@@shorgoth Much later than that. An American MP Lieutenant and several of his Soldiers used bayonets to clear a trench during the invasion of Iraq. More recently in 2011, CPL Sean Jones and three of his men of the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment charged across 80 meters of open ground straight into (and through) a Taliban ambush.
I was trying to put my head around hundreds of people close-packed under force of that weapon. It must have been absolute carnage - especially for the under-protected peasant foot soldiers. Blimey, indeed.
@@coldlakealta4043 Don't discount the impact shields are going to have. Most battles actually did have relatively few casualties right up the moment one side broke. The rout is where numbers went up.
Why would you expect full force these soldiers that used these weapons or similar ones would never use full force that can result in damage to the weapon that would then have to be fixed and full force swings would tire a soldier out
I did a short course in a Japanese sword style and in our last class our instructor who was a 9th Dan demonstrated a series of cuts through bamboo tatami mats. And it's the same concept. Slash and pull letting the weight, and in the case of the katana, the curvature of the blade to do the work for you. Katana are much lighter in build and weight because they were designed to cut through samurai Armour, which tended not to be made of steel. One of the most terrifying things he showed was unleashing 3 one hand handed slashes from right high to left low. He cut through the mat a 3rd times before the first chunk even hit the ground and had done his cleaning swipe and was already sliding his katana back into its scabbard by the time the 3rd piece hit the ground
Andy Deane is an absolute legend and definitely knows his shit. 110% of props to him for knowing that you can't slice through chainmail with a sword slash btw
I had the misfortune of stumbling across a beheading execution video from Saudi Arabia a number of years ago, and the fellow was casually swinging a slightly more curved sword and lopping people's heads off with little to no effort. It was gruesome. So I can believe with even a slight bit of effort in a battle, a sword could easily remove and arm or leg.
It should be noted that you have a significantly higher chance of hitting a joint in the neck then any limb, so although it would be pretty easy to cripple a person it is somewhat harder to actually amputate a limb then it is to behead someone simply because it is harder to cut through bone than around it.
When I went to Sutton Hoo I realised how European swords where built with twisted centre core and harder metal hammer welded on them as cutting edges. Up to that point I thought Japanese swords where sophisticated and European swords where clumsy. Proves you have to look abroad bur also in your back yard!
Japanese swords got that reputation because the work in creating them was very labour intensive with very special steps taken. However, the reason was not because Japanese blacksmiths were somehow better than European ones (most of their techniques or similar ones were known in Europe), it was because Japanese ore was plainly said: dog shit. It took many steps to get it even close to mediocre European equivalents. This means that Europeans never had any reason to develop certain techniques because they just didn't need them. If you took any European and Japanese sword from around 1000 A.D. the probability that the European sword is crafted better is much higher. That doesn't mean that a Japanese smith couldn't do it, it was just far unlikelier because of resource constraints. The same goes for Japanese armour. In general you're going to find less iron in it and more leather. Even in the high age of the Samurai, you'll find wood as reinforcements on certain points; at a time where in Europe every knight of similar social position and wealth had full plate. It's all about the resources. Just compare these two 16th century armours: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Armadurasamurai.jpg c7.alamy.com/comp/D6WWH1/16th-century-german-armour-in-the-metropolitan-museum-of-art-met-new-D6WWH1.jpg
East Asia and Europe actually had access to similar techniques for forging swords. Ancient Chinese swords were spring tempered like medieval European swords and later Chinese swords used more jacketed lamination. European swords are famous for spring tempering, but some/a decent numbers of European swords also used jacketed lamination like later Japanese and Chinese swords.
It's funny how the pop-history sphere on the internet has overcorrected itself from the "weeaboo bajillion folded katana worship" and swung overboard in the other direction with an equally historically inaccurate idea that "European swords & techniques were way better than Japanese swords & techniques" and even swords/techniques from the rest of Eurasia.
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Japanese wood armor predates the Samurai period and comes from the period before they adopted continental (eg. Chinese and Korean) forms of armor - which is over a thousand years before the Samurai came around. The idea that later era Samurai used "wood" for parts of their armor seems to have been popularized from media like the game For Honor...which isn't accurate from what I've read.
The Royal Armories museum in Leeds is brilliant. If you are a real military History buff, then I would suggest two visits. Preferably one visit when live action is going on. It's well known, but still underrated.
Matt Easton has got the Royal Amouries together with Windlass to make a series of exact replicas of 6 swords in its collection. Well worth a look, and they come sharp, too.
The sword expert of the Royal Armory makes sounds with his mouth when showing the movements and cuts. The man is a man's man. The man is a medieval weapons geek. The man is a dangerous man who chooses to live history. The man is what we can call a Legend.
It's brilliant I've been several times and never get board walking around. The medieval parts and the guns on the top level are my favourite parts. Hope you enjoy your visit 👍
Obviously you dont just be in the position Andy is in without being an expert, but i could listen to him all day. 40 years learning and passing it on, gonna be a good series.
You guys do such a good job with this stuff. I was not expecting a Saxon sword to be so sharp. I guess I always heard that it was the weight of the thing that would do the damage. But that thing was like a four foot razor!!
@@luiscurrie388 They could and did. People have been sharpening flints to a razor edge since the Neolithic era. In the medieval era, they'd use a coarse grain stone to rough the shape out, then use a file to remove marks and any burrs. Then you just progressively keep going down finer and finer until you've reached your desired sharpness. They'd probably be even more sharp than your average kitchen knife due to just how much maintinence was put into most swords, since they were more often status symbols than anything.
Holy Goosebumps. I practice rapier and dagger but never tried sharps except for a cheap wall hanger Katana. Even that would be deadly. I've seen test cut vids with hunks of meat and ppl say they didn't even feel the blade go in and through. This looks the same - didn't even slow the follow thru. I'm so glad I live in a place and age where bladed combat is just an exercise in theory. I like to think I'd face combat bravely but most likely I'd sh1t my pants. This is terrifying.
The funny thing is our weapons today are much more dangerous. Imagine what they would think of weapons like a howitzer, fighter jet , rockets , drones or even nukes. Imagine a viking Berserker with an M-60 or a Roman tank legion
@@commissaryarrick9670 you are comparing heavy weaponry to personal one, that's kind of a weird compareason. A better one would be between a spear and an assault riffle. Thing of note, modern weapons aim to wound more than to kill instantly because a wounded soldier will put 2 more out of service to care for him/her and is a drain on the opponent's resources. We don't aim for genocide like we used to.
Depends on the Era of warfare, the romans mostly used swords while during the medieval times when plate armour was prevalent poleaems and spears were king.
@@princeofrance The Romans used their pilums and formations to great effect. Only after the Pilum had been disposed off by being thrown or broken, or the fight had moved into a more clustered less organized structure, then the gladius was equipped (still in combination with the shield and primarily for stabbing, so similar in role to the spear). I know of almost no culture that used a sword as a predominant weapon on the battlefield, it is literally made to be a sidearm. When there was an increase in plate armour, warhammers, maces and clubs actually became more popular, as well as polaxes and short spears but the „golden age“ of spear fighting so to speak in medieval Europe was the early to high Middle Ages. It is true however that the Roman legions were the first to actually acknowledge the importance of a backup weapon for close quarters and made the gladius a standard piece of equipment, issued to every soldier, as a response to the less open fielded fighting grounds and wooded areas they conquered in Central Europe, whereas armies such as the Greeks predominantly fought on flat terrain, making the likeliness of the usage of swords smaller and being that their army were mostly private people, the choice of carrying or not carrying a side arm (xiphos e.g.) a more monetary one.
I find it strange that people love to grab or touch the blade when they’re told a sword is sharp. I know there are techniques where you do hold the blade, but generally speaking it seems like pointing the barrel of a gun at yourself or having your finger on the trigger. It’s a safety faux pax.
