Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
One handed swords vs Two handed swords - REPLY to the Metatron
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 січ 2017
- Are two handed swords better than one handed swords? In this video we will discuss this questions and the points that The Metatron has raised in a recent video.
Metatron's video: • One Handed Swords vs T...
My old video discussing one handed vs two handed swords: • One handed swords vs t...
Hey, I'm in Shad's mirror, that was cool :D
Fantastic video response mate, thoroughly enjoyed it. You bring up some very interesting points, I'll try comparing the swords myself as soon as I get a good quality long sword.
In the light of this new information, atleast in matter of weight, I must say I do reconsider and I myself would now consider a bastard sword to be indeed the best choice for a weaker individual, and the long sword a better option than an arming sword.
For my personal preference (so talking about me wielding the weapon) at the moment however I would still choose a one handed arming sword over a long sword/bastard sword as I'm absolutely in love with my Oakeshott type twelve and the way it feels in the hand, even with one handed usage.
Thank you for the shoutout and the respect you show for my channel and content.
'till next time ;)
and remember: the metatron has spread his wings.
A noble one I suppose :)
Metatron 2 people who collect weapons are some of the most level headed people on the internet, ah the irony
Metatron SQUIRRIL!
Oh man I totally understand about personal preferences, you should always use what works best for you, like how I still prefer longsword over sword and heater shield, even though the heater shield might be overall more beneficial in general. I just fight better with a longsword ^_^
It's been an absolute pleasure to have this discussion with you mate, thank you for offering you insights and please never hesitate to do it again, I love it and I can't wait to enjoy your future content!
A disagreement is either an opportunity to learn or to teach.
or notice that neither party will differ so you kill them all. YAY HISTORY :D
Or a duel
@@MohamedTaymour13 yeah a duel
or, ideally, both.
Or you're both right and it was presented weirdly so now you both look at each other like "we are idiots"
That "spear vs sword" thing is best described using modern weaponry - assault riffle is a better weapon overall, but pistols are better everyday carry.
excellent analogy. To further it, spears/assault rifles are most effective when deployed in ranks/base of fire. Swords are versatile weapons for both individual combat and squad deployment.
I disagree, respectfully, its a horrible analogy, A handgun in modern combat is a piece of shit, you will pull it in a last stand, no rifle situation, at best Now, for everyday always carry self defense, sure. Back then, the swords were the rifles of combat...spears...maybe sniper rifle, as in reaching out and touching someone farther than the rifle/sword. could. The handgun would be equivalent to their everyday always carry knife.
Get Zapt lol no, swords were expensive garbage and rarely used except as sidearms you use when your weapon breaks, just like handguns. Terrible against armor. Virtually everyone used spears or other polearms, the spear being your basic primary weapon. A sword is just a really upgraded knife and used as such. Thus, a modern submachine gun is basically the equivalent as a greatsword.
Get Zapt or when you are clearing indoor structures.
robert20351 shouldn‘t a warhammer and maces be more like shotguns?
Q: What sword to use in combat? One handed or two?
A: Whichever will end thine opponent rightly.
those damn squirrels. that's exactly why I keep a crossbow beside my chair.
4:10 An extra advantage: you can unscrew the pommel faster
No, this is all wrong! We need Shad vs Metatron 1v1 now!
Shad 2 handed vs Meta 1 handed!
xD
Kinda awesome how the content creators tend to geek out a bit over the others videos. I pretty much follow Metatron, Scholar Gladitoria, Skallagrim and others. REcently stumbled across this channel. Not disappointed. Bit of a humorous style like Lyndibeige which I like. Just wanted to say that. Also great points on the Crossbow for range, and Longsword for personal defense.
I love this! I love that HEMA is one of the only places on the internet where people can agree or disagree civilly! It makes me so happy to be a part of this community!!
so if your cupping the pummel while using a longsword let you twist the pommel off to finish your opponent rightly?
*end
end them rightly
Marveryn
I'll never forget the day my mom walked in on me as I was cupping my pommel.
*him
end him rightly
I used to be an adventurer like you, but then I took a pommel to the face.
"her opponent assumed she held her pommel out of weakness. he did not even hear her laugh before he was ended rightly"
SQUIRREL!!!
WHERE !!!!!!!!!!!
Shadiversity was that a real squirel or was it joke?
I immediately had to think of the squirrel in my pants song from Phineas and Ferb XD
why not polearms for the ladies? even shorter ones. naginatas for instance were standard curriculum for the ladies in japan for a long time. all the leverage, all the reach.
SQUIRRELS!
still no explaination about how each type of sword fares against dragons... what about dragons?
Hmm, this is a very good question, indeed it might be the most significant question anyone could ask. My answer would be that it depends on the dragon's size. Horse size dragons, swords would still be useful though a long spear better. Elephant sized dragons and larger, swords would be nearly useless. Of course none of this has tackled the fire breathing issue.
dragonlance it is then...
Lord Mormagor A real life human with real life swords and armor wouldn't stand a chance 1v1 against a dragon. A chimp can rip off your face due to its strength, let alone a gorilla that's capable of quite literally ripping you in two, despite armor.
Now add flying, fire breathing, and about 3x the strength of what was mentioned. Getting into sword range against an animal or creature like that is pointless. You WILL die.
