticed this, but PCs and gaming consoles still exist, and phones aren't the only devices for mobile gaming... maybe before saying "all platforms" you should look into what "all platforms" actually means?
1) shiny
2) pointy
3) cutty
4) goes *ting* when you flick them
5) f a s h i o n
6) small and handy
@@chroma6947 a world in which your alternatives are polearms
7) expensive
8) rusting
9) goes ting when you are hiding from enemies behind a tree
@@chroma6947 I just said that a sword is generally smaller than a polearm.
@@chroma6947 handy compared to polearms
@@chroma6947 What do you want me to say? Daggers are handier than swords? Yep, they are.
When grappling, the armour itself is a weapon against lightly or non armoured opponents, a decent strike from a gauntlet into a squishy face is causing proper damage, as will knees, elbows, headbutts etc from a fully armoured person. It's easy to see why knights would have been so intimidating on the battlefield, massive force multipliers!
Although also remember that heavier armour can result in overheating and exhaustion, as happened to many French knights.
With greater defense means you can have more focus on offense, this will give you extra tactical advantage when you can utilise dangerous moves that won't use on normal circumstances.
Yeah that "grappling weapon" would be more aptly named "grappling restraints", "grappling hindrance", full body weights, or even "opponents tag team partner" after a couple or even one slow swing and a miss when an unencumbered and thus faster foe freely maneuvers around and especially when he puts you on the ground. Great grappling weapon.
My comment is strictly in regards to the armor itself being a weapon. It was in no way shape or form intended as commentary pertaining to an armed knight. A knight in armor alone being an unarmed combatant is the uncontroversial opinion I hold, that's all.
@@girthbrooks39 knights in armour are not slow, lumbering unfit combatants, they would have practiced grappling in their armour many times. I understand were your coming from but the idea of an unarmoured opponent dancing around and taking down a unarmed knight in full armour like Bruce Lee on speed and defeating him is a stretch for me, never say never I guess, it's all hypothetical anyway, a knight was trained to kill from childhood, we just can't accurately recreate such things.
1.) Sidearms, easy and convenient to carry.
2.) Made of metal, durable, resilient, hard to break.
3.) Hard to grab, relative to polearms and hafted weapons.
4.) Easier to deploy.
5.) Better hand protection.
6.) Close Combat Advantage
--> Better at close range than Polearms
--> Use a shield
--> Use armor
--> Lovely people the Romans
--> Polearms mean change, embrace the change
--> In a word "Hastings"
--> In two words "Hastings & kite shields"
--> Good for the gaps
--> Halfswording
--> Oink! = @ )
Got it.
swords actually lose sharpness kinda easily. but if you aint dumb and go around chopping wood with them there shouldnt be a problem almost ever.
But what have the Roman's ever given us?
@@thac0twenty377 Ah, the aquaduct Reg? The philum? The plumbata? And the Lorica segmentata.
@@manfredconnor3194 hahaha. Did yoi titter, centuwion?
@@thac0twenty377
🥴🥴🥴
This reminds me of a remark by Jeff Cooper that a handgun is something you wear while doing things other than fighting, whereas a rifle is something you go get when you know a fight is coming.
I think the argument here is more of M3 vs BAR. Once you get inside the range where a .30-06 (polearm) is devastating, the .45 (sword) is a lot more useful and dangerous because it is so much smaller, lighter, and easier to maneuver.
@@AM-hf9kk to an extent, but not a big one. Which is why very few armies supply pistols for use in combat now. Plus when they did in the British army it signified an officer and therefore a primary target.
They are now mainly used for soldiers not in the front line who might need a gun but do not have space to carry a rifle, airmen, off duty in dangerous areas or military police.
@@seriousmaran9414 Brits didn’t give the enlisted men pistols because they were afraid they’d kill the officers.
@@seriousmaran9414 Pistols are absolutely still issued to combat infantry, as a backup weapon and for CQB.
@@docstockandbarrel what's the logic behind that? Can't enlisted men just kill their officers with their rifles? Was that happening often? Honest questions.
Weapons are SITUATIONAL, when one is great in one situation, it might not fare well in another and so forth.
That´s why there are so many different weapons.
Exactly
And swords are the weapon that is there in any situation, including the ones you did not choose to engage in.
Yes, you can find any degree of specialization for a specific situation, but one of the first points he makes is that it is ever present, and therefore is always available.
The perfect weapon for a given situation that is packed away in storage is no better than a rusty butter knife.
The argument being that the sword was the best balance of capabilities to be a jack of all trades. Master of none, sure, but 99% of the time a JoaT will get the job done
@@blackoak4978 Correct; one of my favorite GunTubers, Paul Harrell, likes to say "the 9mm you got on you is better than the .45 you left at home because it was too heavy".
When people say swords are a backup weapon, they picture something like a pistol, but swords were not pistols of the middle ages, daggers were. Swords were much more like PDWs. A backup weapon which is so good, that it can sometimes be used as a primary weapon too.
Yet as someone who's shot a PDW and an assault rifle, it's important to note that the assault rifle (short polearm) vastly outclasses the PDW (sword) in most situations.
The Samurai wouldn't have bothered to use the te-yari for close quarters fighting, which was as small as four feet long, if they didn't have big advantages over the katanas they were wearing.
@@TheChiconspiracy Sure, SOMe people prefer ARs even in close quarters, some might pick a shotgun, others a PDW or a small SMG. But with guns it's mostly either or, because you don't want to carry separate ammo for two full auto weapons. Imagine you could easily carry both. Yes, the AR is a lot better on an open battlefield, but a PDW or a small SMG is a pretty darn good backup. Its not so difficult to se why swords would be so hugely popular.