I'm sure you know that you can feel the sharpness of a blade without pressing too hard to cut yourself. In any case, the techniques that required holding the blade that you refer to left that bit where you grab hold unsharpened and not every type of sword needed to be razor sharp. Swords are pretty cool, they have a history of their own.
People oten think that sharp edges are like Star Wars light sabers that will cut you as soon as you touch them, but that isn't true. As long as you don't slide along the edge, you will be perfectly fine, even with a very sharp blae. I even made a video about this along time ago ;-) ua-cam.com/video/U93iFdW-c7E/v-deo.html
It's not even close to a safety faux-pas when you look at the treatises (i.e. manuals). European swords have multiple areas of different sharpness. The closer you get to the cross-guard the duller it gets. There are even treatises where you'd flip the sword around and use the hilt to bash the enemy, whilst grabbing the sharpest, most pointy bit.
Me: (Bladesmith used to swinging a hammer): "This sword I made is fairly light by period standards. Customer: (Works in computer department: "Damn, this is heavy". Customer's buddy: (Works in garage) "Is it supposed to be this light?" Weight is relative...
How effortlessly did he cut through that mat? That's some sharp sword. I've watched youtubers cut through mats with various swords and as far as I can remember none of the swords cut through that easily, they all took a fair amount more force than that.
a lot of thing goes into play there. the edge alignment, center of mass. blade geometry, sharpness, blade movement. a long sword, probably will have more dificulties cutting like that, because it is design to be a good stabber, while this sword is design more to cut
@@tommo101able no they were NOT "very heavy". If they were "very heavy" then they could not have been wielded in the way they were. Sharpness plus good sword technique produce cuts like those demonstrated. His edge alignment was very, very good on both cuts. Even with a sharp sword if the edge isn't aligned it will glance off and the cut will go horribly wrong. A sword is NOT a percussive weapon. It does not rely on the force of impact to do damage. Hence the advice in the video about draw and push cuts. The only glaring error he made with those cuts was following through too much. That would have taken his weapon out of position and left him horrendously vulnerable to the friend of person just dealt with.
@@ghifarakbar8492 Depends on the longsword. It was more difficult to refine, but done properly they want to cut just as much. This sword is much more blade dominant in its point of balance, rotational foci, and vibrational node, making precision in the strike less important.
Having watched many FROGED in FIRE.. This really sends home just how deadly knife edge weapon CAN BE .. Dan Snow , with no formal training in building or using swords displayed just how destructive the are.
I've never watched forged in fire as I don't watch tv, but there are many great forging channels here on YT. It always amazes me how much work goes into making pattern welded swords and knives, which of course is made much faster in this more modern era by machinery like power hammers and hydraulic presses
@@chuckschillingvideos If he had said"tempered" he would have been correct. While tempering is an annealing process, the general terminology in engineering assumes that annealing means the component is reduced to its lowest hardness; tempering usually indicates partial reduction in hardness to get some other desirable characteristic such as shock resistance.
This makes me realise, that one of the greatest examples of the sheer wealth of the roman empire / republic, indeed is the gladius. When the sword indeed was such an expensive weapon to manufacture, part of the standard issue weaponry for a legionary was the gladius. Sure, they had the three spears (demonstrably in many ways more effective weapon than a sword), they still had the resources to issue every legionary in a testudo with a sword.
Back in the 1970s, I saw a TV show with James Burke, in which he demonstrated a (possibly Saxon) sword by chopping a side of pork, which was hanging from a stand. Slicing through ACTUAL MEAT hits a lot differently to people chopping rolled up mats.
I remember that-Burke was awesome. I think it was about the weaponry in use at the Battle of Hastings, and I was amazed how the blade sliced through that meat.
Nor is it so unique or divulging that it gives anyone a leg to stand on when serial killers treat it like a forbidden euphoric feeling. It's nothing it doesn't do anything magical or feel weird otherwise every butcher would be a dahmer
Yeh, the tatami mat is frankly a bit underwhelming as a demonstration device. Very few people have any idea how dense, tough or heavy it is, which makes cutting it a bit redundant. An actual bit of meat on the bone gives a much more realistic example.
Maybe his series "Connections" was it? I loved that era of educational television. Another British production was Testament about the stories in the Bible and seeking the actual places they may have taken place.
I love the part where you started the first move ... and he eventually said. "Lets have a go with the sharp one ..." I was a little worried before that ;)
the trouble with visiting the UK (I'm from Canada) is that when you leave your new "must see" list is longer than the one you brought with you! Our last trip, to Inverness and the outer islands, demanded only one thing of us: we have to go back!
All else being equal, it's not the weapon, it's the man wielding the weapon. Even when unequal, the skill of the combatants may well be a factor. It wasn't just the longbows at Agincourt, the muddy ground on an upslope played a major part as well.
As a former British Army soldier, I’ve always been fascinated and horrified at what the battlefield of old must’ve looked like after the battle had ended….limbs, intestines, excrement and gore…and the butchery all done at close range…..too personal for my liking…the sword,as it shows, was the assault weapon of its day.
Interesting, I have always known that a weapon cannot conduct an assault without the warrior who wields it. It is a deadly weapon to be sure, but assault weapon seems like incorrect terminology.
Many years ago I bought a 1860’s Wilkinson sword. When I received it I found the hilt was not all original and the blade had lost its temper. Blade was so soft it could have been pure lead. I believe it was in a house fire and it lost its temper and grip. I did return it though very interesting to know how soft the steel used is before tempering.
It might have been worth keeping hold of it and at some point getting someone to reharden and heat treat it. It seems these days there are a lot of people who can do great work with swords, where as not so long ago it was probably a pretty rare thing. Iv'e got a medieval shortsword blank that I bought off eb@y that has been hardened and heat treated, and at some point I shall get round to filing it down into a nice sword with a hopefully half decent distal taper and make a nice crossguard and pommel out of a big bar of tin bronze I have. Also of course a nice handle from maybe some yew wood or maybe hornbeam wood
I met a couple of the guys from Leeds Royal Armouries museum (John Walker, Andy Deane &Keith Ducklin; Keith was at both events) in Atlanta Georgia at 2 seperate sword events in 2001 & 2002. In the summer of 2002 I was able to go to England & Scotland & one stop was the museum itself where I saw Keith Duckling again. If one is an arms & armor enthusiast I recommend 2 days minimum at the museum it's impressive & big! Also the Wallace Collection in London has a smaller but very impressive arms & armor collection.
Okay, here's the thing. Swords were absolutely a thing. Yes. But they were back-up weapons at most. You'll notice that in depictions you'll often see only cavalry use swords if at all and that's because the reach isn't that much of a problem is you're on a horse. But down on the ground, when everybody else has a spear or axe or basically anything with a longer reach than you, trying to go in for the kill with a sword leaves you isolated and vulnerable because everyone else around you plays the range game. And having a sword absolutely makes you a target by everyone in your vicinity because having a sword means you are somewhat important (and killing you allows for looting). Once you leave your formation to try and close in you leave yourself exposed on the side and in pre-plate times no amount of protection is going to save you from a spear thrust to the neck, legs or even just side. Also keep in mind that most of your enemies would be wielding shield leaving your angle of attack woefully inadequate. The sword is certainly an impressive and versatile weapon in skilled hands. But it is not primarily a battlefield weapon. It's a status symbol, a dueling or self-defense weapon and a side-arm. Truly the time when the sword comes into prominence as a major weapon is ironically in the age of gunpowder. Once personal protection is eshewed in favour of formation firing and reload times have a heavy impact on warfare, cavalry armed with a sword can inflict absolutely terrifying damage on unprepared infantry.