And don't bother with a shield. Metal absorbs heat, so if you wanna stand behind something that will melt into your body and transfer armor melting levels of heat to your hands..be my guest.
The best way to slay a beast like that is with numbers, reach, and viral warfare. Arrows and crossbows. The goal of fighting a dragon would be to DENY it the natural advantages they have.
Not charge headlong into the reach of a long neck and fangs that can crush a car.
Best is to get us on your side human XP
A Tank can kill a Dragon. Tanks > Dragons
I've been fighting in the SCA for a little over 5 years, and my prefered weapon is greatsword. I know it's not HEMA, but I think I can speak from a wealth of experience and bruises about the bit where you're comparing sword and shield vs two handed sword. 13:31, Like anything a proper amount of training will get you used to the blind spot. It took me forever to get used to sword and board, but I've seen other fighters adapt to it quite quickly. At 13:45 , I have to say that you're luck is mostly due to the inexperience of your sword n' shield using opponents, most likely. Range is excellent, but only if you're quick and clever enough to maintain it. 14:23 I'd say that most times the shieldman has the advantage, if they're free to run down the one without a shield. Having one thing to attack with and one thing to block with tends to be better than having one thing to attack and block with. The longswordsman, or greatswordsman in my case, will only maintain the advantage if range is kept. With a longsword that range is going to be even more difficult to maintain, the shieldman might only have to take a step to get into their B range.
As far as the best weapon for someone with less physical strength, I think the spear is the best. You even said it yourself, that someone much weaker would want to avoid a grapple. A spear will allow the less physically endowed to keep attackers at range much easier, and wouldn't require as much power to inflict damage.
Miniature....
Metatron is not wearing plate armor...
It's PASTA ARMOR!
Oh...because he's italian...oh...wp
no, its luigi armor!!
Nah, I can't even tell the difference between Italian steel and pasta. AnsaldoBreda can burn in hell!!!
+Remium Qualit Quote of the day: "Can you burn a Luigi board?"
For a brief second i thought your Picture was the Coat of Arms of my Family. The same Color of the shield, but with something different on it. ^^
The things on the sides (i dont know how they are called in english) are also fairly similar, but the top thing is absolute different.
I think people forgot how to use shields with arming swords. They were a very effective combo, you have to treat the shield as a weapon as well not just blocking.
the mutual respect between Shad and Metatron, who I both enjoy very much, is really quite heartwarming
I commented 1st I liked 3rd
It amuses me how he always has to explain people can share ideas and have a different opinions and that he isn’t dissing anyone
why not polearms for the ladies? even shorter ones. naginatas for instance were standard curriculum for the ladies in japan for a long time. all the leverage, all the reach.
Moist Von Lipwig Please watch to the end of the video. He actually does say that once again.
I meant why not for self defense? He said they were okay for the battlefield, but not for self-defense. If you could travel around with a longsword at your waist, you could just as easily do so with something the size of a staff.
But he just said that. You don't carry polearms around, while you do carry swords.
The_Shinigami
I specified "even shorter ones". You can easily travel with a staff-like weapon that's about as tall as you. Good enough for self-defense on the road. Also useful if you gotta walk a whole lot.
You can't carry around polearms, or swords, as tall as you comfortably. Neither can you draw them efficiently enough to defend yourself from an attack quickly.
Now you could certainly carry around staffs or short spears the size of a longsword, but honestly, why would you? They have no advantages and too many disadvantages. Also the longsword has a sheath on your waist made to draw from, while staffs and spears have nothing of the sort and would just be a hassle. Not to mention that they would be more useless in a fight.
6:15 Reach is, of course, incredibly important, however I would like to point out that in the comparison drawn here you gain two benefits from the shorter sword. Weight as you pointed out, but also because the torque, (the force required to rotate the blade) is heavily influenced by mass distribution, because the mass on the shorter sword is placed closer to the handle, (the axis about which you will be rotating unless you are half-swording or something like that) it requires much less force to rotate the shorter bastard sword as compared to the long sword, on top of the total weight/mass. (Less weight = easier to hold up, less mass = less inertia so it's easier to swing).
In conclusion: use spears. They usually outreach swords.
Carrying a spear everywhere is impractical
I think you should try to convince your fellow larpers about alternative methods to just strapping on a shield. Have you suggested handles to them? Maybe they'll get a handle on you then. :)
In my limited experience, I also found the two-handed long sword a more potent choice than sword & shield, allowing for "fancier footwork" & parry. The shield can become a mild distraction, which I felt took away from your ability to attack as effectively. It compels you to attack more confidently, but somehow makes you more of a sitting duck in dexterity. (Not talking shield wall or Roman legion stuff here.)
I literally LOVE your channel. All of these little historical channels that have arose are beautiful. You included.
