@@johnshite4656 It's pretty hard not to have tons of accidental innuendo when your main topic is swords. Almost every sword related term is innuendo of some kind.
@@jaspermooren5883 I agree.... but if you go back to older videos Matt does a lot of it on purpose, I'm quite sure of it. Not always, not in every video. But there are definitely examples of it on his channel. I don't blame him, I'd emphasize all that too, it's great.
Even though 18/19th century is pretty far from my main time period of interest, I find it makes for my favorite videos from Matt because it seems it's when his passion really comes out to shine the most.
I like when Matt talks about the pre-Napoleonic antiques he owns. I'm starting to quite like the 17th century lately... lots of variety, ranging from almost medieval-like cutting swords to walloon hilts, basket hilts, rapiers, dussacks and other early sabers, and smallswords. Although a 16th century rapier or a medieval longsword (or arming sword) will probably always be at the top of my most wanted list.
Depends, some designs are asymmetrical. But I do love me my Schiavona, and think that it actually is a better general purpose sword than the example Matt gives, due to the ricasso ring grip giving more options and fine control of the point, without losing much.
The Schiavona is similar, but has one advantage: you can put the index finger over the guard and the thumb along the blade, so more grip options. Also way better looking and cooler pommel imo
Fun to watch Matt hold up a late 19th Century pattern Royal Horse Artillery sword - identical to what my great-grandfather would've carried while serving in the Royal Canadian Artillery in Flanders and Archangelsk during WWI and immediately afterwards - and be able to look over my shoulder at the virtually identical sword I bought when I was commissioned into the Royal Canadian Artillery in 1989. Solingen rather than Wilkinson, but there you are. History hasn't ended - we're still living it.
" those who learn from history are doomed to repeat it along with those who would not learn, because Stupid People are the majority." rev tole snopes nw georgia.
So, will you be working with a manufacturer to make a great mid-range reproduction of this more recent version? I'd love something like this but with a symmetrical scroll-hilt, and ideally both a HEMA practice blade and a sharp blade you can switch between.
@@INTERNERT Sometimes I like to peruse sword sites just to salivate. I call it swordporn. When you can't afford the real thing but a bit of fantasy goes a long way.
I wonder about those guards.... couldn't a thin blade slip right through one of those spaces and impale the user's hand? I would think a solid rounded shape would be best to deflect thrusts.
13:40 kinda reminds me of the STI 2011. Someone went "damn, this gun handles wonderfully despite being in .45 and the trigger is just stellar. Let's make a modern one out of it." The resulting beastie is one of the top competition picks to this day.
Thanks, Matt. For some reason, when watching this, I started thinking about the old video about the high quality replica of the Sutton Hoo sword, and was wondering whether it would be possible to revisit it now you have better camera resolution. The old footage was good for the day, but imagine being able to see the pattern welds and decoration in 4K on a big screen!
Here's a rough video idea: I'm sure there must be some strategy for using a slower more cumbersome sword against a more nimble one, even if it isn't optimal, I imagine there must be ways of navigating the fight, even if you're still disadvantaged.
Having a light and nimble buckler/shield would be the perfect counterbalance so you can parry with it and focus on thrusting and cutting with the blade.
Note that 16th/17th-century swords were often even longer than this one. The idea that you need a blade under 38in on foot isn't appropriate for those periods, at least not for civilian sidearms. Some military writers did recommended shorter blades on the field, though many settled on around or exactly 36in. Swords very similar 18th/19th-century officer's swords existed in the 16th/17th century, but I don't know of any sources that particularly recommends them. Instead, manuals from those periods recommend blades of 37-48+ inches for civilian sidearms.
Expert range management, it is does’t matter how nimble a sword is if the opponent isn’t in range to hit you. Like Matt has said, reach is another form of speed. Lots of backing up, side stepping, feet strategic hit cus a heavier weapon would tire a person out more in prolonged fight than a lighter one.
There's a strategy for using a bolt action sniper rifle against someone wielding an UZI also. Hit them at range, punch through their armor, don't let them close. If there's a big difference in range, the guy with the range disadvantage is probably in big trouble. Do not attack someone wielding a greatsword with your dagger, even though it's a faster weapon. On the other hand, if the fast weapon can close effectively, the slower heavier weapon becomes a disadvantage. ua-cam.com/video/GAPwMrDGAfE/v-deo.html
The video is very good, but I think it understates the importance of variability between combatants and overstates the importance of variability between swords. Combatants are very seldom equal and differences in swords are not all that great.