"Primitive" - does not equate to - "ineffective", It's a concept people today are far too unaccustomed with. Ancient people not only traversed the globe and maintained trade networks of goods to and from every continent on the planet, using bronze technology, but even waged inter-continental wars previous to learning to smelt iron.
@@greenjack1959l swords are used in one hand mate as you well should know, the other hand is carrying a shield so you are dead wrong. spear is shit in close combat. unless its in the movies.
@@inspectorcal don't take my word for it.Check out Scholagladiatoria Lindybeige or any other Hema channel. The spear ruled the battlefield for thousands of years.
Wow, the idea of wear on particular parts of ths blade makes total sense but is also fascinating. Makes me wonder whether 'curvy' swords like the Xiphos were designed with wider parts where there was likely to be more wear for easier regrinding.
That's more about adjusting the cutting power of the blade by changing the weight distribution and also to increase the size of wounds when stabbing(it's like a small spear head), but in the bronze age it's also about trying to make the blade stronger in general since bronze isn't as hard as steel.
swords were for show and for nobles, not really war, they speicifically say most on the battle field would have axes or pikes. The sword got dented from practice not from use. They mainly practiced running up stairs backwards killing people chasing them.
I'm glad that the point was made that a sword was not a common weapon. "Only the top 5 or 10 of the fighting force could afford it." And the rest would use axes or farming tools. Great attention to detail.
Nice demonstration, though some minor things to criticize. Yes, the sword is effective and was a prestige weapon for the very few. But exactly that made the spear and axe and the seas as a sidearm much more important on the battlefield in general.
Dan was using the sword exactly as I have been describing for a long time. The sword is kept at (in Dan's case note quite) a 90 degree angle to the fore-arm without allowing the tip to extend to increase reach. The result, as the expert explains in his discussion about the action of the cut, is to draw the blade across the target, and induce a draw-cut. If you extend the blade forwards, it cannot draw and will only chop which is much less effective. See Skalagrim's video on the Katzbalger sword (ua-cam.com/video/JEASl6vRAsw/v-deo.html) which is a very similar form of sword. Skalagrim extends the tip of the sword forward in his test cutting, and he loses the drawcut as a result. THIS IS THE REASON for the unique shape of the "Anglo-Saxon" or "Viking Age" or "Migration Era" sword, where the grip is very very short and terminates in a crossguard at the blade and another crossguard at the pommel. So that when you squeeze the grip it locks the hand in place within it. But if you extend the tip forward, THE UPPER CROSSGUARD WILL DIG YOU IN THE WRIST. To tell you NOT to do that! Because if you do, you will extend the tip forward and you will lose the DRAW. This is also why most swords of the era had spatulate tips (rounded, not pointed).Because the form of the grip did not allow one to stab with it effectively. As the sword was held at an angle to the forearm. This is why (in my view) HEMA practitioners and Battlefield re-enacters are quite wrong to try to invent different ways to hold the grip of this type of sword, to allow a the sword tip to be used in a thrusting manner. This is not the way the sword type was designed to be used. And they are as a result mis-interpreting the evidence (the contemporary swords). It's my belief that the slightly curved (away from the hand) upper and lower crossguards of the example Dan was using was what was referred to as an "English" style of hilt, where the curves of the guard allowed some limited extension of the sword tip, without the upper guard digging in the wrist. Although I believe this style of hilt was prevalent in Frankia (France) as well.
I'm not convinced, many of the grip details point against a 90° grip for draw cuts, like you'd use with a Tulwar, for example. You can reliably generate a whole lot more energy by using a cranking motion to extend out the blade out during the strike hinging the blade at the pummel and your fingers, essentially creating a second elbow for your strikes and accelerate them even further. It's the same principle of using an atlatl to chuck spears. Look up Thrand's experiments with the "cast blow".
@@leonardomarquesbellini That's missing the point. "Migration Era" or "Viking Age" swords which possess a characteristic capital letter I shaped hilt all have one thing in common. If you extend or "cast" the sword forward, the upper guard W I L L dig you in the wrist! Therefore unless you account for this fact by saying that in-period, it was acceptable to extend the sword - and endure physical PAIN, by the the upper guard digging you in the wrist, OR one has to accept that to AVOID this, the sword necessarily HAD to be gripped in a hammer grip, The shortness of the grip allowing the hand to LOCK in place when gripped tightly. It's not about the effectiveness of the cut, it's about the physical shape of the grip which DOESN'T ALLOW one to extend the blade, without the upper guard digging you in the wrist. Matt Easton and Roland Warszecha et al both recognise this and assert that in such times when extending the sword was necessary, one would have to re-grip the sword, taking the hand OFF the grip and holding the entire sword by the pommel. Even though there is no evidence that this was part of the fighting style of the time.
@@alexanderguesthistorical7842 yeah, but that's the thing, your premise about the hilt digging into the hand is wrong. Flat out. Hilts from the period and up to the high medieval period are consistently set slightly off-center and twisted in such a way that the grip and pommel conform to the shape of your palm when fully extend outwards. If properly made it will not dig into your hands, at all. Plus, with the way cutting ratios and leverages work 90° draw cuts are ineffective ways to transfer force with those kind of blades, for that to work you need strongly curved blades, like a Cavalry Saber of Tulwar.
@@leonardomarquesbellini No sorry that's not correct. If you look in "Swords of the Viking Age" by Ian Peirce, there are photographs of many examples of just such swords. Now although the pages do not show images taken from the pommel down the length of the sword, showing the relationship between the upper and lower guards, it is quite clear form the photographs that the plain intent of the manufacturer, from the outset was for the upper and lower guards to be IN LINE with one another (on the same horizontal plane). Any twist there may be in any given historical example is likely to be not significant enough for the grip as you describe (with the upper grip twisted away from the hand). And is likely to e the result of either A) poor workmanship of the manufacturer or B) the environmental effects on the individual example over hundreds of years (corrosion for example). As I say, both Matt Easton and Roland Warszecha both acknowledge the "digging in the wrist" phenomena, and have posted videos about how they believe people of the period "got over" the issue. My assertion is that they didn't "get over" the issue, and the fighting system was developed to use a hammer grip with the wrist locked at 90 degrees. If you plane a piece of wood with a hand plane. And the plane is in line with the wood (blade is perpendicular) it is sometimes difficult to plane the surface due to resistance. The well known answer is to tilt the plane slightly, so the blade is at an angle to the length of timber. This is in effect a "DRAW CUT". Similar to the hammer grip 90 degree to the fore-arm fighting style I describe. Thus, it is extending a sword forward by rotation the wrist downwards, which will lead to more of a "chop" than if the wrist is locked at 90 degrees. If the wrist is locked thus, as a sword is brought downwards, rotating from the SHOULDER, it will address the target at an ANGLE, just like angling a hand-plane on a piece of wood. And produce a draw-cut.
That really depends. Over different time periods wealth was distributed very unevenly and a house could be very cheap. But, if you are in ancient roman times, the gladius is mass produced and cheap. A sword like shown here would be much more expensive, since they didnt have the same sort of mass production in 1000 Era England. However, when we come to the 14-1500s we see that a lot of citizens in much of Europe will have their own sword, and sword play is beginning to become a past time for the middle class. So the price of a sword would vary a lot, and whether they had ornaments and so on.
This puts into perspective why there is a total rout when the lines break. Blimey, light infantry literally stood no chance once knights got amidst them. Ofcourse they would run for their lives & limbs!!
Sort of. It's not like the heavy cavalry are invincible(especially in this time period) but if they break through the line and come up behind you you're in trouble. Nobody can fight effectively when surrounded(unless they use a hedgehog formation of some kind). Generally the cavalry did not stand still inside your unbroken line fighting though, that's too dangerous for them. They kept mobile and keep bashing the line, retreating and repeating until they broke through OR once they broke through ride around behind you and rip you to shreds from behind. When you start running again they cut you down from behind. That's why generally you have your own cavalry around to harass enemy cavalry.
