Thanks to Established Titles for sponsoring this video! Get 10% off on any purchase with code GLADIATORIA. Go to establishedtitles.com/GLADIATORIA and help support the channel!
@@rpgpuffer361 Good and bad from what I can assume. With maces, warhammers and even axes, you do need more room to swing it about than a nimble sword. And yet at the same time, they both less reach than swords and more shaft to grab onto. Of course unlike swords, you could hit someone in the helmet and really hurt them, and hurt armoured people better. So its basically give and take. But definitely a far cry from swords being literally useless.
Top spiked mace would be my preference in the close. Be it against amour or not a solid lump of steel will see them done in. A blade may cut/ gash but have you ever watched someone try to do anything with internal bleeding, bruising &/or shattered bone. I find a (2 handing choke on a spiked mace) to be superior to 1/2 sword any day. What is more ridged & near indestructible out of all middle middle age weapons? I just think it takes a certain heartless mind set bludgeon someone to death purposly. In full armour mace is the king of side arms. I never liked blades as you have to index witch means you are concentrating on something that isn't your opponent & your footing even if it's only slightly. Yes parrying with a mace is poor but if a shield or full plate like you suggest matt then it is the most logical. Run after some one with a 3-5Ib top heavy lump of metal & watch them gasp then run;) A sword would can be stitched but a caved in chest or skull no doctor can do much to day let alone centuries ago Matt. Ow no he grabbed my mace shaft in the worse case then grapple & pull out a roundel/bollock dagger et cetera. It makes a lot of sense to me why the armoured non nobility tended not to carry swords as the counterpart weapons are more effective & cheaper. I 'd honestly be curious if a stout stick held held stick from the woods would be more effective against an armoured knight then to half sword?
@@TheNEOverse True that the shaft can be grabbed but i was thinking that because they're at so close range, the swords reach advantage would be nullified and on top of that the sword would have to aim for weak points or gaps in the armor, while to the warhammer most of the armor is a target. Sounds to me like this is a perfect time for a mace/warhammer to shine
Aye, and please discuss the kinds of weather medieval fighters endured. In Coastal Texas, we often deal with 100°F/40°C and 80% humidity. 🥵 I just looked on a world map, and the latitude midline of Europe lines up with the border between Canada and the US. Texas lines up with northern Africa and the Middle East. Generally speaking, Texas represents a much hotter and higher-humidity region than anything medieval Euro knights would ever face, barring the Crusades. (Although I will concede that climate depends on much more than mere latitude. Ocean and air currents and elevation affect it tremendously, as well.)
This is how I plan to justify buying a $2,000 sword to my wife. Here goes nothing! Edit: Does anyone know an infirmarius? I need someone to pull half a dozen arrows shot into my back by my witch of a wife.
Re: your second point In Japan Naginata practitioners were cross-trained in dagger fighting explicitly because polearms are awkward in crowds. A number of traditional kata include a transition from naginata to tanto.
Very interesting. I'd imagine this would be pretty consistent across the globe. But with the way Japanese kata works the transition between the two was much better recorded whereas in other places it was just a, "well you drop the pole arm and draw the dagger."
Ahh... the "Henry V" sword by St. George's! It's probably my very favorite sword of your collection, and we haven't seen it for a while!😀 She's an armor-piercer for sure!
I'm so excited that you're working with Windlass on some designs! Please let us know when any of them go into production and become available. Would you say that a sword such as that thrust-centric bastard sword prototype you have could be defined as an estoc, or "tuck"?
If swords genuinely weren't useful battlefield weapons and were essentially just useful for duels, we wouldn't see them depicted in art showing warfare. We don't see the massive two-handed dueling shields in battlefield depictions. We do see swords. And the moment you introduce armor, you get the power to choose were the fight takes place. So why not choose a circumstance advantageous to you and your weapon? Excellent points Lord Easton.
Its entirely possibly that the artists of the era also agreed that swords are more aesthetically pleasing than polearms so chose to depict swords instead.
Today in Movie posters we see heroes wielding Pistols. It's an iconic firearm really good for various poses and doesn't cover the actor's body. On a modern battlefield, a pistol is the least useful weapon.
There was a story about swiss pikemen who managed to force Italian knights to retreat, but then knights dismounted and using advantage of much better armor just dispersed swiss pikemen despite having significantly less numbers.
@lordhandsomeswag1854 Roman armor wasn't better than the greek ones by the time they were at war, it really was just a matter of strategy not superior gear
I imagine knights on horseback used swords often for the same reason US cavalry used revolvers and pistols more due to the fact that they're one handed friendly. Hell, a lot of ergonomic designs of the 1911, which we take for granted now as standard for most modern pistols, came from cavalry requesting changes as the Colt design evolved. For example, hitting the mag catch with your thumb, or having a slide release lock the slide back when empty are both stuff the cavalry requested to make the gun more one handed friendly.
One handed thrusting swords where used by Polish Hussars and others, as a backup to their lance. Polish Hussars also carried a third weapon, the saber. A quite versatile arsenal
Momentum is another factor, I would think, much like how spears and lances are more deadly on horse back. Guy swinging a sword at you? Pretty dangerous, but nothing spectacular. Guy swinging a sword at you when traveling at high speeds? Much more dangerous.
I can see you have never seen a cavalry mace that looks much like a 1 handed mace with added length & often a lanyard at the base handle! A weapon that doesn't get enough love & attention. Many western nights swore this weapon off as they saw them as barbaric & unnecessary cruel as most of the time you would target the enemies horses head/legs. Once the enemy was on foot you then swipe them on multiple passes again & again till they lied broken on the battle field. Unlike a sword you could reach the ground with weapon on horse back whilst mounted. The Mongolians two handed version where quite famous examples though the blood land of eastern Europe used cavalry maces quite frequently.
@@TheHazmate I wish I could have been old enough, and knew enough, to have an adult conversation with my Grandpa Martin Barnadzikowski. He was 2nd Mounted Rifles in Haller's Army WW-1 and the Polish Soviet War
@@Manco65 Sometimes life isn't fair, I'm lucky to have had the time to talk to my grandfather about his experiences, he was an Captain of a Oil tanker. Not as exciting as a cavalryman... But still.
Having fought in armor and in the line and elsewhere, all these points are spot on. Running up on spears is definitely a thing, and definitely terrifying on both ends. The press gets real scrappy, and changes the whole dynamic.
Re-enacting does give a sense of what it was like. But I’ll argue that all of these folks do this as a passionate hobby. Going up against the real thing which meant life or death is something completely different. They trained for killing not re-enacting.
I imagine that since many swords can be worn on the body, wielded in one hand, and are cut-and-thrust weapons, they offer versatility while still being able to be taken on a long campaign or journey. A reliable weapon, if not as well suited to certain tactics and situations as things like a mace or spear.
I have a very strong bias in favor of versatility, so I understand perfectly why someone would choose a shorter, compromise cut-and-thrust sword over a more specialized type of sword.
One of the reasons I have fallen in love with the long sword. Such an incredibly versatile weapon. Good at cutting and thrusting, good for both defense and offense, and surprisingly good at different distances.
To me it feels like the heavy full plate armour is just great at opening more options for the wearer, which is something that goes very well with the range of options and high skill ceiling afforded by swords. The human body is a weapon in and of itself and heavy armour synergises with this. For example: if you fight with a sword and free hand, you can still use the outside of your gauntlet as a way to parry incoming strikes, especially if you make a fist to protect the inside of your hand. Quite as effective as a targe. And the armour itself is dangerous to targets that are not so heavily protected by virtue of being hard and heavy, from punching to wrestling. It truly changes everything.
We have limited focus and we constantly shifting between offense and defense depends on circumstances. If you are unarmoured, you will very likely shift more focus to defensive maneuvers. Here's the thing- one failure in defense might end your life. On the other side with armour can shift most focus to offense. Heck, the armoured guy has tactical advantage because he can employ high risk moves normally people try to avoid due to possibility of injury or death.
Exactly, armor in the pre-modern time was considered an offensive equipment. We view armor as a measure to keep you alive, a defensive equipment. This clouds our evaluation of what armor meant in the medieval times. For example it was often culturally acceptable to wield a sword for self-defense. Yet walking into a place wearing full battlefield armor is effectively a declaration that you're hostile.
Greek phalanx we thought as invincible but it’s known that it never quite moved en bloc straight ahead. The vulnerable shield side moved at an angle like a diamond. So they need veterans in the front and back ranks to try to keep it straight. Of course the phalanx fell apart on uneven ground when the superior Roman’s beat the Greeks
The point about having a langmesser as a side arm with a poleaxe as a man weapon is super true, and I think it's why in places like India and Afghanistan (among many others, arguably even in Europe at times) you end up with specialized thrusting daggers and cutting swords. If you have a spear as your primary, a Tulwar as your second, and a Katar as your tertiary, as well as a shield, you're pretty well equipped no matter the enemy you're facing.
15th/16th century military treatises provide considerable insight on this point. They cover lots of troops in three-quarters harness or more. I don't know of any evidence from these texts for equipping such heavily armored infantry soldiers with swords alone as their primary weapon. The combination of sword and shield as primary weapon does appear from various authors of course. We have fewer sources from the 15th century, but Bertrandon de La Brocquière didn't even mention swords for infantry in describing his ideal force to face the Ottomans: he assigned axes & spears/pikes. This was for infantry wearing light plate armor, including gauntlets. Pietro Monte mentioned heavily armored infantry with sword & shield operating in conjunction with pikers. In the 16th century, authors like Machiavelli and Raimond de Fourquevaux recommended targetiers (troops with sword & shield). Otherwise, armored infantry appear in these texts armed with pikes, halberds, bills, partizans, & so on. They all wear swords as sidearms. It's absolutely true that swords can be more useful than longer weapons in a tight press, & the treatises mentioned this repeatedly. But as wearing a sword was standard, that's not cause to have the sword as the primary weapon. Sir John Smythe did specifically argue that 6ft halberds worked fine in formation & that pikers resorting to their swords & dagger couldn't stand against halberdiers with 6ft halberds, assuming three-quarters harness for both. It's quite possible that knights in the 14th & 15th centuries did sometimes opt for a longsword as their primary weapon when fighting on foot, but this doesn't seem to have been a very popular option overall, at least not for military theorists who left us treatises.
However, we also know that dropping one's 'primary' weapon in favor of a shorter one when entering into close proximity with an enemy line was common. It was a significant factor in the lansknecht and Swiss pikemen opting for short-bladed sidearms (katzbalger and often daggers for the Swiss), and the short-lived rodeleros were very successful in the rare occasion that they actually got up into the enemy line. Swords were often regarded as more useful in the confined space of invading an enemy formation, although polearms were usually preferred up until you got past the push-of-pike.
The halberd mentioned in the records being only 6ft in length likely also helps the polearm wielder significantly - ancient Chinese military would have probably classified such polearm as a “short weapon”.
@@adenyang4398 The term "short weapon" was also used in 16th-century English military treatises but seems to have included anything shorter than a pike. Smythe did complain that halberds longer than 6ft couldn't be used well in the press of battle. George Silver similarly gave 5-6ft as the proper length for heavy halberds & bills for the battlefield.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 it seems to be the length that would do very well against armored swordsmen in closer ranges. Likely not so much in unarmored duels though. Qi Jiguang specifically had a specialized cudgel/heavy staff weapon (with a spike at the end) that was also around a similar length to be used against armored Jurchen cavalrymen, since pikes were ineffective against them. But when he was stationed in the South against the wokou, he considered such short polearms as completely useless.