So, I saw this video and became intrigued so much I tracked down the other two videos. First things first, after teaching people how to sword fight for over tens years, I tend to agree with your opinion more than Metatron's opinion. In fact, here's a video from scholagladitoia where Matt Easton says the same thing: ua-cam.com/video/9wDjjLnKRcI/v-deo.html. Londswords are much better for beginning sword fighters that don't have the muscles needed to support some of the techniques. I tend to prefer the rapier myself, but I have lost students to longsword classes because their arms got too tired. Ultimately though, the best weapon for someone is the one that feels the most comfortable. My favorite memory of how strength doesn't translate into sword fighting very well is one where a prison security guard came to my fencing school because he wanted to learn something different. This guy was huge, he was much stronger than me, and i actually had difficulties because it was like fighting Conan the Barbarian while i was trying to teach him the basic strikes. The gentleman actually had to take off work and missed the next session because he could not move his arm after the first lesson. So, I agree that giving a novice a longsword to start off with is a good choice while they learn how to control the weapon. Metatron wasn't wrong though. There are many historical cases where people would user a one handed sword with two hands. My favorite is a dueling stance that was used with the Scottish basket hilt claymore, and there is a pretty good example of it in the movie "Rob Roy". However, that is not how the sword was made to be used and you will always lose effectiveness when using a weapon in a way that it wasn't intended to be used. So the reach advantage severely offsets the weight disadvantage of using a single handed sword. And the thing to remember is the a single handed word really was designed to be used in a battlefield situation which is why it was so short, and why many were so tip heavy. They were meant for areas where there wasn't room to maneuver, so if you have room once again, the longsword wins this. Ultimately though, it depends on what you feel more comfortable with. It just so happens that most people prefer the feel of a longsword when first learning how to fight than other weapons.
I need that chair. Like... I fucking need it.
Why like?
That's not a chair, that's a THRONE!
Having to carry a big object is not the only reason why it's not so practical to use a spear for self defense. Being in closed quarters like rooms, corridors or even narrow city roads is also an issue if you're fighting with a spear I reckon, as opposed to being in an open battlefield where the spear can be put to full use.
Linck192 True but on the other hand you could very easily hold door or narrow corridor with spear because noone could go around you, they have to deal with your tip in quite tight space which is the worst scenario for them.
agreed wholeheartedly-- tight corridors would go for the spear every time. How many times did ancient Greek troops prove that _point?_
Though at my height (6'0) reach isn't really a problem, I agree with you in preferring the two-handed longsword. Not only is the comfort and control level much higher, but let's be honest here; two-handed longswords really LOOK incredibly cool.
People without shields on a battlefield are wounded or dead. Archers will take the easy target......the guy with a two hander. Two handers are for dueling on they are niche roles once archers are on the field.
Well, people with two handers would be probably wearing plate.
Well if you can target a specific enemy without shooting anyone from your own side you are superhuman for shooting through a whole formation of soldiers on your side without hitting anyone except the enemy. Archers never really "targeted" They shot up so arrows would rain on the enemy. It was called a volley
+JoeRingo118 The fact that these "Two-Handers" otherwise called, Spadone or Montante, were swords of the early Renaissance period, where both plade armour and shields were declining in use (especially shields).
Most of the people on the field were too poor for that.
+AKlover Today we don't have battlefields, where men fight with swords anymore. This video is about, what is easier to handle for a weaker than average person. Not the usefullness at the battlefield.
From what I can gather, having two hands far apart allows for more fluid, quicker movements, but it disturbs your structure during cuts. Keeping your hands closer reduces the reach difference between your hands to a minimum, allowing your to keep the sword at the center of your body while having both of your arms extended, which makes it so you can transfer hip and shoulder rotation into the swing better. If you swing while having two hands far apart by pushing the blade with the right hand (if you're right handed) and pulling the pommel with the left hand, while simultaneously extending your arms, it allows for a very quick, snappy cut, but it will be much less powerful than a fully committed arcing hew.
The strongest cut you can make with a sword involves extending your arms, locking them and your whole body into a rigid structure, while rotating your hips and shoulders in the same plane at the same time. Also you need to position your hands properly, squeeze your fingers in a certain way etc. They teach this sort of grip in kenjutsu. However, with a double edged sword, I feel like you need to break it sometimes to achieve certain positions and execute certain strikes.
I'm impressed, as always. Your arguments are constructive and thorough. What more could I want?
It's also very possible to have two people with different information and different ways to go about it and still end up with the same conclusions...
It is also very interesting to see, or be apart of.
"The best technique are past down by survivors''
this got me thinking about something, and it's kind of a tangent. I see it mainly in fantasy roleplaying games, like D&D. there's this idea that people have that they need to have only one weapon or set of combat equipment, just whatever the one best thing is (and in some cases, maybe one melee set and one ranged weapon). there's the fighter with the two-handed sword, there's the paladin with their lance, the assassin with their twin daggers...
but realistically, a well-prepared combatant will have multiple weapon options. they'll have their main weapon(s), and they'll also have a sidearm, or a backup weapon, and also a dagger, and maybe a ranged weapon as well (weather it's a bow or crossbow, or a polearm that has alot of reach).
when I make characters for fantasy games like D&D, I make sure they are well-equipped. depending on how much strength my character has, or whether they can afford a horse or donkey to carry their extra gear, or whatever, I'll have a variety of weapon options on them. for example, I might have a rogue/ranger multiclass who uses a quarterstaff sometimes, or a dagger and one-handed slashing sword sometimes, or a rapier and dagger sometimes, or a bow and arrows sometimes. or maybe I'll have a paladin who uses a halberd most of the time, but will switch to a morningstar if he needs to, and still have a dagger as a backup weapon.
kind of like how, for everyday self-defense, your low-strength combatant might not be realistically able to carry a polearm or spear around everywhere she goes, so she uses a sword instead. but even though, ideally, she would use the spear on a battlefield during war, she might still have that sword as a sidearm and perhaps a dagger as well (good for finishing oponents in heavy armour). she might even have a crossbow, too.