@@MrBottlecapBill yup, heavy cavalry are great to break lines but if the charge gets bogged down, then they have hell to pay! As a Total War player though, I always liked Light Cav over Heavy Cav. Light Cav are more versatile I find.
Not necessarily. If they had polearms or spears then that would be much more effective because of reach. Swords were status symbols and side arms, even back then. Even if people didn't have access to chainmail back then, they would most definitely invest in a gambeson
A 20 degree edge is a 20 degree edge, as long as it has mass it will cut if the edge is aligned. The shape of the sword and its material (bronze, iron, steel(s)) are much less important for cutting power. Its purely the condition of the edge. All the metallurgy over the years has just increased the amount of time you can bash people with it before it turns into a club.
Crikey, how effortless that blade sliced through the tatami mat... considering that was the first time he tried that and his cuts were pretty half-assed, that thing is like a Konami code for cutting.
The Last Kingdom (BBC/Netflix) series had some amazing battle field fights. The Saxons adopting the Viking Shield Wall ect. I wish there more Historical Data on the Saxons, Angles and Jutes prior to thier Christian conversion.
I've a hand made battle ready sword close that one. Made by a blacksmith. He guarantees it's practically unbreakable. 28in (71.12cm) long x 1.75in (4.44cm) wide blade. Two handed hilt, 8in (20.32cm) long & 8in (20.32cm) wide hand guard. Hilt has a pointed pommel. The pommel & hand guard are solid brass. It's been sharped by a guy that does surgical instruments. It's a beast. Not a play thing.
Good beginner breakdown of the saxon style sword. It has a heck of a hard hit to it, with an uncommon swinging technique usable on it. That thing can pierce chain armor, and has a devastating chop swing to it. Unlike an arming sword with a better balance and a "slice" to it, the unbalanced saxon sword had hard chops. Even right on the helmet; so much force even if the helm stops the blow, the force can knock em right out.
@0:39 As a former junior-enlisted, I personally spend a lot of time wondering how life was for the boots on the ground. The high-and-mighty commanders lived pretty cushy lives compared to the men they drove before them like cattle. Honestly, I think anyone enthusiastic about military history should spend some time scrubbing toilets and the like -- Just to get a realistic taste of a common soldier's life. (We'd probably have fewer wars if kings and rulers had to suffer under their own military campaigns like common soldiers...)
"Its either sliding it forward or backwards that cuts the meat" That is about the most ridiculous claim on swords I have heared in a long, long time....
Going to have to stop at the Armory while we're in Leeds in December 2023, to watch a Leeds United game... Visiting from the States... Leeds United States! :-)
Great episode. It was stunning the deadliness of that blade. In the background of the presentation, to the right, is a flag divided in quadrants. I'm not from the UK - can anyone tell me its significance? Thanks.
Hmmm, a sword doesn't need to be pushed or pulled in order to cut the meat, it will cut with direct hit also, but most of the time the swing does have some push or pull to it naturally.
I'd love to see these swords demonstrated on a fullsize human dummy made from ballistic gel or something else that gives a realistic impression of the resistance of cutting through a human body ...would be fascinating and would bring a more visceral demonstration of how brutally efficient these weapons were
I had an "Edged Weapons" appraiser from an auction house in Toronto come to have a look at some things I wanted to sell. We got talking and he had been observing his usual sword smith dismantling a katana to evaluate it and do some restoration. He said once the steel under the handle was exposed there was some engraving visible. They had it translated . . . "One blow - two bodies." So that was the sword smith's quality assurance apparently from testing it on cadavers. I don't know how old that katana was. Kind of creepy to think about it.
The 6th century was the age of king Arthur and his legendary sword Excalibur but King Arthur was a Caledonian Celtic king so his sword Excalibur was probably a late Celtic sword
“King of the battlefield”
The spear: ‘am I a joke to you?’
The cannon: 'Yes.'
@@Neion8 The Howitzer: Indeed
@@Neion8 not really, don't forget that bayonet were still a thing until what? Vietnam?
@@shorgoth Much later than that. An American MP Lieutenant and several of his Soldiers used bayonets to clear a trench during the invasion of Iraq. More recently in 2011, CPL Sean Jones and three of his men of the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment charged across 80 meters of open ground straight into (and through) a Taliban ambush.
The paras did a bayonet charge in the falklands. @@shorgoth
Ok, I was expecting a full force swing in order to cut through the target, not a half-hearted one like that. Blimey, that's sharp!
I was trying to put my head around hundreds of people close-packed under force of that weapon. It must have been absolute carnage - especially for the under-protected peasant foot soldiers. Blimey, indeed.
@@coldlakealta4043 Don't discount the impact shields are going to have. Most battles actually did have relatively few casualties right up the moment one side broke. The rout is where numbers went up.
Why would you expect full force these soldiers that used these weapons or similar ones would never use full force that can result in damage to the weapon that would then have to be fixed and full force swings would tire a soldier out
@@Ruhrpottpatriot yes, that makes sense - in that light, the side that broke would invite slaughter with minimal casualties to the aggressors
I did a short course in a Japanese sword style and in our last class our instructor who was a 9th Dan demonstrated a series of cuts through bamboo tatami mats. And it's the same concept. Slash and pull letting the weight, and in the case of the katana, the curvature of the blade to do the work for you. Katana are much lighter in build and weight because they were designed to cut through samurai Armour, which tended not to be made of steel.
One of the most terrifying things he showed was unleashing 3 one hand handed slashes from right high to left low. He cut through the mat a 3rd times before the first chunk even hit the ground and had done his cleaning swipe and was already sliding his katana back into its scabbard by the time the 3rd piece hit the ground
Andy Deane is an absolute legend and definitely knows his shit. 110% of props to him for knowing that you can't slice through chainmail with a sword slash btw
I had the misfortune of stumbling across a beheading execution video from Saudi Arabia a number of years ago, and the fellow was casually swinging a slightly more curved sword and lopping people's heads off with little to no effort. It was gruesome. So I can believe with even a slight bit of effort in a battle, a sword could easily remove and arm or leg.
It should be noted that you have a significantly higher chance of hitting a joint in the neck then any limb, so although it would be pretty easy to cripple a person it is somewhat harder to actually amputate a limb then it is to behead someone simply because it is harder to cut through bone than around it.
When I went to Sutton Hoo I realised how European swords where built with twisted centre core and harder metal hammer welded on them as cutting edges. Up to that point I thought Japanese swords where sophisticated and European swords where clumsy. Proves you have to look abroad bur also in your back yard!
Japanese swords got that reputation because the work in creating them was very labour intensive with very special steps taken. However, the reason was not because Japanese blacksmiths were somehow better than European ones (most of their techniques or similar ones were known in Europe), it was because Japanese ore was plainly said: dog shit. It took many steps to get it even close to mediocre European equivalents. This means that Europeans never had any reason to develop certain techniques because they just didn't need them.
If you took any European and Japanese sword from around 1000 A.D. the probability that the European sword is crafted better is much higher. That doesn't mean that a Japanese smith couldn't do it, it was just far unlikelier because of resource constraints. The same goes for Japanese armour. In general you're going to find less iron in it and more leather.
Even in the high age of the Samurai, you'll find wood as reinforcements on certain points; at a time where in Europe every knight of similar social position and wealth had full plate.
It's all about the resources. Just compare these two 16th century armours:
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Armadurasamurai.jpg
c7.alamy.com/comp/D6WWH1/16th-century-german-armour-in-the-metropolitan-museum-of-art-met-new-D6WWH1.jpg
@@Ruhrpottpatriot A certain author lifted those facts and used them in his fantasy saga as a plot device.