@@simonklein4687 That's not even close to true. Many militaries and police departments (including the one I worked for) initially used PDW's, but their wounding ability is is vastly inferior to something like an M4 (which just like a short polearm, is still quite easy to manipulate at close range while hitting much harder), so they have largely switched. There's a reason why knights were using short polearms for close melee while having a sword on their hip...
@@TheChiconspiracy I don't even understand what you disagree with. I don't claim swords outclass polearms. I claim they were vastly better sidearms than pistols are now. There is a reason why swords were so hugely popular across so many different cultures and times. There is a reason why some warriors in some specific tactical situations chose swords as their primary weapon, like the Romans did.
@@TheChiconspiracy If you restrict your argument to PDWs that use pistol-caliber cartridges you have a relatively good point (depending on the skill of the marksman). Look at the P90 that uses the same cartridge as the FN five seven pistol, but it's hardly fair to call its 650 m/s bullet "pistol caliber" in the same sense.
(There's also the recent proliferation of body armor among criminals to take into account, one of the things that drove the design of that pistol).
But firearms never make perfect analogies to pre-gunpowder weapons. You can fire a black powder muzzleloader once in a fight but a dagger still works after you poke one person with it, while the lethal range of even early black powder weapons equaled or was much greater than a non-powder weapon. Yes, that's why "armor of proof" became a thing but now we're into the eternal Arms Race.
I think it is a common problem that people look at a weapon as a stand alone piece. Just as in modern warfare, it would be more correct to talk about weapons systems. As in sword, shield and armour working together - just like something like a modern artillery system includes lots of things that are not strictly speaking a howitzer/cannon/whatever goes boom.
9:35 you can see them using crossbows exactly because you can's draw a bow in close formation
So basic pre-firearms weapon set is: Dagger or knife for super-close grapple distance combat, sword as a sidearm for close combat and as a back-up, and a primary weapon like a spear or polearm or bow. This seems to me to parallel the modern equivalent of: knife for grappling, pistol for close combat and as a backup, and a rifle as your primary weapon.
Sort of.
I think swords fill a gap somewhere between the sidearm (pistol) and main weapon (rifle).
It's a good analogy but the sword was versatile and effective enough that it could be used as a main weapon where a pistol is quite literally a backup weapon.
You are in real trouble on a modern battlefield (outside of very specific scenarios) if you have to rely on a pistol. Where if you lose your polearm and still have a sword, that is sufficient to be quite ffective.
Perhaps a sword has more in common say with a sub-machine gun vs a rifle? But even that is not a perfect comparison.
@@stav1369 I take your point, but I do think a sword alone vs polearms would be pretty close to being like a pistol vs a rifle, unless you also have a shield (in which case, with the right training, the sword can be pretty effective). Nevertheless, maybe you're right and the best modern analogy for a sword would be the Personal Defence Weapon (PDW), like a P90 or modern SMG? Frankly, I think it might depend on which type of sword you're talking about (e.g. a messer is more like a pistol, a longsword more like an SMG/PDW).
Swords aren't really a sidearm in most medieval army's, they simply are too expensive
@@benjaminodonnell258 that’s a good point in regards to the type of sword. They do very as well.
@@stav1369 I've read most of the comments on this video and I think you and Schola are closest to the truth. The point is, you choose the right weapon for the right job. There's no weapon system combination that'll cover every situation.
"You need to move your hands around on the shaft." - Matt Easton, 2021
CHOPPY BOIIIIIS!!!!!! But for real coming home from work a second day in a row at the same time as a Matt Easton video. Feels good. And it's a nice medium length one too. And I got a MHTV one to watch after.
Came for the rambling. Stayed for the rambling. Well done.
Oddly enough, the sixth point was the first one i thought of, and the fifth was the one that caught me off guard; it's so hard to get into close range when dealing with a polearm that i think of them as better defensive weapons than swords.
Inspired by your videos (and those of others in this community), I'm writing an RPG rule system in my spare time
What I've tried to do is deliberately design around fundamentals, then let the specifics come about emergently, so I'm really excited that almost everything which you mentioned in this video is naturally accounted for by the (simple) rules I have right now - even elements which I hadn't thought of, such as polearms being easier to grab, provided you can close that distance
So I wanted to thank you for all of the information you've put into the world through this channel. It's been an invaluable resource for understanding the fundamental principles/factors involved in martial arts
Yeah, also when people were fighting in buildings - during sieges, for example. Lots of situations when they had to engage in a close-quarter fight.
honestly any major battle will be at close quarters. Once two sides clash at one point or another people are going to break into each-others formation and fighting can easily be at grappling or knife fighting range.
Plenty of times in history that Swordsmen got deep enough into a Spearmen formation in order to chop them up into pieces
Swords + Shield + Armor works in any time period except gunpowder
@@christiandauz3742 And with early firearms, still viable.
@@a-blivvy-yus
I wonder. If Precusdion cap Rifled-muskets with Bayonets were available during the Bronze Age would Swords and Polearms still be used?
@@MrChickennugget360 People did their darn best to avoid doing that. 2 sides clash and maintain their formations and lines. Charging in like hollywood barbarians is... hollywood.
I think you put too much emphasis on whether a weapon has a wooden pole or not.