I love these videos, I am a subscriber of both you guys channels, great content
I was looking at an earlier episode, where you talked about armor in medieval fantasy, and the armor used by the Starks in game of thrones, which is leather with rivets is actually a coat of plates
a few notes:
gripping pommel with the off-hand is useful but not the "ideal" grip. Most people who cut competitively with longswords don't use this grip, but it is excellent for inverting and winding in an encounter. The exact topic has been discussed in medieval literature, too.
Reach isnt an "absolute" advantage. The longer your weapon is, the more of it is "foible" and weak to being parried. When long weapons are parried a skilled opponent will move in to grips as quickly as possible. Once they have cleared the point and gotten into their own measure, the length of the weapon becomes a *dis*advantage, as it becomes much more difficult to pull, disengage or redirect attacks. Compare for example the amount of openings you could expose with a dagger once someone had gotten hold of you, versus with a longsword.
The bit on the end illustrates why I went for great swords in skyrim over shield and sword. Too much coordination required. Give me the big sword that can swing and block and bash and it's fluid.
Could it be that the people you're sparring against don't know how to fully utilize a shield?
Based on the footage he's shared, I'd guess that to be the case.
They didn't use it at all. Far to small for single fighting the way they were wielding it, as far as strapped to the arm for single combat it's just a big NO.
***** Then why were small strap on shields like the targe and the rotella used for single combat?
Watch the Academy of Historical Fencing's videos for some examples of shields used well.
Looking back at the comment I forgot to mention I was speaking of large shields like in the video. I have seen small bucklers strapped to the arm in some of the treatises, but no large shields.
I think that the long sword is a really beautiful elegant weapon :)
My D&D group was discussing halflings the other night, about how a real fight between a hallooing and a human might go. We agreed that halflings would have a harder time against human than D&D or similar RPG's portray. We also speculated that a spear would be the best melee weapon that a halfling could use in a fight against a human with a windlass crossbow being the best weapon over all, barring gunpowder.
ShieldWife you guys are smart
I am just realizing how much the quality of Shad's videos have improved (especially the audio quality).
I think you have to visit the "Deutsches Klingenmuseum" (German museum for blades) in Solingen. There are tons of swords, original and replicated swords. I know it's a long way and costs a lot (I think you are from Australia; sorry, if I have a false assumption), but I think this could be your personal Mecca. I have been there very often and I will be there often because I enjoy it.
Solingen is also called "City of Blades" because of many factories/manufacturers and blacksmithes making swords, sabers, rapiers, daggers, knifes and sets of cutlery; even straight razors. Its tradition traces back to the Middle Ages. In Solingen is also a castle called "Schloss Burg" ("Burg Castle", official translation).
Maybe one day you will travel to Solingen and visit the castle, which is actually a medieval palace, and the "Deutsches Klingenmuseum".
Thank you for all your informative videos!
Shad, would you mind doing a video on the terminology of armor? You already have one for the sword and one for castles, but nothing on armor.
Hey Shad! And Metatron! I am a fan of both of your videos.
I had an additional thought concerning the advantage of more reach with a longsword in this scenario.
We may also want to consider the likelihood that someone with less physical strength may also have shorter arm reach as well. That would particularly be the case if we are discussing differences in average male and female body types. Therefore, using a weapon with longer reach may actually help make up any difference in arm reach with the opponent and be another reason for using the lomgsword.
You can use a longsword, or a twohanded sword, with one hand to make a thrust with longer reach. As in you let go with one hand, thrust and then grab the sword with both again.
On last of occasional sparing session of our HEMA club I had opportunity to try various swords.
I was quite surprised, how light Rapier felt. It can be even lighter than arming sword, and has much of weight on the basket - close to hand - therefore feels even lighter. And in the matter of reach may be almost as long as longsword.
In addition when we talk about weaker person, we can't expect him/her to rely too much on parry or doing strong cuts. And Rapiers aren't meant to do heavy cutting or parrying.
So in my opinion for weak-handed person ideal weapon would be Rapier with dagger or cloak.
man, I saw your subscriber count and thought it said 553,000. We need to get you more subs!
i can only agree.. those round shields without a strap to bind it to the arm are actually very light but they really only feel light for like 10 minutes and then you feel em in your upper arm.. my experience with them is fighting for hours with sword and shield and shield and spear and you really are glad after a while to change them for a long spear or another twohanded weapon.. it doesn't matter how strong you are and how light the shield is.. it's bulky and you will feel it after a really short time especially when you block some hits.. the best thing to do is holding it close to the body except for when you move it to block or give the opponent a shield bash..
Interesting conclusion. One thing I would note is the location of the battle. In an open field? sure long words are great for combat endurance when arrows aren't on the field. But, what about fighting in Castles? The benefits of a shield and single arm weapon in a castle stair way really kinda changes everything. Shields have an interesting ability to negate terrain advantages.