The "fun" aspect brought to mind a tension during roughly this period between the traditions of individual honor and glory vs the needs of the state as nationalism became more firmly established.
In Fairbairn's manual "Get tough" for the commandos the Fairbairn-Sykes dagger was definitely shown being used for cutting. It was explained in the text as well.
I've had a high quality knife that was a copy of the Fairbairn and Sykes and I can tell you it is a very poor design for cutting. Any blade that doesn't have a curve is made for stabbing and not really for slicing and cutting. I made mine extremely sharp so I got it where I could cut with it, but it had to be way sharper than average to slice and cut well. I actually reprofiled it to make it usable for my cutting needs. I really loved that knife and was very disappointed when I lost it, and it was pretty expensive. I probably shouldn't have used it as a EDC.
Up. Any blade without a curve is made for stabbing? Sean’s are choppers with stabbing abilities and they aren’t curved at all. I think mass, blade geometry, breathe and length are more important.
I don't know if you heard of Gilles Martinez but he wrote a thesis on feudal combat, so more around the XIIth and XIIIth centuries. He also organises HEMA workshops on the subject. For group combat on foot, he thinks people of that time would have fought in small units, like knights in full mail using sword and shield supported by spearmen (with or without shield). This kind of formation has been put to the test in reenactment, HEMA and LARP and the dynamic is quite close with what you describe: knights being able to "charge in" thanks to their armor and disrupting the opposing formation. If it works, gaps can then be exploited by the spearmen.
I agree with this perspective also, small groups makes more sense in many ways. Better communication, mutual protection and morale. Also a Lord or Knight will have his retained men and sometimes levies from his local county; men which would have known and worked with each other for years so more of a bond and esprit de corps. Also in terms of equipment in a group of men only the Lord/Knight and a few men at arms/squires would have been heavily armored in plate. They would have depended on their lightly armed retainers for flank support and protection from the other retainers/levies with polearms so the heavier men at arms could use their armor and skill for breakthrough as you said.
Totally agree. The range advantage of a spear is lessened when good armor is concerned, and is part of why I believe Fiore instructs to use the spear "shortened" in his spear in armor section. The sword can then be a similar, just shorter, implement when used in a "half swording" fashion.
As a billman fighting alongside you at Tewkesbury, I actually saw you going in with your sword first hand. From my point of view, it was a relief as the lightly armoured infantry when you or other "knights" came to take off some of the pressure since many of the opposite line were much more heavily armoured.
Matt, what was the average survivability of knights in battles in different historical periods? If you had a top notch harness of the time, how likely were you to fall in battle? What were the main factors? Armor quality? Ransom money? Knightly code?
Most of those stuff are rather complicated. But, "knightly code" is rather easier to understand. To uphold one "knightly code", for the most part it means bringing the lord glory.
well, apart from a few massacres, the death rate of medieval battles rarely exceeded 20%. Of course knight fought the hard parts. But first they had better armor, and second their ennemies would try to capture them from a ransom. War is expensive, and ransom was not only one of the primary funding source for the armies, but also an important motivation factor for common soldiers who could earn a life-changing wage for the capture of a knight. This was a generally respected tradition (the harsh disregards, like Azincourt, were heavily frowned upon). Globally, i say you'd have 9 out of 10 chance of surviving a battle. However, keep in mind that infection and diseases actually killed more in armies that fighting itself. You could also ending up mutilated or crippled for life.
@@benjaminthibieroz4155 After Agincourt, King Henry's courtiers and retainers refused to attend the celebratory feast. It was in protest of his actions.
@@jintsuubest9331 iirc there’s also a thing about not killing other knights unnecessarily. If you go around killing knights and lords, who’s going to keep the peasantry in check? Mostly you’d force knights to surrender (partly because it’s hard to kill them in armour) and have them pay a hefty ransom.
Sword, Armor and Shield are a package deal, it's great at fighting multiple conscripts, of which most armies would be made of on foot, where other longer weapons can be grappled or bypassed while you attack another oponent the sword is much less likely to be vulnerable to that. The lance was used to fight knights once you have killed one of them then the duty of the cavalry was to flank and kill the enemy archers on the back of the formation and for that the sword and shield was quite usefull, after the cavalry routed the archers and killed the enemy knights the bulk of the peasant army would often run away and disperse or surrender seeing themselves surrounded. On sieges where there is limited space the sword armor and shield is also great for it's quick stabbing ability in thightly packed fights. The poleaxe and two handed sword would shine on the flanks of the enemy formation, where smalls skirmishes would happen with more available space for mobility, and the center fight would be carried on by mobs of peasant pikemen led by men at arms and unhorsed knights pursuing glory, so there would be a mix of armored pole axe and sword and shield line breaking attempts and pike warfare.
Talking about fighting in the press makes me think of Jean de Joinville's mention of being too closely pressed to reach his sword and having to go for the backup on his saddle. I'm sure a lot of people get their concept of Medieval battle from movies. I've been in a number of film and television features that involved hand to hand combat (18th and 19th Century). Invariably the two sides will close in two large masses, the director yells "cut," and they space everyone out into well spaced out groups of twos and threes fighting little small duels with space to swing weapons while everyone is completely mixed up. If you watch for it in movies you'll start noticing it.
I'm read that is one o the critiques George Silver had against Rapiers.He basically stated that rapers were basically to long to draw and use in a press.
The reason Joinville was unable to draw his sword was not because of the press of a close melee. He was on a scouting mission and bumped into a Mamluk trying to mount his horse with the help of his squire. He then ran the Mamluk through with his lance, hardly a weapon to be used when space was at a premium. The Mamluk's squire then stabbed him in turn on his armored back with a lance too. Joinvilled wasnt injured but the point of the squire's lance got snagged on his surcoat, and with the squire pressing down on his lance the French knight was thus pinned down against his saddle. Joinville was hence unable to draw the sword hanging from his belt, forcing him to go for the one strapped to his saddle pommel instead. Once he managed to draw that the squire got scared and fled, and Joinville was able to run back to his camp.
@@Whosyourdaddy21 It should be noted though that the Romans did not normally fight in a shield wall, i.e. not with their shields touching each other or even close together! Here is Polybius' description on the Roman fighting style, bearing in mind that he was an actual eyewitness to the Roman armies: "Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man-because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,-it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect......seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigour to the use of their swords." www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D18%3Achapter%3D30 Thus the Romans seemed to employ a rather loose formation, and a more individualistic style of combat than what most of us would describe as a shield wall.
THANK YOU! People have been overcorrecting the spear status to the point where they reduce the swords to "Only status symbol" and that spears are Soooooo much better than swords in every way. It is very annoying. Every famous spear infantry carried some kind of bladed backup weapon, namely swords, despite them being much much more expensive to produce. I wonder why that is??
The sword is a useful backup weapon, but thats it, its a backup, the weight of most battles is carried by other means generaly. Almost all the treaties from the medieval era that talk army composition and armament tactics of infatry and heavy infantry, either dont mention a sword at all, or recognize its aptitude only as a back up weapon. There is a reason almost all of the historical relevant information and data we have points at the sword almost never being the main weapon and its not that it is inherently better or worse than spear or other polearms in general, just that for warfare purposes it indeed was inferior most of the time as an army's main weapon, and much inferior at that. Another point to make is that, while you can probably name several medieval famous regiments that fought with its main weapon being a polearm or another great reach weapon (and here we can of course include double handed swords). You , and me, would probably strugle to name several regiments of renown that used primarily one handed swords.
@@chusnacho4447 Backup weapon is misleading. Yes, it isnt the primary weapon, it is however still absolutely crucial to make up for the weakness of spears and polearms.
@@Beliserius1 Of course! just as there was a reason it was almost never used as a main weapon for an army, there was a reason it was the most common backup weapon in the world by a wide margin, and that is that swords are awesome in that cirumstance.
Are you really less likely to be hit in the face if you leave your helmet open? Yes! Tested this ~15 years ago, using (admittedly terrible quality) great helms and modern fencing masks. With the modern mesh steel fencing masks with effectively full visibility we took very few strikes to the face, though we found that there are more attacks made to the face.
Makes sense. Your instinct is to protect your face. Keeping your face covered might be a "just in case" measure, or to counter the possibility of missiles.
I found at Tewkes and Barnet before it, I managed to take a pollaxe to the face. Both times were not strikes at me but caused by pressing forward into the fighters next to them. Fighting without the sallet/bev overlap it doesn't happen. Fighting with it, I just don't particularly care when it does
If you look at Dune, almost everyone has shields, so projectile weapons areuch less effective, so the fighting often devolves into close quarters combat, designed to defeat those shields. Pretty cool concept, exploring different defensive vs offensive development curves.
That last one was not a gladius, though, and it did NOT outcompete the long sabers and straight swords that would be used by armies until WW1. Neither the Gladius nor the Ikwla had to deal with full harness armors.
During the time of antiquity, a 60cm sword like the Gladius was considered a longsword by the standards of the time, the greater reach of the gladius was an advantage to the shorter swords/daggers wielded by the Macedonians and the Carthaginians.
One thing I’ve noticed watching re-enactments, is that whenever a man with sword and shield knocks a spear aside, the spearmen is almost always done for as the swordsmen will immediately take the initiative and use his shield to keep the spear aside and use his shorter and more manoeuvrable weapon to take them out. Spears can definitely be used in one on one duels and they’re really good at duels, but battles aren’t duels, you could make the argument that duels in HEMA don’t reflect real combat because combat isn’t nearly as predictable as ‘fairly light poke and you’re dead’. Spears in battles very much seem like formation weaponry to me, with pikes being the extreme by being utterly dependent on the formation. Sword and shield on the other hand seem a lot more scrappy to me, if the formation were to somehow break down or a gap was opened up, aggressive, shorter, scrappier weaponry is what you’d want in that situation instead of weaponry that becomes extremely awkward when used in a press, or with a bunch of guys around you. Yes while it is a game, I still think it can apply because in games like Total War, sword/mace/axe and shield units are aggressive, they’re meant to get stuck in, up close and personal. On the other hand, spearmen, halberd and pike units are always more defensive units, they’re meant to hold the line and they’ll hold the line well and with their longer weapons are more able to counter cavalry. Even after all I’ve learned, that still makes sense to me, I’d say that’s realistic, especially when you consider that sword units are typically amongst the more well armoured of your units.
decades ago when I used to play D&D and other games I always hated that unarmoured people had a huge advantage to be able to dodge. It was actually a penalty in some systems to be fully armoured. I love that people now are finally figuring out in the general public that an armoured knight can just ignore most of your hits while the unarmoured person can't ignore any hits. An aromoured person can just fight differently. Putting your forearm up to block a sword swing is perfectly acceptable in full plate.
Yeah, it is more of a stamina thing that a speed thing. If you are having to guard duty or march with a horse to carry your stuff and/or ride on, you are going to get gassed out before a less armored man would. It is harder to appreciate today cus we have cars, we don’t have to go lug our crap on our backs and travel for miles on foot.
I'm experiencing this frustration with Pathfinder now. The min max aspects lead me to nothing more than a breastplate for armor, as I can reach or exceed the Armor Class values of a full suit of plate. Really wish the original designers knew how armor actually worked and added that aspect to the game.