Pug...
East Asia and Europe actually had access to similar techniques for forging swords. Ancient Chinese swords were spring tempered like medieval European swords and later Chinese swords used more jacketed lamination. European swords are famous for spring tempering, but some/a decent numbers of European swords also used jacketed lamination like later Japanese and Chinese swords.
It's funny how the pop-history sphere on the internet has overcorrected itself from the "weeaboo bajillion folded katana worship" and swung overboard in the other direction with an equally historically inaccurate idea that "European swords & techniques were way better than Japanese swords & techniques" and even swords/techniques from the rest of Eurasia.
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Japanese wood armor predates the Samurai period and comes from the period before they adopted continental (eg. Chinese and Korean) forms of armor - which is over a thousand years before the Samurai came around. The idea that later era Samurai used "wood" for parts of their armor seems to have been popularized from media like the game For Honor...which isn't accurate from what I've read.
The Royal Armories museum in Leeds is brilliant. If you are a real military History buff, then I would suggest two visits. Preferably one visit when live action is going on.
It's well known, but still underrated.
I though the Total Military College of Science was at Shrivingam.
Matt Easton has got the Royal Amouries together with Windlass to make a series of exact replicas of 6 swords in its collection. Well worth a look, and they come sharp, too.
Never knew that the Pub Landlord was a medieval sword expert as well!!
The sword expert of the Royal Armory makes sounds with his mouth when showing the movements and cuts. The man is a man's man. The man is a medieval weapons geek. The man is a dangerous man who chooses to live history. The man is what we can call a Legend.
Visiting the Leeds Armoury this week, can't wait!!
It's brilliant I've been several times and never get board walking around. The medieval parts and the guns on the top level are my favourite parts.
Hope you enjoy your visit 👍
Obviously you dont just be in the position Andy is in without being an expert, but i could listen to him all day. 40 years learning and passing it on, gonna be a good series.
You guys do such a good job with this stuff. I was not expecting a Saxon sword to be so sharp. I guess I always heard that it was the weight of the thing that would do the damage. But that thing was like a four foot razor!!
Compared to other weapons, swords are incredibly light. 4.4 pounds or 2kg was on the heavier side of things.
You think they where able to get them as sharp as we can now a days? Just thinking out loud.
@@luiscurrie388 They could and did. People have been sharpening flints to a razor edge since the Neolithic era. In the medieval era, they'd use a coarse grain stone to rough the shape out, then use a file to remove marks and any burrs. Then you just progressively keep going down finer and finer until you've reached your desired sharpness.
They'd probably be even more sharp than your average kitchen knife due to just how much maintinence was put into most swords, since they were more often status symbols than anything.
@@volatile100 that's pretty cool. Your right being that they (blacksmith) prob devoted a lot of time perfecting there craft. Thanks for responding.
@@luiscurrie388 yes
Holy Goosebumps. I practice rapier and dagger but never tried sharps except for a cheap wall hanger Katana. Even that would be deadly. I've seen test cut vids with hunks of meat and ppl say they didn't even feel the blade go in and through. This looks the same - didn't even slow the follow thru. I'm so glad I live in a place and age where bladed combat is just an exercise in theory.
I like to think I'd face combat bravely but most likely I'd sh1t my pants. This is terrifying.
Holy goosebumps......
Is that you 1960s Batman!? Lol
The other cnt would also be shytting their pants too most likely
Medieval warfare was fcking crazy
The funny thing is our weapons today are much more dangerous. Imagine what they would think of weapons like a howitzer, fighter jet , rockets , drones or even nukes. Imagine a viking Berserker with an M-60 or a Roman tank legion
@@commissaryarrick9670 you are comparing heavy weaponry to personal one, that's kind of a weird compareason. A better one would be between a spear and an assault riffle. Thing of note, modern weapons aim to wound more than to kill instantly because a wounded soldier will put 2 more out of service to care for him/her and is a drain on the opponent's resources. We don't aim for genocide like we used to.
King of the battlefield = spear/pole arms. A sword was a side arm in most cases.
Depends on the Era of warfare, the romans mostly used swords while during the medieval times when plate armour was prevalent poleaems and spears were king.
@@princeofrance The Romans used their pilums and formations to great effect. Only after the Pilum had been disposed off by being thrown or broken, or the fight had moved into a more clustered less organized structure, then the gladius was equipped (still in combination with the shield and primarily for stabbing, so similar in role to the spear). I know of almost no culture that used a sword as a predominant weapon on the battlefield, it is literally made to be a sidearm.
When there was an increase in plate armour, warhammers, maces and clubs actually became more popular, as well as polaxes and short spears but the „golden age“ of spear fighting so to speak in medieval Europe was the early to high Middle Ages.
It is true however that the Roman legions were the first to actually acknowledge the importance of a backup weapon for close quarters and made the gladius a standard piece of equipment, issued to every soldier, as a response to the less open fielded fighting grounds and wooded areas they conquered in Central Europe, whereas armies such as the Greeks predominantly fought on flat terrain, making the likeliness of the usage of swords smaller and being that their army were mostly private people, the choice of carrying or not carrying a side arm (xiphos e.g.) a more monetary one.
Swords were also used for everyday self-defence, because they were easy to carry around.
@@takoen_taotaanthat’s a side arm
Yeah, but what does have to do about this particular sword and its effectiveness??
I find it strange that people love to grab or touch the blade when they’re told a sword is sharp. I know there are techniques where you do hold the blade, but generally speaking it seems like pointing the barrel of a gun at yourself or having your finger on the trigger. It’s a safety faux pax.
A little cut won’t kill you.. a bullet will.
I'm sure you know that you can feel the sharpness of a blade without pressing too hard to cut yourself. In any case, the techniques that required holding the blade that you refer to left that bit where you grab hold unsharpened and not every type of sword needed to be razor sharp. Swords are pretty cool, they have a history of their own.
People oten think that sharp edges are like Star Wars light sabers that will cut you as soon as you touch them, but that isn't true. As long as you don't slide along the edge, you will be perfectly fine, even with a very sharp blae. I even made a video about this along time ago ;-)
ua-cam.com/video/U93iFdW-c7E/v-deo.html
It's not even close to a safety faux-pas when you look at the treatises (i.e. manuals). European swords have multiple areas of different sharpness. The closer you get to the cross-guard the duller it gets. There are even treatises where you'd flip the sword around and use the hilt to bash the enemy, whilst grabbing the sharpest, most pointy bit.
It's an inner child thing. Just human nature
Me: (Bladesmith used to swinging a hammer): "This sword I made is fairly light by period standards.
Customer: (Works in computer department: "Damn, this is heavy".
Customer's buddy: (Works in garage) "Is it supposed to be this light?"
Weight is relative...
How effortlessly did he cut through that mat? That's some sharp sword. I've watched youtubers cut through mats with various swords and as far as I can remember none of the swords cut through that easily, they all took a fair amount more force than that.
those old swords were very heavy, so it is the sharpness of the sword plus the weight
@@tommo101able Not at all, in fact swords rarely weight more then 2.5 - 3.5 lbs. With rare occasions reaching 4.5lbs
a lot of thing goes into play there. the edge alignment, center of mass. blade geometry, sharpness, blade movement. a long sword, probably will have more dificulties cutting like that, because it is design to be a good stabber, while this sword is design more to cut
@@tommo101able no they were NOT "very heavy". If they were "very heavy" then they could not have been wielded in the way they were.
Sharpness plus good sword technique produce cuts like those demonstrated. His edge alignment was very, very good on both cuts. Even with a sharp sword if the edge isn't aligned it will glance off and the cut will go horribly wrong.
A sword is NOT a percussive weapon. It does not rely on the force of impact to do damage. Hence the advice in the video about draw and push cuts.