I just rewatched your earlier video on this model. I'll once again note that this sword is similar to George Silver's "short sword" in its basic details, & he considered it a good sidearm for fighting on foot. He specified blades of 37-40 inches, the ability to cut & thrust well, & a basket hilt. We don't know the exact details of the basket hilt he wanted, but we know it allowed something along the lines of the thumb-up grip, which he recommended for using in his variable fight. Because of that clear description of how to hold the sword in certain position as well as the existence of 16th-century British backswords with long & rather narrow blades, I suspect Silver's short sword had a somewhat nimbler blade than this cavalry sword. By 16th/17th-century standard, 38 inches is not a long blade for fighting on foot. I get around a 42in blade with Girard Thibault's measure, & his rapier system includes a fair number of cuts. & other authors recommended significantly longer rapiers. Shorter & lighter swords almost identical to later infantry officer's swords existed in the 16th century & early 17th century, but nobody seems to have gotten that excited about them & instead preferred additional reach (at least for unarmored single combat on foot). Perhaps they were just wrong, but I doubt it. It seems awfully curious that so many people would have carried such long & heavy sidearms if they could have done better (or even as well) with more convenient ones. It's more likely that later infantry were shorter & lighter primarily for convenience of carry.
Hey Matt, ever talked about the Alehouse Dagger? It seems to be the best bladed implement for someone whose primary aim is not fighting even in the modern day. Also,it is worn when one want to have fun.
I also would like to learn more about these, though it might make a better collaborative set of videos with Tod's Workshop. Granted there is already a lot of things I want to buy from Tod.
That CJM blade has something very aesthetically pleasing about it, perhaps in the smooth transition from the double fullers to the double edged section. It seems also that they didn’t taper quite as much as some 1788 examples, although the one you show in this video seems to be fairly wide towards the ‘sweet spot’ anyway…
I don't agree that a 38 inch blade is too heavy and slow to use on foot unless your really tall. 37 to 38 inch blade length is my perfect blade length according to George Silver, I'm 6'2 and have no issues what so ever fencing lighter swords using Silvers method, the swords i use weigh on average 1.2 kg's although i have used 1.4 kg backsword that was well balanced and the handling was superb . George Silvers system is from a earlier time i know but looking at the blade of your sword it does appear to be similar. Was woundering what weight is that sword.
It's interesting how different people get different lengths with Silver's measure. It's really quite unclear, but he did specify 37in blades for men of average height & 39-40in blades for tall men. I'm 5'10" & easily get a 38in blade even when doing a constrained version of Silver's measure. This strikes me as consistent with the text, as average male height in Silver's day in England was probably 5'7"-5'8". I'm not sure how much the 1788 in this video weighs, but one at the Royal Armouries with a slightly longer blade is 1.335kg. I suspect Silver's short sword was 1.2kg or less, as he wrote that it was "light" & condemned many rapiers for being too heavy. There are British backswords with basket hilts & 37-40in blades from earlier in the 16th century that come in at around 1.2kg. I think of Silver's short sword as having a blade more akin to robust short rapier than a heavy basket-hilt sword focused on cutting.
I'm a big fan of baskets and half bbaskets. I love the Cold Steel English Backsword (now that they fixed the bugs from initial release); it's my fencing "go to" and that sword reminds me a lot of it Addendum: The Cold Steel English Backsword is shorter than that 1788 example and probably lighter or at least more nimble.
I have been a fan of the schiavona since I first saw one in Stone's "Glossary of Arms and Armor" nearly 40 years ago, was never able to find one when I could afford one. I think I may like the look of this better! If you can get someone to make a medium price-range replica, I'll definitely buy one!
Get out of my head Matt! As someone who literally just commented on your other video just the other day, I was thinking how it could be improved for a smaller person on foot. And low and behold here you come with this video!
Matt, really great video as always. Your 1788 HC sword is indeed wonderful - and a full 1 1/2 inches longer than my 1796 HC Trooper's sword, which dwarfs the rest of the blades in my collection. Much though I love it, it's a crude thing in comparison - as you know. It would be interesting (I am a better theoretical historian than trawler of archives) to know how much cheaper the 1796 was than the 1788. I suspect that cost was a big factor, once government lackeys were doing the buying, rather than regimental colonels whose own lives and reputations might depend on how the swords wielded by their men performed. Quite apart from the extra 1-2 inches length and double fuller of the blade, the hilt of the 1788 must have been very much more expensive to make than the crude, mass produced disc and stirrup guard of the 1796. As ever, HMG would save money at the expense of soldiers' lives.