Having now read bits of a number of actual medieval accounts (mainly from the High Middle Ages), it seems to me that it was more common for knights to follow through an attack with swords than to go back for lances to thereby cycle-charge after they broke, cycle charges seems to have been more of an exception than the norm, from what I read (which is far from exhaustive) I can only clearly remember two examples of cycle charging, one was during the last stand of Jerusalem's forces at the Battle of Hattin (1187), the other was Spanish knights under James the Conqueror charging down a phalanx-like formation in a castle-breach using cycle charges (which shows how effective these charges really were, since you could frontally charge a phalanx at times, in a breach even). In all other examples I have a clear memory of, they press the attack with swords after lances break. I really think that the whole "swords are not a battlefield weapon" stems from a point being so highly exaggerated that it quite frankly morphs in to being wrong. In fact, during the Battle of Benevento (1266) we specifically hear of a drawn out engagement between sword-armed mounted knights, where the French finally charge the Germans with their daggers, which breaks the tight German formation, specifically aiming for the German knights' armpits, apparently. Perhaps not too dissimilar from your barrelling concept? I also think that people underestimate how easy it is to lose or break larger cumbersome weapons in battle. For example, when the English were fighting the Scottish schiltrons, the medieval writers found it very important to point out that the Scottish troops were wearing axes on their sides, if they were barely expected to use their side-arms except in exceptional circumstances, like modern pistols, they would probably not found it important to mention. Swords and other side-arms are not like modern pistols, modern pistols are extremely rarely used in modern combat, and really is a true life saving back-up. This is very different from swords, which all though rarely used at the start of an engagement, seems to have almost been expected to be switched to at some point during the fight, especially in the High Middle Ages.
the battle of crecy would probably deserve an honorable mention as in many successive cavalry charges conducted during the same battle. In spite of an obvious horrific loss for the french the skill displayed in horsemanship required to to pull this off, at the severe tactical disadvantage they found themselves in, definitely shows that they must have been some of the finest cavalrymen of the middle ages.
That was good! The discussion on personal preference and nature of apples vs oranges fighting was illuminating. The idea of an armored "shield" of knights in the front, massed together, is frankly terrifying!
Yes I'm sorry about that. I had two videos I filmed that were like that and I have absolutely no idea why - it has not happened since. I tried to put images over the worst instances, but there was only a certain about that I could cover, and I couldn't re-film it.
Matt, I've listened to you for many years, talking about how swords are overrated as a weapon in today's view of history and how it is just a sideweapon. I have cited you as an expert. I believed you. It all made sense. And now you are standing here, telling us how great a weapon a sword is for an armoured fighter!? You're playing with my feelings, bro 😉
Not necessarily a contradiction. Handguns are relatively shit compared to long weapons like rifles, but they are used in certain circumstances instead of rifles (e.g. CQC).
@@1IGG Wouldn’t you say that automatic carbine rifles and SMGs reign supreme even under such circumstances? The need and prevalence for pistols also seem to be significantly far less compared to swords in the modern era.
@@adenyang4398 if your smg is your close quarter equivalent to a sword, then your pistol is your dagger. Even shorter range and more limited capability, but even more easy to carry, and even more easily wielded at extreme close ranges
A few more points: Swords are one of the best defensive weapons. Depending on your armour is great. Knocking aside a spear to get into sword range is even better. Swords are more portable, you can put them in your scabbard if need be. Great when you are in a siege and you have to climb something. Also useful to drag a friendly combatant to safety or anything you might need two hands for.
Love edged weapons but I’m fortunate enough to live in a country where I can obtain some very nice firearms AR15 or AK47 pistols rifles and carbines as well as plenty of ammunition and I can even buy tannerite a chemical that explodes when hit with a bullet it’s a fun way to spend an afternoon on my personal shooting range and I have a couple of precision rifles that are still very accurate at very long Distance with a powerful scope. But I still love to collect my edged weapons swords axes spears and pole arms. Thanks again for your channel great job mate cheers
Good video, this answered a question I had about if after knights and soldiers did away with shields because their armor was so good, if they did completely forsake one handed weapons like arming swords in favor of two handed ones like the pole axe and longsword. It's actually cool to see that armored soldiers or knights may have or probably did go into combat with just their armor and a single handed weapon.
Isn't this effectively how the Romans used the gladius? They kept themselves protected enough to close in, and then shankin' time. And just from a morale standpoint, fighting someone who's confident enough to do that when you're "timidly" hanging back with your spear would be terrifying.
Not quite, Romans also used the Pilum. They would throw a barrage of javelins to disrupt and soften up the enemy formation, and then move in for the kill with the gladius whilst using their scutum and close ranks as cover. The Pilum was arguably their primary weapon, and watching the first rank or two fall to pieces before a wall of shields come down on you would have been much for terrifying than just watching a wall of swords and shields approaching.
@@BlackSabbath628 "Isn't this how Romans used the gladius?" was his question. You basically answered: "Not quite, they did something else before using the gladius like that." He didn't say anything about primary weapons or whatever, so your point falls entirely to the wayside. Can pila be useful? Sure. Have they won every battle for the Romans ever? I think even the point you're trying to make lacks a lot of nuance. If battles take hours (which they still often did), you throw a pilum (or sometimes 2) in the first 2 minutes and then use a gladius with scutum in your hands for the rest, what was their primary weapon? Is it perhaps possible you have different weapons for different situations? Honestly, I'd have expected a viewer of this channel to realise context is a thing. It's like you don't listen to Matt talking at all. By the way, contemporary historical sources have a lot to say about the power of the gladius and the horror they inflict with them, maybe you should look them up some time.
@@twanvanderdonk2504 Yes, I know about the vicious wounds the gladius inflicts. I'm just saying there were more to roman tactics than just marching forward and stabbing with their sword. It was less "They kept themselves protected enough to close in, and then shankin' time." and more "they kept themselves protected enough to get in range, throw javelins to weaken the enemy, then close in and shank the enemy" Hence why I wrote "not quite" as opposed to just "no". I find it rich that you lecture me about nuance and context when you don't understand the nuance nor context of my point. Yes, battles took hours, but how much of it was actual fighting? I doubt that every soldier was fighting all the time, especially when how physically demanding and stressful the ordeal is. I do not think that legionaries took an hour prodding the enemy with their swords, especially when morale is a factor. "Has the pilum won every battle for the Romans ever" is an odd question to ask, considering how it was a standard issue piece of gear and was an integral part of their tactics. That's like asking "did the musket win every battle for the British ever". Well, no, but that doesn't mean the bayonet was better, now does it? Especially when it was also standard issue and if an army lost with their pilum/musket they would lose with their gladius/bayonet as well. To me the gladius is comparable to the bayonet; if the enemy hasn't routed after getting whittled down by a barrage of projectiles, they sure will wish they had when the stabbing comes.
@@chuckyxii10 It's funny that you write an entire book work on me being a condescending arse when Ctulu guy started that trend. Just like him, however, you took in arguments to make a point that weren't in the original comment or mine. No one mentioned knights until you. I hope you remember that, mister pedantic, because that is a straight strawman, pulled from the messy shed that is your mind ;)
@@chuckyxii10 As far as the word primary goes... I have a different interpretation as a linguist, because word meanings change with time and not everything stays literal. Your primary weapon is your preferred weapon. Do you think legions would do better without any pila or without any gladii? (and no, no substitutes, they throw their pila and then just have their scuta left to fight with) As far as using the pilum goes... I've never denied any of that. That's just another strawman argument. Please stop that.
Some times a new experience can make years of theory and oppions take on different shading and often you can make some decent skill jumps by coming at a problem from a new perspective.
Thinking about the weapon set makes sense. If I'm using a mace or war hammer, having the reach of a long sword makes a lot of sense. And between the mace and the dagger there are plenty of options against armored opponents. But if I'm using a pole axe, I might want the "Henry V" blade or the messer because I've already got a pole arm and dagger to use against armored opponents and I want something that is quick and handy against lightly protected opponents.
Just gotta add some blood, straighten the sword and maybe put on that 'BRUTAL MEDIEVAL HISTORY' filter on him and he looks like a still from some grimey historical drama lol.
I've only watched a couple of reenactment battles, but one thing really stood out. The two forces closed with each other aggressively....until they were almost within weapon's reach. Then, instead of skewering or smashing their enemies forcefully, as I expect one would do in combat when adrenaline flows and lives are at risk, every polearm on both sides was suddenly raised to 30 or 40 degrees above horizontal. It was obvious that safety concerns had completely invalidated the application of the weapons. As such, the two battle lines just milled into a pushing match of crossed polearm shafts. Suddenly, through no virtue of their own, swords and daggers were the most effective weapons there.
There are rules in place for safety because, you meet a lot of people with different abilities, different ages and more importantly different quality of kit and we don't want to walk away unwanted injuries because it's supposed to be fun as well, but things still happen even though we are using blunt rebated edges. I have the scars to prove it. Plus you don't want that level of aggression, that how tempers get lost. In WOTR there is a lot more plate, but some are vey lightly armoured or only wearing a gambeson so you have to be safe. The Knot wear even less with billman only wearing a lobster pot and back and breast plate. If you'd prefer something a bit more aggressive try looking up some Buhurt matches like Battle of the Nations or look up some of the full contact Eastern European major battles on YT. They are not reenactment and you will notice how well protected they are with over the top padding beneath their armour, but again things still happen, like lost teeth, broken limbs and dislocated joints. By comparison re-enactment is trying to put on a bit of a show, a spectacle where there is a set historical outcome.
@@blackmixen Thank you for that extensive and detailed reply. I appreciate that these battles are for fun and safety is paramount. I don't mean to criticize the participants or the safety measures. I'm just pointing out that drawing conclusions...for example that daggers are one of the most effective weapons on the field...from these simulated battles with their restricted application of primary weapons can be misleading. I'm sure daggers...for example...are very effective in a grapple. But I suggest that in an actual battle, with polearms employed with intent, getting into a grapple probably won't happen as quickly. Thanks again for your very informative reply.
When it comes to hitting unarmored points with any weapon, you can never forget that tripping your opponent can be one way to get access to those points easier. Or even open up... unexpected new ones. Like in one piece of medieval art I saw that looked like one of the earliest cases of a "seconds before disaster" photo. The image in question was a battle scene, and one of the combatants had tripped and was on his hands and knees trying to stand back up. Though it is presumed he never got the chance, because behind him was a spearman at full charge. Full charge and about a foot away from making the fallen soldier's unarmored rear exit into a new entrance with a large spear.
There was a video about maces on this channel, I remember. It was discussed there that knights in armor may be carrying maces and warhammers more than foot soldiers nearly for the same reasons: they are short anti-armor weapons, that are usefull predominantly against people in armor.
We have a great example of how effective an armored knight armed with a sword was in the somewhat obscure case of the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. Now sources are somewhat conflicting on this battle, since both an Ottoman sultan died, and it has been culturally mystified in the region, but we can look to certain western European participants for a more "unbiased" record. The knights Hospitaler, King Tvrtko(whose men fought at and survived that battle) as well as John of Palisna and their correspondences with the Italians. To keep a long story short At a point in the battle the European charge gets stuck in on the left flank of the Ottoman lines, what proceeded to happen was a line strait out of a fantasy movie, with some 15 or so knights, most likely from the Brankovic and the Albanian Muzaka lines, cutting their way through the formation, into the sultan's camp and ultimately killing the Sultan himself.