The only glaring error he made with those cuts was following through too much. That would have taken his weapon out of position and left him horrendously vulnerable to the friend of person just dealt with.
@@ghifarakbar8492 Depends on the longsword. It was more difficult to refine, but done properly they want to cut just as much. This sword is much more blade dominant in its point of balance, rotational foci, and vibrational node, making precision in the strike less important.
"More recently, Agincourt" is just about the most History Professor-esque statement it is possible to make, short of "Back in my father's day..."
Underatted weapons, love Saxon pattern-welded.
I liked watching the arms trainer. Even though he didn't swing the sword at the mat, you could see how much he loved what he was teaching.
Having watched many FROGED in FIRE.. This really sends home just how deadly knife edge weapon CAN BE .. Dan Snow , with no formal training in building or using swords displayed just how destructive the are.
I've never watched forged in fire as I don't watch tv, but there are many great forging channels here on YT. It always amazes me how much work goes into making pattern welded swords and knives, which of course is made much faster in this more modern era by machinery like power hammers and hydraulic presses
frogged in fire indeed
Those frog blacksmiths were something indeed
@@UnitSe7en No frogs were harmed in this production !
Love the Royal Armouries, well worth a visit if you're in Leeds.
I love the way he talks about it being super sharp and then says about the steel being beautifully treated and annealed.
He's obviously not as well schooled in the field as he would want you to think. He's certainly no swordsmith or metallurgist.
@@chuckschillingvideos If he had said"tempered" he would have been correct. While tempering is an annealing process, the general terminology in engineering assumes that annealing means the component is reduced to its lowest hardness; tempering usually indicates partial reduction in hardness to get some other desirable characteristic such as shock resistance.
Correct I certainly wouldn't want to go into combat with an annealed blade
@@webtoedman Yeah an annealed sword would probably end up bent after a couple of slashes
This makes me realise, that one of the greatest examples of the sheer wealth of the roman empire / republic, indeed is the gladius. When the sword indeed was such an expensive weapon to manufacture, part of the standard issue weaponry for a legionary was the gladius. Sure, they had the three spears (demonstrably in many ways more effective weapon than a sword), they still had the resources to issue every legionary in a testudo with a sword.
Back in the 1970s, I saw a TV show with James Burke, in which he demonstrated a (possibly Saxon) sword by chopping a side of pork, which was hanging from a stand. Slicing through ACTUAL MEAT hits a lot differently to people chopping rolled up mats.
I remember that-Burke was awesome. I think it was about the weaponry in use at the Battle of Hastings, and I was amazed how the blade sliced through that meat.
That was an awesome episode! It showed connections from the stirrup to the atom bomb if I remember right.
Nor is it so unique or divulging that it gives anyone a leg to stand on when serial killers treat it like a forbidden euphoric feeling.
It's nothing it doesn't do anything magical or feel weird otherwise every butcher would be a dahmer
Yeh, the tatami mat is frankly a bit underwhelming as a demonstration device. Very few people have any idea how dense, tough or heavy it is, which makes cutting it a bit redundant. An actual bit of meat on the bone gives a much more realistic example.
Maybe his series "Connections" was it? I loved that era of educational television. Another British production was Testament about the stories in the Bible and seeking the actual places they may have taken place.
I love the part where you started the first move ... and he eventually said. "Lets have a go with the sharp one ..." I was a little worried before that ;)
Pattern welded swords…at that time, the cutting edge of technology on the battlefield
Get out
@@mrsogoras He's not wong.
@@darnellgrape-drinker4916 Its the pun that bothers me haha
They were a cut above the rest.
@@mrsogoras you are here, so it is voluntary pun-ishment.
Damn, another place I wish I had visited while living in the UK. Looks cooler than the Tower of London's Arms and Armor collection.
the trouble with visiting the UK (I'm from Canada) is that when you leave your new "must see" list is longer than the one you brought with you! Our last trip, to Inverness and the outer islands, demanded only one thing of us: we have to go back!
The Seax was the main weapon, a program on that would be great.
All else being equal, it's not the weapon, it's the man wielding the weapon. Even when unequal, the skill of the combatants may well be a factor. It wasn't just the longbows at Agincourt, the muddy ground on an upslope played a major part as well.
A bad infantryman always blames his wellies
As a former British Army soldier, I’ve always been fascinated and horrified at what the battlefield of old must’ve looked like after the battle had ended….limbs, intestines, excrement and gore…and the butchery all done at close range…..too personal for my liking…the sword,as it shows, was the assault weapon of its day.
Interesting, I have always known that a weapon cannot conduct an assault without the warrior who wields it. It is a deadly weapon to be sure, but assault weapon seems like incorrect terminology.
Many years ago I bought a 1860’s Wilkinson sword. When I received it I found the hilt was not all original and the blade had lost its temper. Blade was so soft it could have been pure lead. I believe it was in a house fire and it lost its temper and grip. I did return it though very interesting to know how soft the steel used is before tempering.
It might have been worth keeping hold of it and at some point getting someone to reharden and heat treat it. It seems these days there are a lot of people who can do great work with swords, where as not so long ago it was probably a pretty rare thing.
Iv'e got a medieval shortsword blank that I bought off eb@y that has been hardened and heat treated, and at some point I shall get round to filing it down into a nice sword with a hopefully half decent distal taper and make a nice crossguard and pommel out of a big bar of tin bronze I have. Also of course a nice handle from maybe some yew wood or maybe hornbeam wood
I've been bladesmithing over 30 years. It shouldn't be too hard to heat treat the blade again.
Excellent video 👍 very informative ! And entertaining 😃 wouldn't want to get hit by this weapon !
I met a couple of the guys from Leeds Royal Armouries museum (John Walker, Andy Deane &Keith Ducklin; Keith was at both events) in Atlanta Georgia at 2 seperate sword events in 2001 & 2002. In the summer of 2002 I was able to go to England & Scotland & one stop was the museum itself where I saw Keith Duckling again.
If one is an arms & armor enthusiast I recommend 2 days minimum at the museum it's impressive & big!
Also the Wallace Collection in London has a smaller but very impressive arms & armor collection.
"How effective was a Saxon sword in battle?" To find out, we've decided to hit four historians over the head with it
DAMN I was not expecting that to cut through like butter
Amazing sword. So sharp. I love when you all visit the armory!❤😊
Okay, here's the thing.
Swords were absolutely a thing. Yes.
But they were back-up weapons at most. You'll notice that in depictions you'll often see only cavalry use swords if at all and that's because the reach isn't that much of a problem is you're on a horse. But down on the ground, when everybody else has a spear or axe or basically anything with a longer reach than you, trying to go in for the kill with a sword leaves you isolated and vulnerable because everyone else around you plays the range game. And having a sword absolutely makes you a target by everyone in your vicinity because having a sword means you are somewhat important (and killing you allows for looting). Once you leave your formation to try and close in you leave yourself exposed on the side and in pre-plate times no amount of protection is going to save you from a spear thrust to the neck, legs or even just side. Also keep in mind that most of your enemies would be wielding shield leaving your angle of attack woefully inadequate.
The sword is certainly an impressive and versatile weapon in skilled hands. But it is not primarily a battlefield weapon. It's a status symbol, a dueling or self-defense weapon and a side-arm.
Truly the time when the sword comes into prominence as a major weapon is ironically in the age of gunpowder. Once personal protection is eshewed in favour of formation firing and reload times have a heavy impact on warfare, cavalry armed with a sword can inflict absolutely terrifying damage on unprepared infantry.
The way he just gently swung it- Yet a simulated limb just flew off.... Bloody hell. As he said- No wonder Sword were devastating.
"hand the sword onto your son or daughter" um no history is not a netflix movie
This is so good, I am so jealous of Dan snow, literally has the best job in the world
"Primitive" - does not equate to - "ineffective", It's a concept people today are far too unaccustomed with.