For military use, I think it makes more sense to group weapons based on the dimensions of reach and armor penetration:
Reach categories:
Pike-length-reach: Pike, Sarissa etc. These are only good in deep formation. Such formations are strong vs all enemies from the front, and especially strong vs cavalry. Famously used by Macedonians and Swiss, but in the case of Pikes, basically universal for several centuries in the late Medieval and Reinassance. The range make these units the ones that have the lowest dependency on protective gear (armor/shields), except vs missile weapons.
Spear-length-reach: Spear, Halberd, Lance and most typical polearms and probably the longest two-handed swords: These provide good defense vs Cavalry (not as good as Pikes), and more range than swords. Famously used by Greek Hoplites, Medieval knights, Lancer cavalry and Halberdiers. The units have a medium reliance on armor/shields. Later weapons, such as the Halberd often provided better armor penetration as armor became better and more common. Others, like Zweihanders may be particularily useful in disrupting pike formations.
Sword-length (reach): One-handed Swords, Maces, Hammers and Axes, as well as some two-handed weapons, such as Dane Axes, Longswords, Poleaxes (and similar short polearms). Famous units employed like this would be Roman Legions, Late Medieval men-at-arms/knights (when dismounted, but also mounted, once the lance had been expended), Sword Cavalry and to some extent Viking and early Celtic elites, especially when they could afford good protection. Protection is maximally important for these units, as they are a prerequisite for closing in. One handed versions would be combined with big sheilds, and the two-handed ones required very heavy armor. Also, as enemies gain better armor, weapons with better armor penetration (with Poleaxes replacing swords during the late Medieval period).
The latest category would be the most expensive one to field, so it was only really the Romans who could equip their whole army that way. Also, despite good protection, it was weak vs heavy lance cavalry, which made it necessary to either carry a spear, pilum or similar protection from cavalry in addition to the short-reach weapon, or to be covered by other soliders (like pikemen) against cavalry.
On the other hand, the units with the shortest reach weapons gained some massive amount of lethality when they were able to close with other infantry. Against unarmored opponents, a hit by a sword or axe, even againt a limb, is likely to put them out of combat almost instantly, due to massive bleeding. I think this is an aspect that is often missed by HEMA practitioners. In a battle, it is not about _eventually_ defeating a single opponent. Just as important is how _quickly_ you can win when you start winning, as that allows to to move to the next opponent, and then the next after that. A Roman legion may have started out at a diadvantage in a frontal engagement against a Macedonian Phalanx, but it would take hours for the Phalanx to defeat the Romans. But once some Romans managed to penetrate (often by flanking), the Phalanx would be overrun in minutes.
I don't have sources, but I would immagine a similar situation with dismounted men-at-arms (with poleaxes) vs pikemen. Once a few men-at-arms penetrated the pike formation, the formation would collapse pretty quickly.
In my opinion, a wooden pole is actually a boon rather than a drawback. If I were funding an army, I'd be happy with arming people with very effective weapons that are easier to make, cheaper to buy, and easily maintained. Everything you said is true and I agree with your man-at-arms vs pikemen square analogy. Tactics and discipline do make an impact in warfare, as well.
Minute 8: Matt finally gets to reason #1.
Dear Matt, you forget about best armour according to movies and TV series.... it's PLOT armour.
Thinking about it. If your army is fighting in a very well forested area, it would be quite difficult for your soldiers to use pole weapons. So in that context, swords and axes with shields would be a main weapon.
It’s no coincidence that swords are typically smaller in tropical areas compared to Europe.
I agree. Though I think javelins would be useful. And axes in particular would be very useful.
A good way to redress that potential imbalance in understanding about the sword as a very important and capable weapon. Thanks for the video, well said!
Its absurd to see people discredit the sword to the point that its literally useless and worthless. Like every weapon, a sword had its place.
@@TheNEOverse Classic example of "the man who knows little but thinks he knows a lot". These people if in the future would be the retards acting like rifles were always better than handguns even for casual use.
Wanna add a point on close combat,I think in formation fighting both side are trying to break into others formation ,and while pole-arm are good when formations stay intact.
Sword comes into play when chaos appears, a sword-centric troop type can inflict more casualties upon such disruptions.
Chances of these situations happen rely on even more factors,like terrain/ discipline / organization of army,as sword units benefits from any of outmatch in these field.
"Mech Arena"? I think I remember that song.
A parallel (albeit an imperfect one) that comes to my mind is the role of rifles in the First World War. Yes, artillery and machine guns caused the overwhelming majority of troop casualties in combat, but once the distance was closed - i.e. the equivalent of being 'inside the spear' - it was the rifles, even the pistols, daggers and clubs, that determined the outcome, as that was what the individual soldier could wield most effectively. Once the sides are mixed and close combat ensues, the effectiveness of the individual weapon comes to the fore, which as Matt's point 6 made very well, is when the sword would almost always be the ideal choice. Great video, very informative, thanks Matt!
Whenever I teach, I focus on how armour and weapons have been in an evolutionary arms race through time, it helps explain why certain things were favoured, then replaced, then came back as something else, and do on. It's love to see you do a video on that, almost like a timeline, with examples and people. There are plenty of battles where there are first appearance of something that won the battle, like pikes, poleaxes, bucklers, etc. That would make an awesome video, even though a harder one to make. :)
Evolutionary arms race is a very poor way of looking at pre-modern warfare...
And all such notions of someone suddenly "inventing" a pike, poleaxe or buckler and "winning a battle with it" are imaginary.
@@MinSredMash umm, based on what? That there is an arm's race is quite obvious, why on earth would you dispute that? Pros and cons to weapons and armour changes over time is obviously why things move and change over time. And first use of things are also obvious, what are you reacting to here? You say "invention" which is there opposite of an evolutionary race, so maybe that's your beef?