You got to use that land one vid My thoughts are a test on battlements You get some to help, you dig a ditch and pile both sides with dirt, make a wall of vertical logs, connected possibly with the help of nails with a wood platform and wood crenellations of sorts Would be interesting to see how men fight up a ladder in an assault Similar stuff applies to stone walls, not sure on stuff that heavy to be dropped but seeing how it affects people in armour while pebbles rattle their helmets and fighting up a ladder with only one good hand to hold a weapon with
Wait...you are telling me that knights in medieval knights carried 2 to 3 weapons in battle to switch weapons depending on the circumstances rather than to just look really nice and badass? Preposterous!!! 🤣
Part of the reason why the Gladius was so effective. Tightly packed heavily armored and shielded infantry with glorified daggers are much better compared to clumsy phalanxes
Something occurred to me that made axes or things with curves halberds warax Etc.. is that they can be drag the weapon and a striking manner against armor and unlike a sword which only has a catch point at the tip the spike end and all the little hooked points of axes and how birds and warhammers could find the nooks and crannies of armor
I had the same realisation sparring against my friends when he had a spear and I a sword. I pushed his spear aside and closed the distance, grabbing the spear so he couldn’t attack. Every weapon has its place on the battlefield. The question is when and how to use them.
In the game Mount and Blade, shorter swords are usually better than longer weapons, because they are more usable in close quarters, like when you have to squash up on a siege tower, or even on the battlefield, when someone is pushing into you with their shield, you don't have space to use long weapons, and faster is better too. Maces have their use in single player vs armour but in multiplayer most people use swords, as armour doesn't actually prevent damage like it would in real life. Spears are not as effective as they should be also, as they are not usable vs shields and close range. Axes are OP as f though as they just disintegrate shields.
It seems that armies in antiquity also used a combined arms approach. A heavily armored knight could act like a tank with an escort of light infantry. Just as a tank needs infantry to protect it I would imagine the smaller number of heavily armored troops would need protection from the numerous lightly armored individuals.
7:00 The second guy from the left has an interesting armor loadout. Mail hauberk with a placard over it. Maybe you could make a video about all these variations in armor configuration and why they existed (eg. Burgundian knights wearing brigandine with a partial piece of plate above).
It probably depends on the role that the knight is assuming on the battlefield. As shock troop, pollaxe (on foot) and lance (mounted), but when acting as an officer it makes sense to rely on a secondary weapon like the sword. It is the same for modern armies, officers rely on secondary weapons when their main “weapon” is leading their soldiers.
Very effective, but then you’d have to consider less armored combatants. A sword is much better against less armored combatants because it offers more techniques to use and requires less power with each swing, very important if outnumbered by a bunch of peasants. Sure a hammer will cave in the skull of a peasant too, but you need to put in a lot of effort for each swing and then even the peasant could block or grab it with arms and hands.
Makes me think of the injuries at the battle of visby, the most common injury was having 1 or both legs chopped of with a blade and the most commen form of death was getting spiked in the brain with some kind of bill.
I would *LOVE* to hear what Mr. Easton would have to say about paper armor, as well as-- What Mr. Easton and the people he would like to use as resources would suggest as the go to technologies in a post-apocalyptic environment... it would be fun
The weapon that everyone really seems to overlook is the hammer. A good length of war hammer with the right style of head and rearward hook, plus upper spike to jab with is one of the easiest to use and most deadly weapons of medieval times. A full length sword takes more training and care to use effectively and won't defeat armor the way the hammer will. As for what might have been carried into battle typically by a 'knight'? Most likely a long arm such as spear or polearm, followed by a mid size weapon like a sword, then likely a smaller dagger or the like as a backup.
Hammer requires more strength, stamina and space to swing than sword. The technique required is less sophisticated than sword, but the physical demand is much greater.
"Theres no maiming" in the early 90s, someone went on to the field at tewkesbury with a sharp poleax ( could have been bill) with the express purpose he wanted to injure someone, could have been not right in the head, but back then, tewkesbury was known for lack of safety, i know lots of reenactors who wouldnt dream of going.
Interesting that Matt points a couple of the disadvantages of "dual wielding". First, that you are unable to use both hands on the same weapon in order to provide extra power, maneuverability and/or accuracy, and secondly a free hand (especially gloved or armoured) is also a valid weapon that can be used to grab, grapple, gouge, punch, push and block.
I've definitely been to jammed up in the press in scenarios like bridge and gate fights to be able to use a spear or glaive. That's when a nice short sword comes in handy.
I think it’s often forgotten due to Hollywood that most fighting men from 3/4ths to 9/10ths were not so armored and make misguided assumptions then. It’s the same for the arrow vs armor debate: what quality of arrow/armor did most men have in the armies? Lesser armor plus shield can definitely block arrows but at a much less success rate and then if hit enough arrows could go through. Also, usually the main goal was not to kill the knight but to kill their supports and capture him for ransom. Can’t expect their mom to pay ransom if they died bleeding out. If morale and armies fled when at most 5-10% of men died in battle itself, then how best to kill 10%? Go for the heavily armored 10% of men at arms and knights highly trained since birth? Or, just take out 10% of their levies with only a months training and less gear?
I've had a nagging conflict in my head between the knowledge that swords are thought of as primarily back-up weapons by practitioners of HEMA and other martial arts, and their extremely ubiquitous appearances in late medieval artistic depictions of battles for quite some time. This video does a lot to help me reconcile that. Thanks.
Yeah, Langmessers were really popular with Silezian and Transylvanian Saxon mercenaries, also Hungarian men-at-arms. It may feel rubbish against an armored foe but this is also the period where warhammers were also used a lot by the same people. So I figure the knight took a glance on their target and then decided which tool is the best fit for the purpose.
I suppose most of the comments you made about the longsword would also apply to this very specialized sword, but it would have been useful to show the advantages and disadvantages of an estoc. They were certainly present on the late Medieval battlefield. Are they pretty much the same as a stiff longsword? That info would have been a great addition to this video. Or perhaps you could do a separate video on the estoc in light of your new-found knowledge of fighting in the press.
People often gets really bipolar for different things, just like ranting that swords are useless outside duels after knowing polearms are more common. Glad that the old longswords get their names right once again.
This might be a bad comparison but it sounds like armored people were used similar ways to armored vehicles. In some situations tanks have lead while the infantry followed and covered them. in other situations infantry advanced while their tanks hung back and supported them. At Agincourt it sounds like the French were concentrating their armor to break through field fortifications. When mud stalled their attack concentrated and well drilled longbow, like artillery, had time to break up or kill the French armor's supporting light infantry. English "artillery" and "anti-tank teams" then had free reign to get in close and pick off French armored soldiers. If armored people were sometimes mixed in with light infantry, sometimes concentrated into units of various sizes; sometimes deployed in front of, to the sides of and in the midst of regular light infantry then it sounds to me like Medieval commanders were experimenting with combined arms units. Were they trying to solve the same battlefield problems that commanders face today? Considering that medieval armies seem to have hovered around the size of a modern division it would be interesting to compare the number of infantry, armored men, cavalry, archers, officers and support assets to modern divisional units. We might find that medieval commanders grappled with similar problems and came up with similar solutions.
Great video as always, Matt! Very informative. 😊 Since any knight or man-at-arms able to afford full plate armour undoubtedly possessed substantial wealth, would they have a variety of swords and other weapons in their baggage? Perhaps survey the enemy then kit themselves to the situation?
I imagine that most of the time knights would either wade through a mob of enemy peasants hacking off any limb in reach with a sword from the safety of their armor OR hang around the edges of the battle and occasionally jousting each other so they can say they fought somebody.
I guess some could also consider the dagger as their main weapon in a armored knight against armored knight configuration. If the plan to close the distance works for the sword, it may very well work for the dagger too. And then, that could be another thing to consider about the messer. The messer is great vs unarmored, and when you come face to face with another knight, close the distance real close using the messer for defense on the way in, then switch to stabbity stab. If we consider Messer + dagger and polearm + messer, I think both are all around good options.
The Halbard is an awesome weapon ,it is the Swiss Army Knife of hand to hand combat . You can stab with the point or sever limbs with the axe head and that hammer head will smash open armour
Thanks to Established Titles for sponsoring this video! Get 10% off on any purchase with code GLADIATORIA. Go to establishedtitles.com/GLADIATORIA and help support the channel!
Since your armor is an Itaian English esport armor willi it appear in Tobi´s book on export armors?
Do you think something like warhammer or mace would be a good weapon of choice in the press, since as you stated you're in shanking distance ?
@@rpgpuffer361 Good and bad from what I can assume. With maces, warhammers and even axes, you do need more room to swing it about than a nimble sword. And yet at the same time, they both less reach than swords and more shaft to grab onto.
Of course unlike swords, you could hit someone in the helmet and really hurt them, and hurt armoured people better. So its basically give and take.
But definitely a far cry from swords being literally useless.
Top spiked mace would be my preference in the close.
Be it against amour or not a solid lump of steel will see them done in.
A blade may cut/ gash but have you ever watched someone try to do anything with internal bleeding, bruising &/or shattered bone.
I find a (2 handing choke on a spiked mace) to be superior to 1/2 sword any day.
What is more ridged & near indestructible out of all middle middle age weapons?
I just think it takes a certain heartless mind set bludgeon someone to death purposly.
In full armour mace is the king of side arms.
I never liked blades as you have to index witch means you are concentrating on something that isn't your opponent & your footing even if it's only slightly.
Yes parrying with a mace is poor but if a shield or full plate like you suggest matt then it is the most logical.
Run after some one with a 3-5Ib top heavy lump of metal & watch them gasp then run;)
A sword would can be stitched but a caved in chest or skull no doctor can do much to day let alone centuries ago Matt.
Ow no he grabbed my mace shaft in the worse case then grapple & pull out a roundel/bollock dagger et cetera.
It makes a lot of sense to me why the armoured non nobility tended not to carry swords as the counterpart weapons are more effective & cheaper.
I 'd honestly be curious if a stout stick held held stick from the woods would be more effective against an armoured knight then to half sword?
@@TheNEOverse True that the shaft can be grabbed but i was thinking that because they're at so close range, the swords reach advantage would be nullified and on top of that the sword would have to aim for weak points or gaps in the armor, while to the warhammer most of the armor is a target.
Sounds to me like this is a perfect time for a mace/warhammer to shine
Please DO talk about wearing full harness in hot sunny weather, that would be fascinating to get some insights from direct experience.
I'm all for this, too, but if you aren't aware, Modern History has done a video on that.
@@pokemon1895 AH, the guy who owns the Judge Dredd IP!
@@TheBaconWizard The very same, and indeed, the man who owns the Sniper Elite series. A man of many facets.
@@pokemon1895 Blimey! Was not aware of that. What an excellent chap!
Aye, and please discuss the kinds of weather medieval fighters endured. In Coastal Texas, we often deal with 100°F/40°C and 80% humidity. 🥵
I just looked on a world map, and the latitude midline of Europe lines up with the border between Canada and the US. Texas lines up with northern Africa and the Middle East. Generally speaking, Texas represents a much hotter and higher-humidity region than anything medieval Euro knights would ever face, barring the Crusades.
(Although I will concede that climate depends on much more than mere latitude. Ocean and air currents and elevation affect it tremendously, as well.)
"The sword is the queen of weapons, because she is always at your side" - Giovanni dall'Agocchie
"Fun is not something one considers when conquering an empire, but this sword does put a smile on my face."
"Perhaps I was too harsh to you..."
This is how I plan to justify buying a $2,000 sword to my wife. Here goes nothing!
Edit: Does anyone know an infirmarius? I need someone to pull half a dozen arrows shot into my back by my witch of a wife.