Shad... Take it a step further. A DAGGER in two hands! So light! So easy to swing!
I was always taught the lower hand on two handed swords is more of a fulcrum and steering wheel.
The thing about sword and buckler, it uses more of grappling and hitting techniques. So strength and height are a real advantage.
Taking a good hit on a buckler is comparable to a hand to hand hard block, so again a weak person will not be able to take too many blows on the buckler (or especially a shield) before getting tired or ineffective. So yes, they would be more in a business of using reach instead.
On a battlefield or in a duel, it makes sense to use well made gauntlets and gloves to protect the arms and a helmet. Especially gauntlets can make a one handed weapon lunge much safer - a lunge compensates for the shorter reach.
A big guard on the weapon does so too, but nowhere near as effectively, and it weighs and/or reduces options.
A bit of armor goes a long way if fitted properly. It's probably not something you would carry every day though.
An even lightly armored warrior generally has much less need of a shield unless going against someone who is either using a weapon with a massively longer reach, say a polearm designed to fight armor (not stick) or a missile weapon like a crossbow, bow or even some firearms. Shields are great when closing distances - you still get to move fast of course.
Having reach can be a benefit, but one issue is if you're weaker than your opponent AND have a long weapon (either a long sword or polearm,) your opponent can use the length against you by using leverage to drag your weapon down and trap it. I'm not a strong guy and I've had a polearm completely dragged out of my hands a few times :/ personally I go for a 1-hander and buckler when fencing, to offset the strain on the wrists using a solid pair of plate gauntlets helps stop over-straining, even if it does add a bit more weight to your arm.
Some years ago I made a painting of the Amazons from the Achilles myth. If I remember correctly they commonly used small half moon shaped shields, basically a buckler, and a small double axe. This also could make sense since a top heavy weapon would give a weak person more striking power or at least weaker person would be on par with a stronger opponent.
Hey, Shad,
I know I probably write this quite late for you to reply, but I'd like to point out another thing to consider - it's also a matter of surroundigs, which weapon is better to use. For example if you'd have to defend yourself in interiors (and should swords be those defensive weapons you argue, you'd pick one that suites EVERY possible enviroment), you'd find probably much more positives in those bastard swords (onehanded sword's blade and twohanded sword's hilt). Sure, you could use longsword and grab it by the blade, but then you'd lose protection for at last one of your hands, though usually for both of them, because of the different angles you'd use the sword then.
Cheers.
Endurance - the ability to do light to medium work for a long time.
the knights did use the pommel to perform slashes with the other hand for better leverage, a lot of their sword play consisted with that
Can you post a collection of all your larp battles? it was a lot of fun to see you destroying those guys. I love seeing your knowledge and experience actually come into play in a battle/fight :D
the point of a longer handle on an arming sword is for when you lose your shield, it'll bring out enough srangth for your loss in deffence
That Albion Kingmaker is just so pretty, perfect aesthetic proportions as an arming sword.
Nice video (again); just 6:30 was a bit misleading:
The length of a sword IS NOT equivalent to its reach.
If you are using it for thrusts, it is equivalent, but not for cuts. With the longsword you see in this scene, you need to hit approximatly 1/3rd down the tip to make an effective cut. The arming sword had thus a bit longer reach in comparison. This would apply even more so to some messer, falchion, katana or sax.
Similarly, for people that have little experience with swords, it might come as a surprise, but short heavy blades can handle better than longer blades of the same weight, due ot the mass distribution. However, with longer blades higher tip speeds are reached.
There is yet another point to consider here. If weight were the only consideration and ease of use was simply inversely proportional to weight then the best weapon for a weak person to use would be a toothpick. But below a certain threshold, reducing the weight doesn't meaningfully help a weaker person
For example I'm not a particularly strong person, but using a longsword length weapon with two hands is no more tiring for me than using an arming sword length, or shorter, weapon with two hands. In this case I'd pick the longsword every time.
Imagine all Internet discussion was like that! No bitching, no mocking, no arrogant "i know better than you do" shit, just a beautiful excange of thoughts, consepts, and Ideas, creating the synergy that is needed to mentaly and conceptual progress. What a paradise of an Intenet would that be?!
It all depends on what you train for. Weaponry in particular. If you have trained with a shorter length weapon, you most likely have trained for closer range combat. It is widely taught that distance is your ally. Especially if you are, “weaker and smaller”, but this is not always the case. Having shorter reach means that once in your range your opponent with longer range will have a much harder time defending in a close range conflict, especially if you are still at striking range for YOU, but not at grappling range for them. You still have all of your skills and advantages, while taking their main advantage of distance. It’s not always advisable to keep distance.
Well, if you have a strapped on shield, you're generally going to be wearing armor, which means a causal hit to the vast majority of your body, would do almost nothing, except a light bruise.
Thank you so much SHAD and METATRON for your "Replying Videos".
It's really interesting and mature.
I'm French and the last part of 2016 was a "Dark Age" on French UA-cam with full of "UA-cam Drama".
So THANK YOU TWO!!