@@shelterit "Quite obvious" is not an argument...
99% of the time when people talk about an arms race in a medieval context, they are talking nonsense. Just like you were when you said that many battles were won by someone using bucklers (roflmao) or pikes (snort) for the first time. Try pondering over the counterexamples instead: over a millennium where maille was the dominant armor on European battlefields, coexisting with crossbows and lances. Or Europeans eschewing the use of rigid defenses like lamellar that were popular in Asia, holding on to mail for centuries.
It's not that there were never any arms races, it's just that this is not a useful paradigm because it leads people away from facts and into simplistic assumptions.
@@MinSredMash Oh, for Pete's sake, I hate arguing with people who can't read. First of all, I didn't say what you say I wrote, so let's start there; "the first appearence" is a direct nod to the sources and to historians who spends their lives with this stuff; where weapons and armour are mentioned and in what contexts and where in history it happens. No need for you to extrapolate some mad inventor bullshit or 'first time a new thing was used' as anything other than what it was; the first time something pops up in the context of some event in history. Things are mentioned in those contexts for Reasons. Pikes at the battle of Sterling Bridge is just an example of something like that. It's not that we never heard of pikes before, far from it, but it was important in that context; the context and usefulness of something can be plotted as a bell-curve with different attack slopes on either side on the timeline of history. We talk about why it's important in that context for a reason, we can talk about that bell-curve and we can follow different bell-curves as they overlap through time, just like the shield's right bell-curve overlaps with the buckler's left. And so it goes.
Secondly, I am not talking nonsense until you actually have a reasonable argument against it, no matter whether it might be true or not. Just saying it's nonsense doesn't make it so. I don't know why you felt the need to pipe up with your comments, you've added nothing of importance so far, no argument, nothing, all you've done is claim to know better without explaining why (and annoy me; if that was your goal, congratulations, you've achieved at least something...). Even with the arms race question you say it's both "talking nonsense" and "it's not that it never was [one]" at the same time, so which is it? What's the clarifying point you're trying to make here? What point is it that is so important you felt the need to waste both our times on writing this? But maybe more importantly, why this shitty need to roflmao and snorting at other people's opinion? What does this sneering from your high horse (you've only said it was a high horse, btw; you haven't actually showed him to us yet) give you?
And leading people away from facts? WTF is that even supposed to mean?! Which facts is it that you're sitting on that directly contradict anything I've said? What facts would the concept of an arms race somehow mislead? What simplistic assumption is it that could happen here that anything I've said could be the culprit? And who judges what a simplistic assumption even is in terms of something this complex? Any historical fact is a simplistic assumption, you can't just wave that stupid flag with a big red herring on it as some kind of argument to or fro, it's utter nonsense. You sounds so arrogantly full of facts, and yet haven't engaged in anything useful here. The concept of an arms race isn't one of utility; it's one of history, including manufacture, production, fashion, skills, economics, demographics, availability, arrogance, chance, and on and on. The concept of an arms race is in this video's context really the *only* model that truly explain these complex changes over time. C'mon, explain why it isn't so! Tell me why I'm so incredibly wrong, it's worth your sneering and snorting!
Personally I think you've just decided that your straw man has said X and definitly mean X, and you're sticking to it no matter what else is being said. I just find it bizarre that you thought this was forth fighting over and claiming some kind of superior knowledge about, calling out a comment on UA-cam as nonsense without any explanation. We're all here because we share a very odd, crazy, weird interest, and maybe timelines or arms races doesn't cut it for you, but claiming to be the ultimate bearer of How Things Should Be Explained is just wrong on so many levels.
I think double edged swords are the only weapon that is studied heavily enough to get a clear idea on how warfare evolved. For example, our Migration Era swords don't usually have a fuller, and were made for chopping/slashing. Viking Era introduces the fuller entirely. We start seeing war swords in the 13th century, followed by diamond pointed swords for greater focus on thrusting in the 14th century to defeat plate wearers. The heavy emphasis of diamond pointed stuff in the late 14th and throughout the 15th century indicates the ability to easily pop maille rings when they need to.
"Cannot be understated ..." No; you meant, "Cannot be overstated." I've been hearing this error a lot, the past few years. People saying the opposite of what they mean.
I'm SO GLAD I found your channel! Your videos are "as" entertaining as they are educational. I find myself binging... Thanks btw!!!
"Any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly-dressed"
-MadJack, WW2 Lieutenant Colonel who actually brought a sword and bow to a gun fight (and kicked ass).
Ehh just an urban legend . No actual accounts of him using a bow ONLY
@@Monkforilla I never believed he never used a gun. I was just referencing a man who used a bow and sword in modern warfare, even if it was alongside a firearm.
8:10 First Reason
9:05 Second Reason
10:51 Third Reason
13:30 Fourth Reason
15:53 Fifth Reason
18:29 Sixth Reason
Great video really got some great perspectives on the use and situational advantages of swords! Much appreciated!
Love you're videos, love you're enthusiasm!
7. Swords have pommels, so you can end them rightly.
pommels of mass destruction.
Ah a man of taste.
This is the most importantest and bestest of the reasons.
Pommels are also just a generally useful device, especially from the bind (ie winding in and striking them on the head with the pommel), or during grappling, be that for strikes or leverage. It’d be a cold day in hell before you find me fencing without a guard and pommel!
Dueling is respect. Killing isn’t
You just keep on putting out such great content Matt. Time and again. I love it!!