Re: your second point
In Japan Naginata practitioners were cross-trained in dagger fighting explicitly because polearms are awkward in crowds. A number of traditional kata include a transition from naginata to tanto.
nice insight to know, thanks! Makes sense indeed.
But isn't a Naginata just a long sword? Yari just bypasses that issue by being a Spear
@@marcoasturias8520 Nope. A naginata is a polearm
@@marcoasturias8520 you mistook it with the nodachi. Naginata is a curved blade at the end of a pole, a sword-staff if you want.
Very interesting. I'd imagine this would be pretty consistent across the globe. But with the way Japanese kata works the transition between the two was much better recorded whereas in other places it was just a, "well you drop the pole arm and draw the dagger."
Ahh... the "Henry V" sword by St. George's! It's probably my very favorite sword of your collection, and we haven't seen it for a while!😀 She's an armor-piercer for sure!
I'm so excited that you're working with Windlass on some designs! Please let us know when any of them go into production and become available. Would you say that a sword such as that thrust-centric bastard sword prototype you have could be defined as an estoc, or "tuck"?
If swords genuinely weren't useful battlefield weapons and were essentially just useful for duels, we wouldn't see them depicted in art showing warfare. We don't see the massive two-handed dueling shields in battlefield depictions. We do see swords.
And the moment you introduce armor, you get the power to choose were the fight takes place. So why not choose a circumstance advantageous to you and your weapon?
Excellent points Lord Easton.
"If pistols are bad at war why do we see them often in art an movies."
Great comment...
If lightsabers arent real why do we see them depicted in art?
Its entirely possibly that the artists of the era also agreed that swords are more aesthetically pleasing than polearms so chose to depict swords instead.
Today in Movie posters we see heroes wielding Pistols. It's an iconic firearm really good for various poses and doesn't cover the actor's body.
On a modern battlefield, a pistol is the least useful weapon.
There was a story about swiss pikemen who managed to force Italian knights to retreat, but then knights dismounted and using advantage of much better armor just dispersed swiss pikemen despite having significantly less numbers.
The Roman gladius beat the Greek phalanx.
@@David-ns4ymYes, because of more versatility on difficult terrain. The phalanx was unbeatable on flat terrain even from roman sources.
89 999o9o9@@David-ns4ym
@@xylem2202 he's making the point that armour superiority will overcome arms superiority
@lordhandsomeswag1854 Roman armor wasn't better than the greek ones by the time they were at war, it really was just a matter of strategy not superior gear
I imagine knights on horseback used swords often for the same reason US cavalry used revolvers and pistols more due to the fact that they're one handed friendly.
Hell, a lot of ergonomic designs of the 1911, which we take for granted now as standard for most modern pistols, came from cavalry requesting changes as the Colt design evolved. For example, hitting the mag catch with your thumb, or having a slide release lock the slide back when empty are both stuff the cavalry requested to make the gun more one handed friendly.
One handed thrusting swords where used by Polish Hussars and others, as a backup to their lance.
Polish Hussars also carried a third weapon, the saber.
A quite versatile arsenal
Momentum is another factor, I would think, much like how spears and lances are more deadly on horse back.
Guy swinging a sword at you? Pretty dangerous, but nothing spectacular. Guy swinging a sword at you when traveling at high speeds? Much more dangerous.
I can see you have never seen a cavalry mace that looks much like a 1 handed mace with added length & often a lanyard at the base handle!
A weapon that doesn't get enough love & attention.
Many western nights swore this weapon off as they saw them as barbaric & unnecessary cruel as most of the time you would target the enemies horses head/legs.
Once the enemy was on foot you then swipe them on multiple passes again & again till they lied broken on the battle field.
Unlike a sword you could reach the ground with weapon on horse back whilst mounted.
The Mongolians two handed version where quite famous examples though the blood land of eastern Europe used cavalry maces quite frequently.
@@TheHazmate I wish I could have been old enough, and knew enough, to have an adult conversation with my Grandpa Martin Barnadzikowski. He was 2nd Mounted Rifles in Haller's Army WW-1 and the Polish Soviet War
@@Manco65 Sometimes life isn't fair, I'm lucky to have had the time to talk to my grandfather about his experiences, he was an Captain of a Oil tanker. Not as exciting as a cavalryman... But still.
Having fought in armor and in the line and elsewhere, all these points are spot on. Running up on spears is definitely a thing, and definitely terrifying on both ends. The press gets real scrappy, and changes the whole dynamic.
Please don't be ridiculous. You "fought"? How many people did you kill?
Re-enacting does give a sense of what it was like. But I’ll argue that all of these folks do this as a passionate hobby.
Going up against the real thing which meant life or death is something completely different. They trained for killing not re-enacting.
@@David-ns4ymirl people do much more reckless things than any reenactors would. We as species are not that good in self preservation
"Switching to your dagger is quicker than sharpening your sword" -Random Knight
I imagine that since many swords can be worn on the body, wielded in one hand, and are cut-and-thrust weapons, they offer versatility while still being able to be taken on a long campaign or journey. A reliable weapon, if not as well suited to certain tactics and situations as things like a mace or spear.
I have a very strong bias in favor of versatility, so I understand perfectly why someone would choose a shorter, compromise cut-and-thrust sword over a more specialized type of sword.
One of the reasons I have fallen in love with the long sword. Such an incredibly versatile weapon. Good at cutting and thrusting, good for both defense and offense, and surprisingly good at different distances.
To me it feels like the heavy full plate armour is just great at opening more options for the wearer, which is something that goes very well with the range of options and high skill ceiling afforded by swords. The human body is a weapon in and of itself and heavy armour synergises with this.
For example: if you fight with a sword and free hand, you can still use the outside of your gauntlet as a way to parry incoming strikes, especially if you make a fist to protect the inside of your hand. Quite as effective as a targe. And the armour itself is dangerous to targets that are not so heavily protected by virtue of being hard and heavy, from punching to wrestling. It truly changes everything.
We have limited focus and we constantly shifting between offense and defense depends on circumstances.
If you are unarmoured, you will very likely shift more focus to defensive maneuvers. Here's the thing- one failure in defense might end your life.
On the other side with armour can shift most focus to offense. Heck, the armoured guy has tactical advantage because he can employ high risk moves normally people try to avoid due to possibility of injury or death.
Exactly, armor in the pre-modern time was considered an offensive equipment. We view armor as a measure to keep you alive, a defensive equipment. This clouds our evaluation of what armor meant in the medieval times. For example it was often culturally acceptable to wield a sword for self-defense. Yet walking into a place wearing full battlefield armor is effectively a declaration that you're hostile.
@@willyvereb Thank you for this informative comment!
Greek phalanx we thought as invincible but it’s known that it never quite moved en bloc straight ahead. The vulnerable shield side moved at an angle like a diamond. So they need veterans in the front and back ranks to try to keep it straight.
Of course the phalanx fell apart on uneven ground when the superior Roman’s beat the Greeks
The point about having a langmesser as a side arm with a poleaxe as a man weapon is super true, and I think it's why in places like India and Afghanistan (among many others, arguably even in Europe at times) you end up with specialized thrusting daggers and cutting swords. If you have a spear as your primary, a Tulwar as your second, and a Katar as your tertiary, as well as a shield, you're pretty well equipped no matter the enemy you're facing.
15th/16th century military treatises provide considerable insight on this point. They cover lots of troops in three-quarters harness or more. I don't know of any evidence from these texts for equipping such heavily armored infantry soldiers with swords alone as their primary weapon. The combination of sword and shield as primary weapon does appear from various authors of course. We have fewer sources from the 15th century, but Bertrandon de La Brocquière didn't even mention swords for infantry in describing his ideal force to face the Ottomans: he assigned axes & spears/pikes. This was for infantry wearing light plate armor, including gauntlets. Pietro Monte mentioned heavily armored infantry with sword & shield operating in conjunction with pikers. In the 16th century, authors like Machiavelli and Raimond de Fourquevaux recommended targetiers (troops with sword & shield). Otherwise, armored infantry appear in these texts armed with pikes, halberds, bills, partizans, & so on. They all wear swords as sidearms. It's absolutely true that swords can be more useful than longer weapons in a tight press, & the treatises mentioned this repeatedly. But as wearing a sword was standard, that's not cause to have the sword as the primary weapon. Sir John Smythe did specifically argue that 6ft halberds worked fine in formation & that pikers resorting to their swords & dagger couldn't stand against halberdiers with 6ft halberds, assuming three-quarters harness for both.
It's quite possible that knights in the 14th & 15th centuries did sometimes opt for a longsword as their primary weapon when fighting on foot, but this doesn't seem to have been a very popular option overall, at least not for military theorists who left us treatises.
However, we also know that dropping one's 'primary' weapon in favor of a shorter one when entering into close proximity with an enemy line was common. It was a significant factor in the lansknecht and Swiss pikemen opting for short-bladed sidearms (katzbalger and often daggers for the Swiss), and the short-lived rodeleros were very successful in the rare occasion that they actually got up into the enemy line. Swords were often regarded as more useful in the confined space of invading an enemy formation, although polearms were usually preferred up until you got past the push-of-pike.
The halberd mentioned in the records being only 6ft in length likely also helps the polearm wielder significantly - ancient Chinese military would have probably classified such polearm as a “short weapon”.
@@adenyang4398 The term "short weapon" was also used in 16th-century English military treatises but seems to have included anything shorter than a pike. Smythe did complain that halberds longer than 6ft couldn't be used well in the press of battle. George Silver similarly gave 5-6ft as the proper length for heavy halberds & bills for the battlefield.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 it seems to be the length that would do very well against armored swordsmen in closer ranges. Likely not so much in unarmored duels though.
Qi Jiguang specifically had a specialized cudgel/heavy staff weapon (with a spike at the end) that was also around a similar length to be used against armored Jurchen cavalrymen, since pikes were ineffective against them. But when he was stationed in the South against the wokou, he considered such short polearms as completely useless.
The "fun" aspect brought to mind a tension during roughly this period between the traditions of individual honor and glory vs the needs of the state as nationalism became more firmly established.
In Fairbairn's manual "Get tough" for the commandos the Fairbairn-Sykes dagger was definitely shown being used for cutting. It was explained in the text as well.
I've had a high quality knife that was a copy of the Fairbairn and Sykes and I can tell you it is a very poor design for cutting. Any blade that doesn't have a curve is made for stabbing and not really for slicing and cutting. I made mine extremely sharp so I got it where I could cut with it, but it had to be way sharper than average to slice and cut well. I actually reprofiled it to make it usable for my cutting needs. I really loved that knife and was very disappointed when I lost it, and it was pretty expensive. I probably shouldn't have used it as a EDC.
Up. Any blade without a curve is made for stabbing? Sean’s are choppers with stabbing abilities and they aren’t curved at all. I think mass, blade geometry, breathe and length are more important.
I don't know if you heard of Gilles Martinez but he wrote a thesis on feudal combat, so more around the XIIth and XIIIth centuries. He also organises HEMA workshops on the subject.
For group combat on foot, he thinks people of that time would have fought in small units, like knights in full mail using sword and shield supported by spearmen (with or without shield).
This kind of formation has been put to the test in reenactment, HEMA and LARP and the dynamic is quite close with what you describe: knights being able to "charge in" thanks to their armor and disrupting the opposing formation. If it works, gaps can then be exploited by the spearmen.