Il y a quand même beaucoup de Québécois dans la communauté du G.N. qui adorent Shad
I love a healthy discussion, it's much more productive than a 1 point of view opinion
I would like to point out a factor which I think you missed, namely that if you extend the length of the handle without extending the length of the blade you'll shift the centre of balance further rearward changing the handling characteristics of the sword. A minor point but one I felt worth mentioning
I had a thought about weapons for weaker folks, in the ranged category. Instead of a bow, what about the oft-overlooked sling? It's a little shorter ranged, but you don't have the draw back of you know... drawing it back. Moreover, the sling might be more effective against armored opponents than a bow and arrow, since it is blunt force instead of piercing.
I think the shorter blade would be the go for a weaker person. Its not just the measured weight as you'd carry it around, its a reduction in rotational inertia (which does decrease cutting power, but makes it easier to be fast), and provides more leverage to counteract an opponent trying to deflect your blade to create an opening. Remember no arming sword handle is as long as the blade, so your always able to be put at a leverage disadvantage if the opponent contacts your near tip further down their blade, or with something like a sheid\buckler or even a net\chain. Using a shorter weapon decreases the severity of this for a given handle length. Likewise a longer handle improves it for a given blade length, and I will add doesn't necessarily increase weight, since by placing the pommel further from the point of balance a lighter weight can be used for the same effect.
All this aside, if I where weak and defending myself in medieval times, I'd totally go the crossbow as my first pick, which does mandate a smaller sword for carry weight reasons, although bugger fighting fair in a life or death situation, so a pot of lamp oil or acid is also a valid option if somebody does close the gap.
the one advantage you will have white a one handed sword is the option of a shield. And if one thinks large scale battle one might say that the shield will or probably will save you from more arrows. and we must also consider the fact that a thin long blade can brake in the middle of combat not very practical.
A couple of points a) if you increase the length (weight) of the grip while reducing the length (weight) of the blade, you run the risk of totally screwing up the weapons balance. b) a shorter weapon against a longer blade can be *VERY* advantageous.
I see the shields most of the time used defensively. But i think it should be used in a more aggressive way like the Vikingshield! But i think its forbidden in LARP to do that. In a real fight it could be more difficult for you to win against someone with a shield using it agressive. Would you agree or do you have a different experience? :)
I'm certainly no expert on medival martial arts, so if I say something incorrect please do point it out.
Isn't it the case with shields, especially strapped on ones, to block maybe one hit and then get close enough to bash and stab?
I nerd-out and geek-out with my friends all the time. One way we keep it civil is thus: We never use the word "conclusion".
How can we? There is no "conclusion" until me with my weak wrists and forearms are face to face with an armed brute and my only choices are an Arming Sword, Longsword, or Rapier. Only then will I conclusively be alive or dead.
My friends and I are highly egotistical, highly competitive, but almost strictly in the arenas of nerddom and geekdom. In order to avoid highly emotionally charged arguments (two of us are Bipolar and another is Borderline Personality), we avoid buzzwords that indicate victory or loss as if they were the plague.
Unfortunately, that careful walking on eggshells isnt always possible and so huge fights have broken out in the past. But we try very hard to use a word like "concluded" because it implies a mic-drop that quite simply isnt there.
Two different people can have opinions, but at the most only one of them can follow the logical process.
Holding the sword in one hand you have longer reach. And that is clearly visible on your video. The fact that your reach is not restricted by your left hand. Which is an advantage for the one handed sword.
Also with one handed swords you would use different power generating techniques which would make up (partially or fully) to the leverage advantage of the two handed sword.
There is a reason why one handed swords were vastly popular during historical times.
I would argue that two handed swords in historical times were mostly seen as battlefield weapons for a very specific time period 14-16th century.
I am an Artist, The Battlefield is my Canvas, The Tetsubo is my Brush...
and you? You're the paint. (Sometimes the paint runs...)
Hey shad I live in utah and am LDS too! Haha it was pretty cool to hear you served a mission!
The best weapon for a given situation hasn't got much to do with the size and strength of the combatant (whether they're a 50 kg female warrior and a 100 kg male warrior).
If your opponent has light armor or no armor, and no shield, then the most important features of your ideal weapon are:
1) Damage; usually featuring a sharp blade because it's so effective against human flesh.
2) Reach; because if you can harm your opponent from further away, you can kill them before they can even touch you.
3) Surprise factor; this works the same way as reach, and in a fair fight (duel) is not a factor.
Your ideal weapon (for a weak warrior or a strong one alike) is going to be a projectile weapon. Bows, crossbows, firearms, slings, or anything along these lines is effective and efficient at transforming your input force into higher output force on the target. A projectile launched from any of these weapons is going to hit harder and fly faster than you could throw them yourself.
So firearms come out on top, maybe chemical weapons. You want to ignore those, and talk about pre-gunpowder? The repeating crossbow is a fierce weapon. Standard crossbows fire slowly due to their lengthy reloads, and bows and slings require a decent amount more skill to use effectively. That being said, broad-tipped arrows out of a lower-strength bow are still going to be effective.
For melee weapons, we're immediately excluding blunt impact melee weapons, because they are inefficient at killing lightly armored opponents. This brings us back to reach, and two-handed spears rule here. If you decide "a long spear is too clumsy to carry around on a daily basis, and use in confined spaces", then pick the longest sword that is short enough for your needs.