Thank you
Waited for this video for so long. Ty
11:25. “Trying to kill you with the thing…” I flinched, definitely wasn’t trying to grab it.
You've forgotten reason number zero: swords are cool!!!
You did a great job explaining the reasons. It was very interesting.
Yay! It is back up!
Looking forward to this video :)
I absolutely appreciate your ability to articulate the details!
Seeing Matt grab the blade and leaving fingerprints that he didn't immediately wipe of has me triggered
Who care's
Ask your doctor for diazepam.
There, there, he's polishing the blade after shooting the video.
@@julianshepherd2038 I cares
Hoo boy, would you not have liked to see what swords were really used for: a lot of people left a lot more than fingerprints!
When looking at the middle ages (or any historical period) it's easy to forget about what came before, and this usually defines that which came after.
So I like to look at the early history of swords and see what sort of environment they evolved from.
We know that swords were relatively expensive bits of kit, even more so in earlier times. Because they were more expensive, they were rare, and limited to those who could afford them: the upper class. So if you happened to be one of these upper-class persons, capable of commissioning a sword and prohibiting others from owning them, then you're likely to be surounded by hundreds or thousands of your subjects, where none of them are likely to be so armed. And your job is essentially to dominate them, to keep order, to exact taxes, to keep them working on the farms, et cetera. And a sword is ideal for that. It's convenient to wear, and it's intimidating. It's also a badge of office.
We sometimes assume that the use of a sword required a matched pair, but I don't think this is ever an ideal arrangment, expect in sports.
I have a sinking feeling that if I live long enough I'll be seeing this same video done for Pistols and Rifles in the 20th century.
The pistol is to the rifle, what the meme is to doxing.
Only a tiny bit envious of that collection there 🤣
Really cool interesting video! Somehow I don't get tired of these 😉
For close range weapons, the Zulu style stabbing spears are still relevant, no? (Similar to the gladius). Although I’m aware you’re looking at the longer versions.
I don't know if you take video suggestions, but it would be interesting hearing you talk about different sword and saber fighting positions (you mentioned the prim in this video).
Awesome video, thanks for the work you put in!
Really enjoy your videos, very educational and thought provoking.
Thanks for sharing and I'm glad I could see this.
3:36 ad ends
8:10 video starts
Pistol -> Submachine gun -> Rifle
Knife -> Sword -> Polearm
Use armor appropriately.
You know, I and others in the comments have had similar thoughts.
Some say that it could also be:
Knife -> pistol -> rifle
Basically the knife now, serves the same purpose as the knife then.
I guess it depends on how you think about it. Also, rifles can also be slung for convenient hands free carrying.
Can take the same idea right down to unarmed combat.
Attitude, grapple, fist, kick, closing the distance.
@@michaelfranciotti3900
Knife = Knife
Pistol = Sword
PDW/SBR = Longsword
Rifle = Claymore/Polearm/Bow
I really wish that we will get to see a "sword vs. spear" sparring session where the sword user actually gives priority to grabbing the spear shaft, using the sword primarily for defense until then.
Far too often, in these scenarios, the sword user tries to fence against the spear - which you can't really do.
A big issue in sword vs. spear is the difficulty of defense. A spear's distance advantage allows it to feint for free from outside the sword's threat range, so fighting too defensively with sword will play into that. Sword needs to apply credible threat to prevent this while also closing the likely angles of attack a spearman may use.
Of course, this is difficult when the spearman is capable of making a safe low attack. As Matt points out, armour and/or shields change this matchup significantly.
@@MadassAlex "Sword needs to apply credible threat" - but it can't, it lacks the reach to do that, unless, perhaps, you have a long greatsword vs a short spear.
" so fighting too defensively" - forgive me, I don't think I've been clear enough: you can't "fight" at all with a sword against a spear, if we're talking "regular" swords - so up to longsword length - in an unarmored, unshielded scenario.
You need to use the sword, preferably in one hand, to deflect the spear in such a way that you can grab the shaft - and this needs to happen simultaneously. Of course, that's easier said than done.
If you try to "find defensively" and "close the angles of attack", a competent spearman will overwhelm the swordsman with short and quick jabs - and unless the swordsman is extremely skilled, they won't be able to defend against all of them.
I've seen this in my personal life, but I have no recorded footage of it, so I can't prove it.
And this frustrates me to no end, because I can't provide evidence to support it - that's why I hope I will someday encounter good quality footage of this, so that people won't think I'm talking out of my ass... :(
For dtrhe scenario to be realistic it needs to be two large groups of people shoved up against each other. That's where the short stabbing swords excelled not one Vs one
And how about spearmen who actually know how to fight over shields with proper overarm stabs, and disengage their weapon from grab happy swordsmen?
You do realize that in most of these videos, the sword competence is much higher than the spear competence right?
Well, there was one video collaboration by Matt and Lindy.
This was informative. Thank you!
Enjoyed it all as always!
Just speculating before watching the video, my guess is one of the reasons is because you can carry it in a sheath.
That fact alone makes swords so much more versatile than other weapons.
A spearman can always also be a swordsman, but where does a swordsman put his spare spear?
In the baggage train.
@@TanitAkavirius which isn't terribly accessible in the middle of combat
@@NotDumbassable yes indeed :) i was answering your question very literally ;P
@@TanitAkavirius With this being the internet, I´m afraid I had understood your comment as sarcasm, thx for clarifying this
It magically sticks to your back.