I agree with this perspective also, small groups makes more sense in many ways. Better communication, mutual protection and morale. Also a Lord or Knight will have his retained men and sometimes levies from his local county; men which would have known and worked with each other for years so more of a bond and esprit de corps. Also in terms of equipment in a group of men only the Lord/Knight and a few men at arms/squires would have been heavily armored in plate. They would have depended on their lightly armed retainers for flank support and protection from the other retainers/levies with polearms so the heavier men at arms could use their armor and skill for breakthrough as you said.
Totally agree. The range advantage of a spear is lessened when good armor is concerned, and is part of why I believe Fiore instructs to use the spear "shortened" in his spear in armor section. The sword can then be a similar, just shorter, implement when used in a "half swording" fashion.
As a billman fighting alongside you at Tewkesbury, I actually saw you going in with your sword first hand. From my point of view, it was a relief as the lightly armoured infantry when you or other "knights" came to take off some of the pressure since many of the opposite line were much more heavily armoured.
Matt, what was the average survivability of knights in battles in different historical periods? If you had a top notch harness of the time, how likely were you to fall in battle? What were the main factors? Armor quality? Ransom money? Knightly code?
Most of those stuff are rather complicated.
But, "knightly code" is rather easier to understand. To uphold one "knightly code", for the most part it means bringing the lord glory.
If you had more expensive and ornate looking armor, you were most probably rich and were more likely to be kept alive and captured for ransom, I think
well, apart from a few massacres, the death rate of medieval battles rarely exceeded 20%. Of course knight fought the hard parts. But first they had better armor, and second their ennemies would try to capture them from a ransom. War is expensive, and ransom was not only one of the primary funding source for the armies, but also an important motivation factor for common soldiers who could earn a life-changing wage for the capture of a knight. This was a generally respected tradition (the harsh disregards, like Azincourt, were heavily frowned upon). Globally, i say you'd have 9 out of 10 chance of surviving a battle. However, keep in mind that infection and diseases actually killed more in armies that fighting itself. You could also ending up mutilated or crippled for life.
@@benjaminthibieroz4155 After Agincourt, King Henry's courtiers and retainers refused to attend the celebratory feast. It was in protest of his actions.
@@jintsuubest9331 iirc there’s also a thing about not killing other knights unnecessarily. If you go around killing knights and lords, who’s going to keep the peasantry in check?
Mostly you’d force knights to surrender (partly because it’s hard to kill them in armour) and have them pay a hefty ransom.
The bluing on that helm is lovely!
Sword, Armor and Shield are a package deal, it's great at fighting multiple conscripts, of which most armies would be made of on foot, where other longer weapons can be grappled or bypassed while you attack another oponent the sword is much less likely to be vulnerable to that.
The lance was used to fight knights once you have killed one of them then the duty of the cavalry was to flank and kill the enemy archers on the back of the formation and for that the sword and shield was quite usefull, after the cavalry routed the archers and killed the enemy knights the bulk of the peasant army would often run away and disperse or surrender seeing themselves surrounded.
On sieges where there is limited space the sword armor and shield is also great for it's quick stabbing ability in thightly packed fights.
The poleaxe and two handed sword would shine on the flanks of the enemy formation, where smalls skirmishes would happen with more available space for mobility, and the center fight would be carried on by mobs of peasant pikemen led by men at arms and unhorsed knights pursuing glory, so there would be a mix of armored pole axe and sword and shield line breaking attempts and pike warfare.
Talking about fighting in the press makes me think of Jean de Joinville's mention of being too closely pressed to reach his sword and having to go for the backup on his saddle. I'm sure a lot of people get their concept of Medieval battle from movies. I've been in a number of film and television features that involved hand to hand combat (18th and 19th Century). Invariably the two sides will close in two large masses, the director yells "cut," and they space everyone out into well spaced out groups of twos and threes fighting little small duels with space to swing weapons while everyone is completely mixed up. If you watch for it in movies you'll start noticing it.
I'm read that is one o the critiques George Silver had against Rapiers.He basically stated that rapers were basically to long to draw and use in a press.
I'm also reminded of Spartans making short swords or long knives shorter than typical Greek swords because they were easier to use in a press.
The reason Joinville was unable to draw his sword was not because of the press of a close melee. He was on a scouting mission and bumped into a Mamluk trying to mount his horse with the help of his squire. He then ran the Mamluk through with his lance, hardly a weapon to be used when space was at a premium. The Mamluk's squire then stabbed him in turn on his armored back with a lance too. Joinvilled wasnt injured but the point of the squire's lance got snagged on his surcoat, and with the squire pressing down on his lance the French knight was thus pinned down against his saddle. Joinville was hence unable to draw the sword hanging from his belt, forcing him to go for the one strapped to his saddle pommel instead. Once he managed to draw that the squire got scared and fled, and Joinville was able to run back to his camp.
I always just think of how the Roman’s would do it. Get close make a shield wall and just stab.
@@Whosyourdaddy21 It should be noted though that the Romans did not normally fight in a shield wall, i.e. not with their shields touching each other or even close together!
Here is Polybius' description on the Roman fighting style, bearing in mind that he was an actual eyewitness to the Roman armies:
"Now, a Roman soldier in full armour also requires a space of three square feet. But as their method of fighting admits of individual motion for each man-because he defends his body with a shield, which he moves about to any point from which a blow is coming, and because he uses his sword both for cutting and stabbing,-it is evident that each man must have a clear space, and an interval of at least three feet both on flank and rear, if he is to do his duty with any effect......seeing that the Roman front ranks are not supported by the rear ranks, either by way of adding weight to their charge, or vigour to the use of their swords."
www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0234%3Abook%3D18%3Achapter%3D30
Thus the Romans seemed to employ a rather loose formation, and a more individualistic style of combat than what most of us would describe as a shield wall.
THANK YOU!
People have been overcorrecting the spear status to the point where they reduce the swords to "Only status symbol" and that spears are Soooooo much better than swords in every way. It is very annoying.
Every famous spear infantry carried some kind of bladed backup weapon, namely swords, despite them being much much more expensive to produce. I wonder why that is??
The sword is a useful backup weapon, but thats it, its a backup, the weight of most battles is carried by other means generaly. Almost all the treaties from the medieval era that talk army composition and armament tactics of infatry and heavy infantry, either dont mention a sword at all, or recognize its aptitude only as a back up weapon. There is a reason almost all of the historical relevant information and data we have points at the sword almost never being the main weapon and its not that it is inherently better or worse than spear or other polearms in general, just that for warfare purposes it indeed was inferior most of the time as an army's main weapon, and much inferior at that.
Another point to make is that, while you can probably name several medieval famous regiments that fought with its main weapon being a polearm or another great reach weapon (and here we can of course include double handed swords). You , and me, would probably strugle to name several regiments of renown that used primarily one handed swords.
@@chusnacho4447 Backup weapon is misleading. Yes, it isnt the primary weapon, it is however still absolutely crucial to make up for the weakness of spears and polearms.
@@Beliserius1 Of course! just as there was a reason it was almost never used as a main weapon for an army, there was a reason it was the most common backup weapon in the world by a wide margin, and that is that swords are awesome in that cirumstance.
Are you really less likely to be hit in the face if you leave your helmet open?
Yes! Tested this ~15 years ago, using (admittedly terrible quality) great helms and modern fencing masks. With the modern mesh steel fencing masks with effectively full visibility we took very few strikes to the face, though we found that there are more attacks made to the face.
Makes sense. Your instinct is to protect your face.
Keeping your face covered might be a "just in case" measure, or to counter the possibility of missiles.
I found at Tewkes and Barnet before it, I managed to take a pollaxe to the face. Both times were not strikes at me but caused by pressing forward into the fighters next to them. Fighting without the sallet/bev overlap it doesn't happen. Fighting with it, I just don't particularly care when it does
If you look at Dune, almost everyone has shields, so projectile weapons areuch less effective, so the fighting often devolves into close quarters combat, designed to defeat those shields. Pretty cool concept, exploring different defensive vs offensive development curves.
Every time I see this nice tail of your helmet I cannot stop thinking how good it is as a lever in wrestling.
Also a reminder of why the Roman Gladius and Zulu Iklwa was so short. (Also learned recently that the Gladius came back into fashion in the 1700s)
That last one was not a gladius, though, and it did NOT outcompete the long sabers and straight swords that would be used by armies until WW1.
Neither the Gladius nor the Ikwla had to deal with full harness armors.
During the time of antiquity, a 60cm sword like the Gladius was considered a longsword by the standards of the time, the greater reach of the gladius was an advantage to the shorter swords/daggers wielded by the Macedonians and the Carthaginians.
I love hearing about your experiences on these sorts of things. Thanks for sharing.
Ditto, I feel like I'm living vicariously through Matt when he talks about these.
there is also an element of symbology , the sword is the instrument by which they were knighted and an ongoing mark of their station.
As well as a sword is a personal cross (holy Christian symbol) for a knight.
One thing I’ve noticed watching re-enactments, is that whenever a man with sword and shield knocks a spear aside, the spearmen is almost always done for as the swordsmen will immediately take the initiative and use his shield to keep the spear aside and use his shorter and more manoeuvrable weapon to take them out.
Spears can definitely be used in one on one duels and they’re really good at duels, but battles aren’t duels, you could make the argument that duels in HEMA don’t reflect real combat because combat isn’t nearly as predictable as ‘fairly light poke and you’re dead’. Spears in battles very much seem like formation weaponry to me, with pikes being the extreme by being utterly dependent on the formation.
Sword and shield on the other hand seem a lot more scrappy to me, if the formation were to somehow break down or a gap was opened up, aggressive, shorter, scrappier weaponry is what you’d want in that situation instead of weaponry that becomes extremely awkward when used in a press, or with a bunch of guys around you.
Yes while it is a game, I still think it can apply because in games like Total War, sword/mace/axe and shield units are aggressive, they’re meant to get stuck in, up close and personal. On the other hand, spearmen, halberd and pike units are always more defensive units, they’re meant to hold the line and they’ll hold the line well and with their longer weapons are more able to counter cavalry. Even after all I’ve learned, that still makes sense to me, I’d say that’s realistic, especially when you consider that sword units are typically amongst the more well armoured of your units.
decades ago when I used to play D&D and other games I always hated that unarmoured people had a huge advantage to be able to dodge. It was actually a penalty in some systems to be fully armoured. I love that people now are finally figuring out in the general public that an armoured knight can just ignore most of your hits while the unarmoured person can't ignore any hits. An aromoured person can just fight differently. Putting your forearm up to block a sword swing is perfectly acceptable in full plate.
Yeah, it is more of a stamina thing that a speed thing. If you are having to guard duty or march with a horse to carry your stuff and/or ride on, you are going to get gassed out before a less armored man would. It is harder to appreciate today cus we have cars, we don’t have to go lug our crap on our backs and travel for miles on foot.
Within Rolemaster heavy armor basically guarantees that you will be hit. What armor does in that system was prevent or mitigate critical injuries
That's exactly why our group used house rules with armors always having Damage Resistance
I'm experiencing this frustration with Pathfinder now. The min max aspects lead me to nothing more than a breastplate for armor, as I can reach or exceed the Armor Class values of a full suit of plate. Really wish the original designers knew how armor actually worked and added that aspect to the game.
@@ObsydianShade Oh neat! Thanks for the history lesson. Had no idea.
The helmet, you are wearing throughout the video, is a nice study for miniature painting and reflections. Cheers!