Ancient people not only traversed the globe and maintained trade networks of goods to and from every continent on the planet, using bronze technology, but even waged inter-continental wars previous to learning to smelt iron.
What a wonderful and enigmatic man he is that Andy!
Reminds me of the tibias found in the mass graves at Visby on the island of Gotland.
It’s so nice to hear ,”pattern welded”, and not damascus.
Great stuff.Now can we have one on the REAL king of the battlefield, the Spear, please.
spear is useless when two or more swordsmen are coming at you from different angles
@@inspectorcal so would a sword be. Except in the movies.
@@greenjack1959l swords are used in one hand mate as you well should know, the other hand is carrying a shield so you are dead wrong. spear is shit in close combat. unless its in the movies.
@@inspectorcal don't take my word for it.Check out Scholagladiatoria Lindybeige or any other Hema channel. The spear ruled the battlefield for thousands of years.
@@inspectorcal ua-cam.com/video/uLLv8E2pWdk/v-deo.html
Wow, the idea of wear on particular parts of ths blade makes total sense but is also fascinating. Makes me wonder whether 'curvy' swords like the Xiphos were designed with wider parts where there was likely to be more wear for easier regrinding.
That's more about adjusting the cutting power of the blade by changing the weight distribution and also to increase the size of wounds when stabbing(it's like a small spear head), but in the bronze age it's also about trying to make the blade stronger in general since bronze isn't as hard as steel.
swords were for show and for nobles, not really war, they speicifically say most on the battle field would have axes or pikes. The sword got dented from practice not from use. They mainly practiced running up stairs backwards killing people chasing them.
I'm glad that the point was made that a sword was not a common weapon. "Only the top 5 or 10 of the fighting force could afford it." And the rest would use axes or farming tools. Great attention to detail.
I can appreciate that they are treating that sword as a proper weapon, almost like you would treat a firearm, and not just as a prop.
Good to see another side of Al Murray's expertise.
"How effective was a saxon sword in battle?"
It's a sharpened stripe of metal. It will be about as effective as the rest.
Nice demonstration, though some minor things to criticize. Yes, the sword is effective and was a prestige weapon for the very few. But exactly that made the spear and axe and the seas as a sidearm much more important on the battlefield in general.
Dan was using the sword exactly as I have been describing for a long time. The sword is kept at (in Dan's case note quite) a 90 degree angle to the fore-arm without allowing the tip to extend to increase reach. The result, as the expert explains in his discussion about the action of the cut, is to draw the blade across the target, and induce a draw-cut. If you extend the blade forwards, it cannot draw and will only chop which is much less effective. See Skalagrim's video on the Katzbalger sword (ua-cam.com/video/JEASl6vRAsw/v-deo.html) which is a very similar form of sword. Skalagrim extends the tip of the sword forward in his test cutting, and he loses the drawcut as a result. THIS IS THE REASON for the unique shape of the "Anglo-Saxon" or "Viking Age" or "Migration Era" sword, where the grip is very very short and terminates in a crossguard at the blade and another crossguard at the pommel. So that when you squeeze the grip it locks the hand in place within it. But if you extend the tip forward, THE UPPER CROSSGUARD WILL DIG YOU IN THE WRIST. To tell you NOT to do that! Because if you do, you will extend the tip forward and you will lose the DRAW. This is also why most swords of the era had spatulate tips (rounded, not pointed).Because the form of the grip did not allow one to stab with it effectively. As the sword was held at an angle to the forearm.
This is why (in my view) HEMA practitioners and Battlefield re-enacters are quite wrong to try to invent different ways to hold the grip of this type of sword, to allow a the sword tip to be used in a thrusting manner. This is not the way the sword type was designed to be used. And they are as a result mis-interpreting the evidence (the contemporary swords).
It's my belief that the slightly curved (away from the hand) upper and lower crossguards of the example Dan was using was what was referred to as an "English" style of hilt, where the curves of the guard allowed some limited extension of the sword tip, without the upper guard digging in the wrist. Although I believe this style of hilt was prevalent in Frankia (France) as well.
I must have missed that Skalagrim video. I'll have to take a look at it. Thanks
I'm not convinced, many of the grip details point against a 90° grip for draw cuts, like you'd use with a Tulwar, for example. You can reliably generate a whole lot more energy by using a cranking motion to extend out the blade out during the strike hinging the blade at the pummel and your fingers, essentially creating a second elbow for your strikes and accelerate them even further. It's the same principle of using an atlatl to chuck spears. Look up Thrand's experiments with the "cast blow".
@@leonardomarquesbellini That's missing the point. "Migration Era" or "Viking Age" swords which possess a characteristic capital letter I shaped hilt all have one thing in common. If you extend or "cast" the sword forward, the upper guard W I L L dig you in the wrist! Therefore unless you account for this fact by saying that in-period, it was acceptable to extend the sword - and endure physical PAIN, by the the upper guard digging you in the wrist, OR one has to accept that to AVOID this, the sword necessarily HAD to be gripped in a hammer grip, The shortness of the grip allowing the hand to LOCK in place when gripped tightly. It's not about the effectiveness of the cut, it's about the physical shape of the grip which DOESN'T ALLOW one to extend the blade, without the upper guard digging you in the wrist. Matt Easton and Roland Warszecha et al both recognise this and assert that in such times when extending the sword was necessary, one would have to re-grip the sword, taking the hand OFF the grip and holding the entire sword by the pommel. Even though there is no evidence that this was part of the fighting style of the time.
@@alexanderguesthistorical7842 yeah, but that's the thing, your premise about the hilt digging into the hand is wrong. Flat out. Hilts from the period and up to the high medieval period are consistently set slightly off-center and twisted in such a way that the grip and pommel conform to the shape of your palm when fully extend outwards. If properly made it will not dig into your hands, at all. Plus, with the way cutting ratios and leverages work 90° draw cuts are ineffective ways to transfer force with those kind of blades, for that to work you need strongly curved blades, like a Cavalry Saber of Tulwar.
@@leonardomarquesbellini No sorry that's not correct. If you look in "Swords of the Viking Age" by Ian Peirce, there are photographs of many examples of just such swords. Now although the pages do not show images taken from the pommel down the length of the sword, showing the relationship between the upper and lower guards, it is quite clear form the photographs that the plain intent of the manufacturer, from the outset was for the upper and lower guards to be IN LINE with one another (on the same horizontal plane). Any twist there may be in any given historical example is likely to be not significant enough for the grip as you describe (with the upper grip twisted away from the hand). And is likely to e the result of either A) poor workmanship of the manufacturer or B) the environmental effects on the individual example over hundreds of years (corrosion for example). As I say, both Matt Easton and Roland Warszecha both acknowledge the "digging in the wrist" phenomena, and have posted videos about how they believe people of the period "got over" the issue. My assertion is that they didn't "get over" the issue, and the fighting system was developed to use a hammer grip with the wrist locked at 90 degrees. If you plane a piece of wood with a hand plane. And the plane is in line with the wood (blade is perpendicular) it is sometimes difficult to plane the surface due to resistance. The well known answer is to tilt the plane slightly, so the blade is at an angle to the length of timber. This is in effect a "DRAW CUT". Similar to the hammer grip 90 degree to the fore-arm fighting style I describe. Thus, it is extending a sword forward by rotation the wrist downwards, which will lead to more of a "chop" than if the wrist is locked at 90 degrees. If the wrist is locked thus, as a sword is brought downwards, rotating from the SHOULDER, it will address the target at an ANGLE, just like angling a hand-plane on a piece of wood. And produce a draw-cut.
Oh my, that's a gorgeous replica
I have 36" Viking double edged sword! What a weapon! Light solid & great workmanship...