The available evidence doesn't support the idea that swords are better than pollaxes & similar at close range, at least for armored fighting. Sir John Smythe specifically wrote that armored soldiers with swords & daggers had no chance against armored halberdiers with 6ft halberds, assuming something like three-quarters harness. Hugh Knight has talked about how armored pollaxe techniques operate at dagger range. That's perhaps an exaggeration, but not too much of one. Note that while many pollaxes do appear to have been about as long as the wielder or a touch shorter, which was what Smythe & George Silver recommended for heavy polearms used in formation in the late 16th-century, Pietro Monte favored a rather long pollaxe, writing that people commonly used ones as long as the wielder to could reach their hand into the air but that a bit longer than this was better, & that the hammer (not the top spike, which extended further) should be a hand above the wielders head. (Smythe wanted a longer & lighter halberd for extraordinary halberdiers fighting in loose order & often while outnumbered.)
Exactly, it's telling that the armored warrior elite are almost always depicted using short poleweapons on foot, even at very close range.
So..... With a pole axe equipped, you backup weapon is.... Another pole axe?
It’s nice to see the garage slowly filling up with weapons. Matt garage strip from it doesn’t look right.
Hi Matt, where did you get the messer? It's really nice.
Landsknecht Emporium
Some good points that aren't necessarily obvious in this day and age. Interesting video. Hope all is well!
Again a very informative video. I once read that Barbarossa only permitted people of the knightly class to carry swords. Perhaps you could consider doing a video about the side arms used common soldiers (i.e. infantry) during the high Middle Ages.
Maces and axes basically. Falchions probably.
thanks Matt Easton, useful and entertaining
Very interesting video. I must say that I had never thought of your 6th point
How important were Swords in Mech Warfare?
I don't know. Tanks and Armored Cars didn't exist in the Bronze Age
Pole Arms get a lot of it's advantages from being in a larger formation to. So if terrain like a forest or maybe during a siege a large formation might not be ideal so swords and other shorter weapons would probably be preferred. Also swords were a side arm for a reason. The fight might start out as spear and shield battle but as the fight progresses you might see people switching to their side arms as their spears break or just becomes dull. Maybe the original formation slowly becomes more disorganized.
I think Lyold's video on various people having sword vs spear (w/ shields / in melee etc.) do illustrate point #6
Sidearms are much more concealable and portable than pole weapons in regular life. In the 1990s my father hid a Rambo knife under the seat of his motorcycle. It's the only piece of defence he can properly hide from both the police and robbers. The traditional blowpipe+spear hybrid might be a bit hard to carry on a motorcycle.
When he got a car he hid a machete under the driver's seat for easier access. I had a rattan stick in my old car's trunk and currently I have a machete under the driver's seat of my truck. I can easily explain to the local police that it's for agricultural purposes but a spear is much harder to justify carrying all over the place. The only spear/pole-like devices that I can carry around are actual agricultural poles used to cut down palm oil fruits or coconuts. At home, however, a pole is good to have around since it is the go to weapon to kill snakes, scorpions and centipedes.
I would like to see a vid on what edged weapon you would choose to keep by your night stand to defend against a modern day home invasion. Intruder(s) could be armed with a gun, knife, hammer…. Something hard to take away and able to reach out but maneuverable in a room. Im thinking the flying phenix jian.
This is a fun video idea. Mine would be a knife. I teeter between a D-guard bowie knife and a kerambit. But if it doesn't have to be an edged weapon, it would most definitely be a single rattan stick. This probably clues you into what I do for sport!
@@CufflinksAndChuckles i was thinking a knife at first but i wanted something that would keep an intruder out of grappling distance. Perhaps a short spear such as a iklwa but that leaves some handle for opponent to get a hold of. I am getting older and would probably be at quite a physical disadvantage to anyone breaking in. A jian is sharp to the hilt and 34 inch long. To reach the handle most will have to take a little blade first. I pick jian over saber or katana because of the confined space of a house (more of a keep the blade pointed at them and jab instead of swing.) my only sword experience is fencing 40 years ago so no technical moves. Plus i doubt you would run into an intruder armed with a sword him self.
Each weapon has its uses . You prepare a battle array for every scenario and style.
There are sometimes when the dagger is more important than the spear.
Have you seen the recent Skallagrim video where he talks about what we know of the use of greatswords in the battlefield? I would love to see your views on that subject.
17:59 I thought that spear was going to crash to the ground after you knocked it slightly. lol. :)
Lindy Beige has a good video on spear vs sword with variables. Just spear wins 90% vs just sword and the reverse if you include shields.
Hey Matt! A cool video idea that I saw someone here write is what weapon would you choose to have to defend a home invasion? Maybe an old and then a modern weapon?
Hello Matt, if I may comment on your point number six:
Shields - round shields: you are probably aware that the dark-age era center-grip round shields are unstable against hits to their edges, and therefore very easy to manipulate (open/close, tip up, tip down) with spear. Against round shields a spearman can definitely create lots of openings on an advancing opponent.
Larger, strapped shields work definitely better against simple spears, but have the downside that more advanced hooked polearms... can hook them and manipulate the whole person instead.
Mail shirt - If I am correct, mail was not able to protect from a direct spear thrust, and mail was "made obsolete" by the increasingly pointy swords that are today called Oakeshott Type XIV Swords. Of course it all depends on the training spearman had, but if we go past 11th century then soldiers are professionals... so they would be capable of making a forceful thrust with a spear.
But when coupled with a coat of plates, yes... That is decent protection against spears, albeit coat of plates protects only a limited part of body.
7) Our ability to concentrate.
When we're all using swords, the primary focus is the opponent. Not the dozen opponents to the left, right and back rows.