Having now read bits of a number of actual medieval accounts (mainly from the High Middle Ages), it seems to me that it was more common for knights to follow through an attack with swords than to go back for lances to thereby cycle-charge after they broke, cycle charges seems to have been more of an exception than the norm, from what I read (which is far from exhaustive) I can only clearly remember two examples of cycle charging, one was during the last stand of Jerusalem's forces at the Battle of Hattin (1187), the other was Spanish knights under James the Conqueror charging down a phalanx-like formation in a castle-breach using cycle charges (which shows how effective these charges really were, since you could frontally charge a phalanx at times, in a breach even). In all other examples I have a clear memory of, they press the attack with swords after lances break. I really think that the whole "swords are not a battlefield weapon" stems from a point being so highly exaggerated that it quite frankly morphs in to being wrong.
In fact, during the Battle of Benevento (1266) we specifically hear of a drawn out engagement between sword-armed mounted knights, where the French finally charge the Germans with their daggers, which breaks the tight German formation, specifically aiming for the German knights' armpits, apparently. Perhaps not too dissimilar from your barrelling concept?
I also think that people underestimate how easy it is to lose or break larger cumbersome weapons in battle. For example, when the English were fighting the Scottish schiltrons, the medieval writers found it very important to point out that the Scottish troops were wearing axes on their sides, if they were barely expected to use their side-arms except in exceptional circumstances, like modern pistols, they would probably not found it important to mention.
Swords and other side-arms are not like modern pistols, modern pistols are extremely rarely used in modern combat, and really is a true life saving back-up. This is very different from swords, which all though rarely used at the start of an engagement, seems to have almost been expected to be switched to at some point during the fight, especially in the High Middle Ages.
the battle of crecy would probably deserve an honorable mention as in many successive cavalry charges conducted during the same battle. In spite of an obvious horrific loss for the french the skill displayed in horsemanship required to to pull this off, at the severe tactical disadvantage they found themselves in, definitely shows that they must have been some of the finest cavalrymen of the middle ages.
That was good! The discussion on personal preference and nature of apples vs oranges fighting was illuminating. The idea of an armored "shield" of knights in the front, massed together, is frankly terrifying!
I'm seeing multiple instances where the screen flashes black
Yes I'm sorry about that. I had two videos I filmed that were like that and I have absolutely no idea why - it has not happened since. I tried to put images over the worst instances, but there was only a certain about that I could cover, and I couldn't re-film it.
Matt, I've listened to you for many years, talking about how swords are overrated as a weapon in today's view of history and how it is just a sideweapon. I have cited you as an expert. I believed you. It all made sense.
And now you are standing here, telling us how great a weapon a sword is for an armoured fighter!?
You're playing with my feelings, bro 😉
Not necessarily a contradiction. Handguns are relatively shit compared to long weapons like rifles, but they are used in certain circumstances instead of rifles (e.g. CQC).
@@1IGG Wouldn’t you say that automatic carbine rifles and SMGs reign supreme even under such circumstances?
The need and prevalence for pistols also seem to be significantly far less compared to swords in the modern era.
@@adenyang4398 if your smg is your close quarter equivalent to a sword, then your pistol is your dagger. Even shorter range and more limited capability, but even more easy to carry, and even more easily wielded at extreme close ranges
A few more points:
Swords are one of the best defensive weapons. Depending on your armour is great. Knocking aside a spear to get into sword range is even better.
Swords are more portable, you can put them in your scabbard if need be. Great when you are in a siege and you have to climb something. Also useful to drag a friendly combatant to safety or anything you might need two hands for.
Love edged weapons but I’m fortunate enough to live in a country where I can obtain some very nice firearms AR15 or AK47 pistols rifles and carbines as well as plenty of ammunition and I can even buy tannerite a chemical that explodes when hit with a bullet it’s a fun way to spend an afternoon on my personal shooting range and I have a couple of precision rifles that are still very accurate at very long Distance with a powerful scope. But I still love to collect my edged weapons swords axes spears and pole arms. Thanks again for your channel great job mate cheers
the old school Gladius can actually be quite suitable for full armour combat due to the modest length and the thick thrust oriented blade type
Good video, this answered a question I had about if after knights and soldiers did away with shields because their armor was so good, if they did completely forsake one handed weapons like arming swords in favor of two handed ones like the pole axe and longsword. It's actually cool to see that armored soldiers or knights may have or probably did go into combat with just their armor and a single handed weapon.
Isn't this effectively how the Romans used the gladius? They kept themselves protected enough to close in, and then shankin' time.
And just from a morale standpoint, fighting someone who's confident enough to do that when you're "timidly" hanging back with your spear would be terrifying.
Not quite, Romans also used the Pilum. They would throw a barrage of javelins to disrupt and soften up the enemy formation, and then move in for the kill with the gladius whilst using their scutum and close ranks as cover. The Pilum was arguably their primary weapon, and watching the first rank or two fall to pieces before a wall of shields come down on you would have been much for terrifying than just watching a wall of swords and shields approaching.
@@BlackSabbath628 "Isn't this how Romans used the gladius?" was his question. You basically answered: "Not quite, they did something else before using the gladius like that." He didn't say anything about primary weapons or whatever, so your point falls entirely to the wayside.
Can pila be useful? Sure. Have they won every battle for the Romans ever? I think even the point you're trying to make lacks a lot of nuance. If battles take hours (which they still often did), you throw a pilum (or sometimes 2) in the first 2 minutes and then use a gladius with scutum in your hands for the rest, what was their primary weapon? Is it perhaps possible you have different weapons for different situations?
Honestly, I'd have expected a viewer of this channel to realise context is a thing. It's like you don't listen to Matt talking at all. By the way, contemporary historical sources have a lot to say about the power of the gladius and the horror they inflict with them, maybe you should look them up some time.
@@twanvanderdonk2504 Yes, I know about the vicious wounds the gladius inflicts. I'm just saying there were more to roman tactics than just marching forward and stabbing with their sword.
It was less "They kept themselves protected enough to close in, and then shankin' time." and more "they kept themselves protected enough to get in range, throw javelins to weaken the enemy, then close in and shank the enemy"
Hence why I wrote "not quite" as opposed to just "no". I find it rich that you lecture me about nuance and context when you don't understand the nuance nor context of my point.
Yes, battles took hours, but how much of it was actual fighting?
I doubt that every soldier was fighting all the time, especially when how physically demanding and stressful the ordeal is.
I do not think that legionaries took an hour prodding the enemy with their swords, especially when morale is a factor.
"Has the pilum won every battle for the Romans ever" is an odd question to ask, considering how it was a standard issue piece of gear and was an integral part of their tactics. That's like asking "did the musket win every battle for the British ever".
Well, no, but that doesn't mean the bayonet was better, now does it? Especially when it was also standard issue and if an army lost with their pilum/musket they would lose with their gladius/bayonet as well.
To me the gladius is comparable to the bayonet; if the enemy hasn't routed after getting whittled down by a barrage of projectiles, they sure will wish they had when the stabbing comes.
@@chuckyxii10 It's funny that you write an entire book work on me being a condescending arse when Ctulu guy started that trend. Just like him, however, you took in arguments to make a point that weren't in the original comment or mine. No one mentioned knights until you. I hope you remember that, mister pedantic, because that is a straight strawman, pulled from the messy shed that is your mind ;)
@@chuckyxii10 As far as the word primary goes... I have a different interpretation as a linguist, because word meanings change with time and not everything stays literal. Your primary weapon is your preferred weapon. Do you think legions would do better without any pila or without any gladii? (and no, no substitutes, they throw their pila and then just have their scuta left to fight with)
As far as using the pilum goes... I've never denied any of that. That's just another strawman argument. Please stop that.
Some times a new experience can make years of theory and oppions take on different shading and often you can make some decent skill jumps by coming at a problem from a new perspective.
Thinking about the weapon set makes sense. If I'm using a mace or war hammer, having the reach of a long sword makes a lot of sense. And between the mace and the dagger there are plenty of options against armored opponents. But if I'm using a pole axe, I might want the "Henry V" blade or the messer because I've already got a pole arm and dagger to use against armored opponents and I want something that is quick and handy against lightly protected opponents.
"No horror and death and maiming" as he shows the image of an aNgeRy mAtT stabbing someone hard enough that his sword is bending...
New facial orifices provided for free, all in good fun!
Just gotta add some blood, straighten the sword and maybe put on that 'BRUTAL MEDIEVAL HISTORY' filter on him and he looks like a still from some grimey historical drama lol.
Hardest thumbnail ever made on the HEMA community history
And when are we going to talk about blackened armour...that harness of yours looks soooo cool!
I've only watched a couple of reenactment battles, but one thing really stood out.
The two forces closed with each other aggressively....until they were almost within weapon's reach. Then, instead of skewering or smashing their enemies forcefully, as I expect one would do in combat when adrenaline flows and lives are at risk, every polearm on both sides was suddenly raised to 30 or 40 degrees above horizontal. It was obvious that safety concerns had completely invalidated the application of the weapons. As such, the two battle lines just milled into a pushing match of crossed polearm shafts. Suddenly, through no virtue of their own, swords and daggers were the most effective weapons there.
There are rules in place for safety because, you meet a lot of people with different abilities, different ages and more importantly different quality of kit and we don't want to walk away unwanted injuries because it's supposed to be fun as well, but things still happen even though we are using blunt rebated edges. I have the scars to prove it. Plus you don't want that level of aggression, that how tempers get lost. In WOTR there is a lot more plate, but some are vey lightly armoured or only wearing a gambeson so you have to be safe. The Knot wear even less with billman only wearing a lobster pot and back and breast plate. If you'd prefer something a bit more aggressive try looking up some Buhurt matches like Battle of the Nations or look up some of the full contact Eastern European major battles on YT. They are not reenactment and you will notice how well protected they are with over the top padding beneath their armour, but again things still happen, like lost teeth, broken limbs and dislocated joints. By comparison re-enactment is trying to put on a bit of a show, a spectacle where there is a set historical outcome.
@@blackmixen Thank you for that extensive and detailed reply. I appreciate that these battles are for fun and safety is paramount. I don't mean to criticize the participants or the safety measures. I'm just pointing out that drawing conclusions...for example that daggers are one of the most effective weapons on the field...from these simulated battles with their restricted application of primary weapons can be misleading. I'm sure daggers...for example...are very effective in a grapple. But I suggest that in an actual battle, with polearms employed with intent, getting into a grapple probably won't happen as quickly.
Thanks again for your very informative reply.
That makes sense. I can see how a battle can change over time.
When it comes to hitting unarmored points with any weapon, you can never forget that tripping your opponent can be one way to get access to those points easier. Or even open up... unexpected new ones. Like in one piece of medieval art I saw that looked like one of the earliest cases of a "seconds before disaster" photo. The image in question was a battle scene, and one of the combatants had tripped and was on his hands and knees trying to stand back up. Though it is presumed he never got the chance, because behind him was a spearman at full charge. Full charge and about a foot away from making the fallen soldier's unarmored rear exit into a new entrance with a large spear.
Gay spearman.
Internet feelings:
1. SWORDS!
2. Actually halberds and polearms!
3. eh, back to swords? :D
There was a video about maces on this channel, I remember. It was discussed there that knights in armor may be carrying maces and warhammers more than foot soldiers nearly for the same reasons: they are short anti-armor weapons, that are usefull predominantly against people in armor.