If you bring shields into the equation, it really comes down to the skill of the fighters. Shields are effective tools in combat, and you may want to consider weapons specifically designed to hook around the shield (such as extremely curved stabbing swords). The two-handed spear (and projectile weapons), having exceptional range, can still attack the openings (above and below the shield) with their reach advantage, but have much less options due to the effectiveness of good shields.
Bringing armor into the situation (especially full metal plate armor) changes the priorities of the ideal weapon. Blunt impact weapons become much more useful, and "pick-like" weapon spikes become a good option for puncturing the armor.
When you understand what weapons are most effective in a given situation, the question of "weapons for weaker people" is non-existent.
One handed swords ... it took me about 3 months to gain the strength needed to hold a saber in hanging guard for the entire length of a sparring match. That's with me training twice a week in saber, as well as twice a week lifting in a gym.
I believe that Matt Easton has mentioned something similar, that it takes several weeks of very regular training to build up the necessary muscles for one handed swords.
You also have to consider how it's going to work if your in armour your gauntlets are going to make it near impossible to use two hands on a arming sword, saying that I have found that by adding an extra 2-3 inchs onto the guard onto my long sword makes it easier to use in armour.
lindybeig had a good idea in regard to carryng a spear : have the spear head be dismentable (either a pin, or a sring loaded mechanism) and use said spear head as a knife when alone. It's rather quick to snap on a spring loaded spear head, and even before you do that you have a long staff, so you can defend youself.
Granted their is some situation where a longsword is still more practical. But spear are cheaper and if you need protection for traveling for exemple it's just fine (you have a staff to walk with !).
Human energy comes from hip/butt/thigh movement not arm movement.
Not from flailing your arms. All attacks are fluid movements from the soul of the feet through the edge of weapon even if it is just a punch or kick.
The only problem with the two handed approach when it comes to women is that the bustier girls are going to find a couple of things (vast tracks of land) restricting their movements with the two arms out.
Skallagrim did a great video on this with his girlfriend.
So, I like both channels Raf's and your's and I generally agree on two points. First, the crossbow. Second, using two hands instead of one compensates for a lot of strength. However, I think you're taking this from a slightly wrong angle. I wouldn't directly argue with physics, such as weight and leverage, but I would come more from the angle of which weapon is most capable of offsetting the opponents strength advantage. You raised the point of tiring and that has some implications. Even though armor distributes weight better than people think, a few dozen kg more on the body are more tiring than not having them. So we need to assume that the weak fighter needs to wear less armor, however that means that two handed weapons can become more dangerous as they often assume the wielder is armored and lack the defense of a shield. But you can't use a shield which is also really tiring either. So, since the defense is gonna suck anyway, we can try to go with the old motto a good offense is the best defence. So I would argue that no matter how you put it, in a drawn out fight the weaker person is gonna lose eventually, the only winning strategy I see is ironcally, using a heavier two-handed weapon, in the hopes of dropping the opponent with the first blow. The reverse might also work, using a long light weapon to keep distance and tire the opponent before you do. I think anything in between isn't gonna work. So, I'd say two-handed-warhammer one the one side, quaterstaff on the other.
I totally agree with you. While I have always preferred one-handed swords, specially sabres, over the last few months I've started to appreciate more and more the longsword. If you don't have an off-hand weapon (dagger, buckler), there's usually no point in choosing a one-handed sword over a longsword.
I think the most important point here is that the long sword is designed to be used two handed, from it's handle and reach, while the arming sword is not. I would recommend custom fitting a smaller long sword rather then using an arming sword for something it is not designed to do. But in my experience, smaller, or weaker trainees never had a problem using a regular long sword.
I think quarterstaff or slings would be better for someone with less strength, still requires lots of practice/training but those things could be best for them the staff gives reach and blunt force as well as could be used like a walking stick, and slings were used by shepherds I am pretty sure and many of them where young people/children and they have less strength, also that gives even more range.
This is why I love swords. Everyone has their preferences. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't many made to order for the person using them if they weren't patterned for an army? So you would get your finished product from the blacksmith, take a few swings and say "well that's wonderful" or " I wish I had a little more _____" and they'd adjust it like they would a fine garment.
I think it depends on the swordsmen. If you have good reach, grip strength and can focus on more then one task at once, a one handed sword is an advantage because it frees your other hand for a shield or parrying weapon.
I enjoyed this video. Lots of good ideas. In general, I'd say the spear is the best weapon for those with less strength and a shorter reach. But if I were designing a sword for that purpose, I'd go with something proportioned like an estoc. A long, thin longsword, but scaled back to about the length of a normal long sword to reduce weight. This would preserve the reach and leverage advantages of the longsword while reducing the weight a bit. It also has a devastating thrust which would be the easiest attack to make for those who are weaker. Big swings are going to tire you out, telegraph your attacks and generally won't do as much damage if you have less strength and weight behind them. So, a long, thin sword that you can get both hands on will provide the best opportunity to poke holes in your enemy before they can poke holes in you.
An experienced fighter can swing 5 hits per second with a standard 36" one handed sword. An experienced fighter can swing 7 hits per second with a 6' great sword.