You forgot to add the 7th & most important reason, because wearing a sword makes you look cool & that is the most important thing on a battle field.
First thing that comes to mind, you're not always in open field. The spear is the king of the open field, in tight quarters, it's more cumbersome than useful. Rock on Matt 👍
Did you do test cutting with that longsword that you handled through the vid ? That one with the hollow grind i think ?
Good video, I thought #6 was going to be that the technology for the production of steel improved more rapidly in the development of swords, or something like that.
8:00 is when he gets to the list.
If I remember Le Jeu de la Hache shows pole arm users wearing gauntlets. Pretty sure a polearm wielder would have at least heavy gloves on to give themselves some minor protection at the very least in a battle.
But I do know some pikemen didn’t have gauntlets as a part of their kit. Don’t mind me just a curious subject I think.
if you are poor you are poor. not everyone can afford fancy gloves or God Forbid Gauntlets. ye humble billman bill may have nothing not even a tin hat.
Matt has talked a lot about how gauntlet reduces how well you can move your hands, which impacts your ability to fight properly. While a lot of people did wear gauntlets to great effect, I can understand why it wouldn't necessarily be the priority, especially if you fight inside a formation, reducing opportunities to strike your hands dramatically.
That's probably why the people drawn in Le Jeu de la Hache (who would represent warriors in a dueling context) wore gauntlets, while pikemen wouldn't necessarily do the same.
One also has to consider the context for pikemen, billmen, and halberdier:
-Are they part of a militia? If so then their armor is provided to them by the city, thus they are unlikely to have gauntlets because it's an additional expense, and getting the right size might be much more tricky.
-Are they a levy? Then unless they are quite wealthy peasants, they are going to prioritize body armor and a good helmet.
-Are they professionals? If there are part of a mercenary band and are doing fairly well for themselves, they might not necessarily feel the need to protect their hands better since they are confident that their polearm, their skill, and their mates will keep the enemy away from their hands.
I was one of those people who thought those knights and so forth swinging those big swords around would be easily taken out by a fighter with a smaller sword; just get inside the big swords' guard and take the guy down. Sparring with a friend of mine, using wooden swords, he with longsword and myself a shorter, lighter blade I have been educated. Properly and painfully educated.
"just get inside" might the biggest 'easier said than done' thing in all of combat history. Range simply matters a lot
Could you cover the Jeddart Staff, please? They are different enough i think they need their own coverage.
Per grabbing a sword, one of my favorite firearms channels, Active Self Protection, points out the primary difficulty (of many) of disarming a person with a handgun is they are holding the "holdy-ony" part while the disarmer can only grab the "shooty" part. Change places and handy-dandy...
If the disarmer grabs the slide, the shooter only has a single shot.
@@ctrlaltdebug The point is more that in the struggle for retention, the guy holding the holdy-ony part will have an advantage in maintaining control of it while struggling for the gun. If the other guy loses his grip, that's when the shootey part happens.
the best way to disarm someone of his gun is to do it when he isn't holding it
@@joshridinger3407 Can't argue with that.
The basic principles of combat are always the same.
Proper attitude, fight to your strength - not theirs, use force multipliers, be adaptable, be willing to end the fight to your advantage.
I think the biggest take away is that there is no one size fits all purposes weapon. Daggers have their uses. Swords have their uses. Pole arms have their uses. As do missile weapons. They all have weaknesses. You use the longer ranged weapon for advantage till the advantage is gone, then you switch to plan b.
This is no different than the modern battlefield. Automatic rifles have their uses. But so do shotguns. So do grenade launchers. You use the weapon most appropriate for the situation. And if the situation changes you adapt.
That's why knights or soldiers need to learn & train every weapon whenever they can because shit is inevitable. You don't have the luxury to be picky when accident happens on battlefield where you are forced to use the least effective weapon.
I find it interesting that the standard scabbarded blade position makes a presumption of how it will be used. A, potentially, subconscious presumption in Europe that the need of quick drawing a weapon will be defensive first, then offensive, while the presumption in Japan was that a quick draw if the weapon would be offensive first. Correlation vs causation and all that, but it's pretty sus
Another very important reason, kind of obviously, is civvie life. A civilian can carry a knife or sword, but they wouldn't really want a polearm.
Hi Matt @scholagladiatoria,
I was wondering how the importance of your sixth point in the list changes in tight combat formations.
On one hand, in ideal circumstances spearmen can be packed more tightly than swordsmen because their offensive power is based on the thrust, so it's just along a single axis. On the other hand, all the techniques you describe which allow you to use the middle or the butt of your weapon, require quite a bit more space around you than anything you may want to do with a sword, barring zweihander and similar where this line becomes fuzzy.
I wonder, what would you think is more relevant and in which contexts?
Combat aside one of the most important uses for the sword pretty much into modern times was as a status symbol.
A needed video
I want to see a near future post Armageddon zombie show after most of the ammo has been used up where people get their hands on medieval weapons and armor.
I'd watch the shit out of that. As an enthusiast of historical weapons, the weapon selection in zombie movies and shows always bugged me. Everybody usually uses sports equipment or power tools. Take knife, attach to long stick, pokey pokey out of arms reach, survive. I wouldn't even use guns most of the time. Save the ammo and keep a low profile.
20:11 so that's where Lawbringer's old shove-on-block came from lol
This is kinda cool seeing this before a good amount of people
The swords have a bite, also. Spearshaft doesn't bite into enemy weapon.
Therefore the swordstaff is the best of both worlds?
imagine the splinters if it did hahahaha!