We have a great example of how effective an armored knight armed with a sword was in the somewhat obscure case of the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. Now sources are somewhat conflicting on this battle, since both an Ottoman sultan died, and it has been culturally mystified in the region, but we can look to certain western European participants for a more "unbiased" record. The knights Hospitaler, King Tvrtko(whose men fought at and survived that battle) as well as John of Palisna and their correspondences with the Italians. To keep a long story short At a point in the battle the European charge gets stuck in on the left flank of the Ottoman lines, what proceeded to happen was a line strait out of a fantasy movie, with some 15 or so knights, most likely from the Brankovic and the Albanian Muzaka lines, cutting their way through the formation, into the sultan's camp and ultimately killing the Sultan himself.
Nice to hear you were on the right side.
You got to use that land one vid
My thoughts are a test on battlements
You get some to help, you dig a ditch and pile both sides with dirt, make a wall of vertical logs, connected possibly with the help of nails with a wood platform and wood crenellations of sorts
Would be interesting to see how men fight up a ladder in an assault
Similar stuff applies to stone walls, not sure on stuff that heavy to be dropped but seeing how it affects people in armour while pebbles rattle their helmets and fighting up a ladder with only one good hand to hold a weapon with
Wait...you are telling me that knights in medieval knights carried 2 to 3 weapons in battle to switch weapons depending on the circumstances rather than to just look really nice and badass?
Preposterous!!! 🤣
Don't forget: they also mounted Bluetooth speakers on each shoulder to blast boss music as they arrived onto the field.
@@texasbeast239 ride of the valkyries?
@@Arachnoid_of_the_underverse I love the smell of armor polish in the morning. It smells like...victory.
@@texasbeast239 You joke, but given their usual social class and age... Yeah, I bet a shit ton of them actually would do that if they could.
Part of the reason why the Gladius was so effective. Tightly packed heavily armored and shielded infantry with glorified daggers are much better compared to clumsy phalanxes
Something occurred to me that made axes or things with curves halberds warax Etc.. is that they can be drag the weapon and a striking manner against armor and unlike a sword which only has a catch point at the tip the spike end and all the little hooked points of axes and how birds and warhammers could find the nooks and crannies of armor
Your channel deserves quite a lot more attention. What I wouldn't give to poke around your armory there
nice video. I have done Tewkesbury for over 25 yrs as an armoured knight and you have to change style and weapon depending on the press
I had the same realisation sparring against my friends when he had a spear and I a sword. I pushed his spear aside and closed the distance, grabbing the spear so he couldn’t attack. Every weapon has its place on the battlefield. The question is when and how to use them.
Amazing analysis of the matter. You are very knowledgable.
Awesome video. Very in depth, and a really cool topic to talk about after attending that reenactment and getting some experiential inspiration.
In the game Mount and Blade, shorter swords are usually better than longer weapons, because they are more usable in close quarters, like when you have to squash up on a siege tower, or even on the battlefield, when someone is pushing into you with their shield, you don't have space to use long weapons, and faster is better too. Maces have their use in single player vs armour but in multiplayer most people use swords, as armour doesn't actually prevent damage like it would in real life. Spears are not as effective as they should be also, as they are not usable vs shields and close range. Axes are OP as f though as they just disintegrate shields.
It seems that armies in antiquity also used a combined arms approach. A heavily armored knight could act like a tank with an escort of light infantry. Just as a tank needs infantry to protect it I would imagine the smaller number of heavily armored troops would need protection from the numerous lightly armored individuals.
7:00 The second guy from the left has an interesting armor loadout. Mail hauberk with a placard over it. Maybe you could make a video about all these variations in armor configuration and why they existed (eg. Burgundian knights wearing brigandine with a partial piece of plate above).
I have even seen burgundian's wear a brigandine with a placard overlapping it from the bottom
It probably depends on the role that the knight is assuming on the battlefield. As shock troop, pollaxe (on foot) and lance (mounted), but when acting as an officer it makes sense to rely on a secondary weapon like the sword. It is the same for modern armies, officers rely on secondary weapons when their main “weapon” is leading their soldiers.
I can't help but think how effective that short war hammer would be in a close-range armored fight.
It was done, but in a press or really close range you can't get the the good heavy swing you need to make a hammer hurt.
Very effective, but then you’d have to consider less armored combatants.
A sword is much better against less armored combatants because it offers more techniques to use and requires less power with each swing, very important if outnumbered by a bunch of peasants. Sure a hammer will cave in the skull of a peasant too, but you need to put in a lot of effort for each swing and then even the peasant could block or grab it with arms and hands.
Makes me think of the injuries at the battle of visby, the most common injury was having 1 or both legs chopped of with a blade and the most commen form of death was getting spiked in the brain with some kind of bill.
Established Titles is a scam. I don't begrudge you taking a paycheck, but those people are not offering anything except a fancy piece of paper.
I mean that's kinda what titles are today, they, if i remember correctly, don't offer any benefits by themselves
Much like "buying" a star. Total scam.
Literally the same company rebranded after being sued. @@VonDilling
If I am not granted droit de seigneur over those who live on my square foot domain, I am not interested.
Isn't that pretty apparent from the marketing?
I would *LOVE* to hear what Mr. Easton would have to say about paper armor, as well as--
What Mr. Easton and the people he would like to use as resources would suggest as the go to technologies in a post-apocalyptic environment... it would be fun
The weapon that everyone really seems to overlook is the hammer. A good length of war hammer with the right style of head and rearward hook, plus upper spike to jab with is one of the easiest to use and most deadly weapons of medieval times. A full length sword takes more training and care to use effectively and won't defeat armor the way the hammer will. As for what might have been carried into battle typically by a 'knight'? Most likely a long arm such as spear or polearm, followed by a mid size weapon like a sword, then likely a smaller dagger or the like as a backup.
Hammer requires more strength, stamina and space to swing than sword. The technique required is less sophisticated than sword, but the physical demand is much greater.
Obviously a knight would choose a sword if they had invested all or most of their perk points in the sword skill tree. Would be a waste otherwise.
Nice to hear that swords might have been used more and that they might have been more effective than was usually assumed (my impression at least).
"Theres no maiming" in the early 90s, someone went on to the field at tewkesbury with a sharp poleax ( could have been bill) with the express purpose he wanted to injure someone, could have been not right in the head, but back then, tewkesbury was known for lack of safety, i know lots of reenactors who wouldnt dream of going.
Interesting that Matt points a couple of the disadvantages of "dual wielding". First, that you are unable to use both hands on the same weapon in order to provide extra power, maneuverability and/or accuracy, and secondly a free hand (especially gloved or armoured) is also a valid weapon that can be used to grab, grapple, gouge, punch, push and block.
Looks like the Sword of Alexandria in the thumbnail. I own and love that sword.
I've definitely been to jammed up in the press in scenarios like bridge and gate fights to be able to use a spear or glaive. That's when a nice short sword comes in handy.
I think it’s often forgotten due to Hollywood that most fighting men from 3/4ths to 9/10ths were not so armored and make misguided assumptions then.
It’s the same for the arrow vs armor debate: what quality of arrow/armor did most men have in the armies? Lesser armor plus shield can definitely block arrows but at a much less success rate and then if hit enough arrows could go through. Also, usually the main goal was not to kill the knight but to kill their supports and capture him for ransom. Can’t expect their mom to pay ransom if they died bleeding out.
If morale and armies fled when at most 5-10% of men died in battle itself, then how best to kill 10%? Go for the heavily armored 10% of men at arms and knights highly trained since birth? Or, just take out 10% of their levies with only a months training and less gear?
I went to Tewkesbury and I saw u it was my first reenactment
I've had a nagging conflict in my head between the knowledge that swords are thought of as primarily back-up weapons by practitioners of HEMA and other martial arts, and their extremely ubiquitous appearances in late medieval artistic depictions of battles for quite some time. This video does a lot to help me reconcile that. Thanks.
Cos in the battlefield. They did prefer spears. Especially those who fought in formation
But the melee brawlers used swords
Yeah, Langmessers were really popular with Silezian and Transylvanian Saxon mercenaries, also Hungarian men-at-arms. It may feel rubbish against an armored foe but this is also the period where warhammers were also used a lot by the same people. So I figure the knight took a glance on their target and then decided which tool is the best fit for the purpose.
Promoting the Established Titles scam is shameful. I know ad money is ad money...but have some self respect.
This is illuminating. Thank you very much.
In a press roman tactics should be almost unbeatable
I suppose most of the comments you made about the longsword would also apply to this very specialized sword, but it would have been useful to show the advantages and disadvantages of an estoc. They were certainly present on the late Medieval battlefield. Are they pretty much the same as a stiff longsword? That info would have been a great addition to this video. Or perhaps you could do a separate video on the estoc in light of your new-found knowledge of fighting in the press.
People often gets really bipolar for different things, just like ranting that swords are useless outside duels after knowing polearms are more common. Glad that the old longswords get their names right once again.
I think this illustrates well why gladius was such a wonderful sidearm for spear.
1:46 I like how the guy holding the banner looks scared. He knows he will be a prime target.
Yes! You have got me persuaded. Swords ⚔️ are awesome! Let’s go!!!!
This might be a bad comparison but it sounds like armored people were used similar ways to armored vehicles.
In some situations tanks have lead while the infantry followed and covered them. in other situations infantry advanced while their tanks hung back and supported them.
At Agincourt it sounds like the French were concentrating their armor to break through field fortifications. When mud stalled their attack concentrated and well drilled longbow, like artillery, had time to break up or kill the French armor's supporting light infantry. English "artillery" and "anti-tank teams" then had free reign to get in close and pick off French armored soldiers.
If armored people were sometimes mixed in with light infantry, sometimes concentrated into units of various sizes; sometimes deployed in front of, to the sides of and in the midst of regular light infantry then it sounds to me like Medieval commanders were experimenting with combined arms units. Were they trying to solve the same battlefield problems that commanders face today?
Considering that medieval armies seem to have hovered around the size of a modern division it would be interesting to compare the number of infantry, armored men, cavalry, archers, officers and support assets to modern divisional units.
We might find that medieval commanders grappled with similar problems and came up with similar solutions.
war...war never changes.
@@timmyturner327 That's what I'm wondering out loud. I don't know if it's true, though.
Great video as always, Matt! Very informative. 😊 Since any knight or man-at-arms able to afford full plate armour undoubtedly possessed substantial wealth, would they have a variety of swords and other weapons in their baggage? Perhaps survey the enemy then kit themselves to the situation?
Great pics from Tewkesbury! :) Sounds like you had a great time 👍
I think that charging in tactic is known in other circles as a 'Jailhouse Rush' ;)
I imagine that most of the time knights would either wade through a mob of enemy peasants hacking off any limb in reach with a sword from the safety of their armor
OR
hang around the edges of the battle and occasionally jousting each other so they can say they fought somebody.
Great video dude! Truly making learning a fun experience
I guess some could also consider the dagger as their main weapon in a armored knight against armored knight configuration.
If the plan to close the distance works for the sword, it may very well work for the dagger too. And then, that could be another thing to consider about the messer. The messer is great vs unarmored, and when you come face to face with another knight, close the distance real close using the messer for defense on the way in, then switch to stabbity stab.
If we consider Messer + dagger and polearm + messer, I think both are all around good options.
RIP spears, kings of the battlefield, ~100,000 BC-July 2022
Looking forward to future discussions about wearing full armour in hot temperatures!
The Halbard is an awesome weapon ,it is the Swiss Army Knife of hand to hand combat . You can stab with the point or sever limbs with the axe head and that hammer head will smash open armour