Reach only matters to those who don't feel comfortable getting in close. My personal philosophy has always been, "Jump in their underpants and make 'em panic.", and yep that goes even for a fight between some poor sod with a sword and shield while I use my great sword. :)
The method you prefer of grabbing the pommel is actually quite detrimental. First, it is dangerous for your hand. You risk injury. Trust me, I am the practical application of your theory. You also lose a considerable percentage of your defensive power by grabbing the knob. Proper back hand grip is important.
In the case of equally skilled combatants, the longer, two handed weapon will trump the single sword with buckler 99% of the time, or full sized shield 70% of the time.
For people who haven't had any experience and wonder about full sized shields, try this... hold a pillow case by your fingertips with outstretched arms. Let us know how long you could keep that position. :)
Side note: Shad, nothing I loved more, in SCA combat over the last decade I played, after a fight the shield man who just lost to my great sword would come up and say, "I knew you were going to do that move. It's the only one you've used all day and I was totally prepared for it. But it just happened so fast...". Gotta love a 6 foot weapon that can go from perpendicular to parallel and impaling in less than 1/30 of one second. :)
You should get a buckler for your two handed sword style. Skallagrim has a video on how to use it super effectively.
I hike in rough country a lot(8+hours\week) and have no problem carrying a machete for brush and a 6'staff for navigating blowdowns.. And a backpack with a toddler.Spears really wouldn't be that bad to carry daily methinks, as long as they are under 7' and I've found a short spear still effective against sword & shield. They're basically a walking staff with a knife attached.
There is one thing i want to say about this (I know the video is 3 months old). I have a good friend, a girl, who is praticing HEMA and she is small. She practiced fighting with a longsword but she stopped doing it with a regular longsword and instead uses a arming sword two-handed now. The reason is interesting it was nothing about weight or something like that. She had problems doing some attacks, defences etc. because of the length of the blade. It was more like she would use a greatsword and therefore couldn't do all the things you could do with a longsword. Often the blade touched the ground or even was stopped by the ground so the usability was not as good as the one i have it with a longsword. The funny thing is because of that it was easier to attack her legs in order to hit her because she had problems defending against that.
3 months old? wtf this video was made in 2017.
Our medieval age professor told us the reason, why "we" (the Swiss) won all the battles in the Swabian-war of 1499. The Swiss were carrying halberds, pikes and a dagger, while the Swabian and Habsburg armies used swords as their secondary weapon. The daggers proved to be of better use in melee combat skirmishes.
I would also choose a two-handed weapon with reach over two one-handed weapons, even if one of them is a shield.
That said, I think the person who fights more defensively tends to stay alive and shields might make fighting defensively easier...
Something that I started to wonder about related to this discussion: how long of a sword can someone practically carry and unsheathe based on their height and arm length? For example, women are usually shorter than men, so the maximum length of the blade they can carry on their hip and be able to unsheathe would also be shorter. Maybe it's not really a problem shorter people would face with a longsword because it's not "too long", but I didn't hear it mentioned in any of the discussions.
I have a question here in regards to your analysis of reach and leverage. Have you tried this test with a thrust-centric fighting style or just the slashing style? Also, although I realize your round shield is authentic, I could swear I've seen considerably smaller ones which would be more suited to weaker people/women (probably down to 20-30% larger than your heater), and it seems to me any decent-sized shield would be preferable to fighting without a shield. Especially when you consider that the reaction time of a weaker fighter will be slower with any given weapon, you want to maximize the amount of maneuverability you have by moving your own body rather than the weapons at the ends of your arms. Also, apply biophysics. Any time you can use the body's weight and motion to drive the blade (such as thrusting moves or circular swings) you effectively reduce the amount of strength needed to fight. I'm not a particularly strong guy but I have dual-wielded 4-5ft two handed foam swords using these principles and been effective even against spear and shield (which I would say was a severe handicap for myself). The weight is probably less, but the balance is also completely off, and they still feel extremely clumsy in the hand, yet if you apply this method, and brace the hilt against the forearm for thrusts, wielding them becomes more possible.
Another point to consider when talking about shield combat is how the initial swing can actually be hidden behind the shield if done right. This is something I think weaker but more skilled warriors would learn to use in order to mask their (slower) attacks and give their opponent less reaction time to block it.
I'd actually argue that if you're looking for a sword for less physically strong folks then a longsword isn't a good idea; sword fighting is more than just waving a sword and using a longsword is physically much more demanding than other sword types. Even the increased leverage from two hands does little to affect this, and it doesn't even begin to address the fact that longsword often ends up in a closer bind with more chance of wrestling.
The key here should be how you use the sword; you need a style in which you fence people at a distance and can control the pace of a fight, while not being two heavy.
Polearms/spears aside, if we want a sword for the job that's of (around) the correct time period for longswords, then a sidesword might be a great idea.
The sidesword is around 1kg in weight, but importantly has a large number of thrusting techniques which by their nature rely less on forearm and shoulder movements, and more on footwork. It's also easier to maintain distance with this kind of sword due to the difference in body posture and overall approach.
At the same time they aren't excessively long and heavy (like rapiers), so make an excellent option for the less physical fencer.