-how was the battle mate?
-oh aye good mate, just can't get rid of those bloody splinters..!
-oh i know. My wife got mad at me, she spent 2 days with needle and tweezers...
-nightmare mate! nightmare! just give us a sword! or even a knife, pox on them! i rather use my spoon, i'm telling ye!
@@hic_tus Henry ll of France had a splinter in his mind and his vision
Biting into the enemy weapon can be a disadvantage to you also... And polearms will bite into enemy weapons alot better, not to mention hook them and the enemy holding them.
Neither do warhammer's hafts. Doesn't mean they don't have their uses.
Silly question trying to find this for ages what is the model of the sword to the left of Matt in the middle. Would appreciate the help
Nice video. I think many soldiers started out a battle carrying a polearm, but ended up the battle using their sword. The Romans realized this. So they gave their men heavy throwing spears and optimized their equipment and doctrine for sword fighting. This was very effective, but more expensive in money and time. They made it work though. For most of history however the quickest and cheapest way to raise an army was to give your men spears and shields.
It's weird to think that the most succesful army of pre-medival times didn't use spears in melee, isn't it?
Then again, they fielded huge amounts of auxilia as well, which definitly wore spears and made up most of their cav and archers, as well. So it's not like their armies lacked in any regard.
Ooh nice albion regent. ordered one in jan.
I wonder if one could hold a buckler, preferably with a very flat and thin handle, in the lead hand while using a polearm. Would that be a decent hand protection, as it is now somewhat of a "moving half of a basket hilt let alone a crossguard" whilst being far cheaper than gauntlets? How much of a compromise would that thin handled buckler be on maneuvering the weapon? And was there any accounts or depictions of usage such as this?
I've seen some accounts of Alexander the Greats pike-men (sarissa-men?) carrying a smaller 18" shield in addition to their 20 foot spears. I'm not sure if they were center grip or strapped to the forearms though.
As for being able to use a buckler with another weapon I have seen references were people would hold a long dagger with a buckler (point down) so they could stab with that hand if the opportunity presented itself. There were also the ancient peltasts and velites, the light infantry skirmishers of the Greek and Roman armies, who'd carry a couple of javelins in the left hand with the shield but I don't know if they ever used those for fighting or if it was just a convenient way to carry them.
@@silverjohn6037 Thank you for the info! Very interesting, especially the one of the sarissa! The lead hand of polearm wielders are frequently targeted, so I do wonder why some cost effective protection, like a small shield or a flat handled buckler, weren't as prevalent.
@@silverjohn6037 I thing strapped to the arm, as the greek shields and oplite shileds are
@@2008davidkang with halberds, bills ecc. you need to move the hands along the shaft to effectively use it, so holding a small shield at the same time would be more combersome than the advantage it give I think
while on something like a pike I don't see how a small shield or buckler would give you any benefit as is the lenght of the weapon that protect you
Look up finger rondels. It's basically a small round metal plate with a leather strap that protects your knuckes and back of your hand. Its a cheap bit of extra protection for your hands when using a polearm or sword.
Your vids are so awesome to me just going off topic could what is the story behind your the patu in the top left corner. I'm from new Zealand and it blows my mind when I see Maori things outside of the country
Hello Matt, if gunpowder and firearms never came to be would a short sword with a saber's hilt be a thing? Or a would adding rings just like in a zweihander be more viable for a short sword?
I think you can apply the leverage of pole weapons very effectively in close combat, if your opponent doesn't have a weapon, for choking, joint breaking etc. (although your opponent might also use the leverage of your pole weapon against you when grappling).
Very interesting😮
Something that just came to my mind: we know Romans had mail before using lorica segmentata and that mail also became their main armor after a few hundreds (?) years of using lorica segmentata.
They also changed their tactics to be more defensive (legonaries having many darts instead of javelins, a long spear switching back to being a main weapon...). So what if lorica segmentata was used not only because it was a "better" armor (debattable since the logistics of it were much more complicated) but also because when charging a spearwall, legionnaries would only receive glancing blows.
If they had had mail armor they may still have been stopped or pushed back by the blunt impact of spears and other weapons, but the lorica segmentata allowed them to keep advancing even if blows went around their scutum.
And when the need for this relentless advance wasn't there, they switch to mail since it was easier and cheaper.
Mail is less effective against spear than plate armor or brigandine. The only real reason I see is price and easy of production. In compare with brigandine or plate armor.
the lorica segmentata was used during the peak of the roman empire, but even during that time many legions and the troops auxiliarie keep using mail, lorica amata
and the gladius+scutum was used with good succes against greek phalanxes way before the lorica segmentata, so I don't see how can be any connection between the two
and late roman strategies focused on mobility and greater use of cavalries in congiuntion with fortification as the empire growed too large, that and other causes bringed the change from the gladius to a longer sword, spata, and from the scutum to a smaller shield, plus a greater use of the bow
@@fabiovarra3698 There is no connection between the late Roman Armies and the earlier hoplite style phalanx. The Romans were still capable of very complex formations that were much more flexible and mobile than the old phalanx, even when they switched back to melee spears.
Or what if Lorica Segmentata was just marginally better overall protection wise, and massively more difficult to maintain in the field. Claiming the tactics were "more defensive" is an old myth, and their late spearmen were capable of crushing victories against MUCH more dangerous and disciplined enemies than the earlier Roman legions, like the Sassanids.
@@TheChiconspiracy when did I say that? I said the same thing as you, Roman legions with gladius and scutum bested the Greek or the Macedonian phalanx