Top instructor and educator 👍🏼
Yeah, that slow, gentle slice just cutting through... that was something.
I read, sometime in the past, that a good sword cost more than a house.
That really depends. Over different time periods wealth was distributed very unevenly and a house could be very cheap.
But, if you are in ancient roman times, the gladius is mass produced and cheap.
A sword like shown here would be much more expensive, since they didnt have the same sort of mass production in 1000 Era England.
However, when we come to the 14-1500s we see that a lot of citizens in much of Europe will have their own sword, and sword play is beginning to become a past time for the middle class.
So the price of a sword would vary a lot, and whether they had ornaments and so on.
Such a beautiful blade, and a terrifying cut!!
That dude was an awesome demonstrator
This puts into perspective why there is a total rout when the lines break. Blimey, light infantry literally stood no chance once knights got amidst them. Ofcourse they would run for their lives & limbs!!
Sort of. It's not like the heavy cavalry are invincible(especially in this time period) but if they break through the line and come up behind you you're in trouble. Nobody can fight effectively when surrounded(unless they use a hedgehog formation of some kind). Generally the cavalry did not stand still inside your unbroken line fighting though, that's too dangerous for them. They kept mobile and keep bashing the line, retreating and repeating until they broke through OR once they broke through ride around behind you and rip you to shreds from behind. When you start running again they cut you down from behind. That's why generally you have your own cavalry around to harass enemy cavalry.
@@MrBottlecapBill yup, heavy cavalry are great to break lines but if the charge gets bogged down, then they have hell to pay! As a Total War player though, I always liked Light Cav over Heavy Cav. Light Cav are more versatile I find.
Not necessarily. If they had polearms or spears then that would be much more effective because of reach. Swords were status symbols and side arms, even back then. Even if people didn't have access to chainmail back then, they would most definitely invest in a gambeson
There's something natural about weilding a pointy sharp stick, something that is engrained in to us for centuries.
You read the old stories and you see "he was clove through the helm to the breastbone."
Not so hard to imagine now, eh?
A shield is so much more than a wall. Why do these history shows insist on dumbing things down?
A 20 degree edge is a 20 degree edge, as long as it has mass it will cut if the edge is aligned. The shape of the sword and its material (bronze, iron, steel(s)) are much less important for cutting power. Its purely the condition of the edge. All the metallurgy over the years has just increased the amount of time you can bash people with it before it turns into a club.
That mat had a square dowl in it too. And his swing wasnt strong.
Man thats a sharp well weighted sword omg :O
There must have been some horrendous injuries in battles. Modern day wars are bad but going hand to hand must have been something else
Pretty sure the spear has always been king of the battlefield
Crikey, how effortless that blade sliced through the tatami mat... considering that was the first time he tried that and his cuts were pretty half-assed, that thing is like a Konami code for cutting.
Can't wait for the next one!
Love both my Saxons and Vikings.... hoping to get some money together and get my own Sword and Seax custom forged...❤
The Last Kingdom (BBC/Netflix) series had some amazing battle field fights.
The Saxons adopting the Viking Shield Wall ect.
I wish there more Historical Data on the Saxons, Angles and Jutes prior to thier Christian conversion.
"this is the shard one" immediately puts finger on the blade edge ¬.¬
I've a hand made battle ready sword close that one. Made by a blacksmith. He guarantees it's practically unbreakable. 28in (71.12cm) long x 1.75in (4.44cm) wide blade. Two handed hilt, 8in (20.32cm) long & 8in (20.32cm) wide hand guard. Hilt has a pointed pommel. The pommel & hand guard are solid brass. It's been sharped by a guy that does surgical instruments. It's a beast. Not a play thing.
Crossing swords is my favourite game
Unless I was mounted, I'd much rather have a spear. And if I was mounted, a hatchet or short poleaxe. Swords are great in parades, though.
Cool new series
Wow, I'm so glad I found this channel! Brilliant work! Will need to go to Leeds now one day ...
This should have been much longer.
Good beginner breakdown of the saxon style sword. It has a heck of a hard hit to it, with an uncommon swinging technique usable on it. That thing can pierce chain armor, and has a devastating chop swing to it. Unlike an arming sword with a better balance and a "slice" to it, the unbalanced saxon sword had hard chops. Even right on the helmet; so much force even if the helm stops the blow, the force can knock em right out.
they actually do have balance in mind when they make those types of swords...just a more "blade-forward" balance than thrust-centric swords
@0:39 As a former junior-enlisted, I personally spend a lot of time wondering how life was for the boots on the ground.
The high-and-mighty commanders lived pretty cushy lives compared to the men they drove before them like cattle.
Honestly, I think anyone enthusiastic about military history should spend some time scrubbing toilets and the like --
Just to get a realistic taste of a common soldier's life.
(We'd probably have fewer wars if kings and rulers had to suffer under their own military campaigns like common soldiers...)
"Its either sliding it forward or backwards that cuts the meat"
That is about the most ridiculous claim on swords I have heared in a long, long time....
this dude has had some real combat experience
Going to have to stop at the Armory while we're in Leeds in December 2023, to watch a Leeds United game... Visiting from the States... Leeds United States! :-)
"Pass it down to your son... or daughter." Yeah, right.
That is fearsome...!
What is the gentleman’s name that is giving the instructions? I’d like to hear more from him. He makes me think of a younger Mike Loades.
Andy Deane.
Great episode. It was stunning the deadliness of that blade. In the background of the presentation, to the right, is a flag divided in quadrants. I'm not from the UK - can anyone tell me its significance? Thanks.
I believe that it's the Tudor Standard. Fellow Canadian here, so I can't say with 100% certainty though.
It's the royal coat of arms .
@@grifftowninc g'day, eh?
@@davidcreager1945 Thank you very much David.
Looks like Henry V coat of arms
Hmmm, a sword doesn't need to be pushed or pulled in order to cut the meat, it will cut with direct hit also, but most of the time the swing does have some push or pull to it naturally.
00:30 cant help, but german sallet looks so epic!
Most foot soldiers used various takes on the seax from which the Saxons got their name from.
how could you ever expect to fight wars if over half the soldiers didn't have proper weaponry, and even less of them had fighting experience
I'd love to see these swords demonstrated on a fullsize human dummy made from ballistic gel or something else that gives a realistic impression of the resistance of cutting through a human body ...would be fascinating and would bring a more visceral demonstration of how brutally efficient these weapons were
I reckon that blade would give forged in fire a run for its money
Search up Skallagrim weapon testing
You should watch Forged In Fire where they use pig carcasses.
I had an "Edged Weapons" appraiser from an auction house in Toronto come to have a look at some things I wanted to sell. We got talking and he had been observing his usual sword smith dismantling a katana to evaluate it and do some restoration. He said once the steel under the handle was exposed there was some engraving visible. They had it translated . . . "One blow - two bodies."
So that was the sword smith's quality assurance apparently from testing it on cadavers. I don't know how old that katana was. Kind of creepy to think about it.
@@charlieross-BRM The Japanese used to test them by cutting through live criminals, not cadavers.
I honestly wish I could go to to the royal armories museum and hope to do so in the far future
The posture of the sign feels wrong.
I could also imagine a second noose
The 6th century was the age of king Arthur and his legendary sword Excalibur but King Arthur was a Caledonian Celtic king so his sword Excalibur was probably a late Celtic sword
Battle back then, was so up close and personal.
“Only the top echelons of society are ever gonna afford a weapon like this”
High Medieval Peasants with Messers:
I love that human history boils down to who made the poking device superior to other poking devices.
Human history was ruled by dudes on horses until guns got good.
Excellent and informative video, thank you 👍🗡
if ya'll get the opportunity to go to the armories you should go its a great museum absolutely huge