I feel the same carrying and shooting percussion revolvers. The 1851 Colt Navy in .36 is perfectly sized and powered for unmounted carry and combat. The 1860 Colt Army is slightly longer and thicker to handle, making it slower for drawing from a belt, but twice as powerful to accommodate mounted combat.
Watching Mr Easton brandish these swords brings to mind the famous quotation from the Bhagavad Gita "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds..."
Be careful with CS! CS is known for really crude executions and piss poor quality control. I got two CS weapons: The companion dagger of the hand and a half sword: overall very nice, but the pommel protrudes slightly and the leather wrapping is definitely budget level, but nothing is irritating the hand or the eyes too much. Shamshir: beautiful at a distance, but oh boy, everything that could go wrong did go wrong! The crossguard is slightly canted causing a part of it to protrude from the grip and injure the hand of the user. The grip is too long and slipper. I could fix both problems by adding a cord wrapping, but that looks a bit weird. The steel is ok and so is the sharpening. The fuller is a bit wobbly and asymmetrical. You can even see where the machine jumped out of the grove and left a deep scratch! The grip has gaps that are impossible to clean. The grip is supposed to be black, but the white plastic shines through at multiple spots due to a piss poor paint job. Similarly, the fresh-out-of-the-box, unused saber had already the golden lacquer peeling off! PS: I didn't return the latter due to toll and bureaucracy. It would have been cheaper and faster to buy a new one.
@@edi9892 I see Cold Steel as the go-to shop for mass produced zombie choppers. If you need it cheap and crude and don't care much for craftmanship or aesthetics then Cold Steel is okay. I really like United Cutlery, the factory sharpening is shit but the overall quality is great, and at a pretty decent price point. I have the gladius machete and the Night Watchman sword cane from them, both work well. Had to re-bevel both, though.
This comes up with knives for utility and camp and bushcraft nowadays. Most are not served by an enormous Bowie blade around camp but a smaller knife than that. I also had this conversation with Phillip Tom in the late 90s over acquiring a genuine Chinese Dao for my Hung Gar practice. He had a hard time coming up with historical examples that would be proportionally appropriate for my 6'2" height compared to a smaller Cantonese man of the 19th century, to say nothing of what the correct use of the sword would be in the Hung Gar context. Now, my work is all 18th century mounted HEMA and just as I commented on your first video of the 1788 HC sword, I want one!! 😎 Cheers!
Very similar handguars on the Norwegian Tessaks or Dusacks in the Mayhaugen museum in lillehammer. They have over 100 dusacks as it was part of the arming of the peasantry of king cheistian IV
If a commander pulled you into an armory and told you nothing more than "Pick a sword, we're sending you into battle. That is all," the _first_ thing you should do is contemplate the intelligence gathering capabilities of your side, and whether or not you picked the _correct_ one. But the _second_ thing is to find the one sword that is most likely to help you come back home intact, no matter what it is you end up facing in combat. The so-called "Best" sword design is the design that lets you do this. Generalist in function and form, but actually _good enough_ at everything as opposed to _mediocre_ at everything. Those designs certainly meet these requirements!
You want to send me into battle with a sword? This is the year 2022. Bring me to the armory where the guns are kept unless you want to be the commander of a small padded room in a mental health facility.
It is telling that the only real downside to these swords is "Ah well, if you use a cavalry one on foot then it's not so good". Yeah, true. On foot you want something shorter that's more appropriate for your height. But beyond that, the design is spot on. The only places where backswords become less desirable are where swords generally are less good - In a close mass of men, any sword becomes difficult to use. And even then, a cut-and-thrust sword with a knuckleduster grip isn't bad by sword standards. Whatever bit of you sword you manage to make contact with, you do some damage, not too bad.
concerning modern swords I think the Palash is my favorite class,though I'd probably also go for a slightly shorter blade, like 35 or 36 inches in total, while still remaining rather beefy. Since I will mostly wear some kind of armor item, I will choose to tank the less threatening strikes from more nimble fighters. And yes, forearm protection will always be on my loadout
Have you read the Sharpe books? He uses what's described as a "Heavy Cavalry Sword" rather than the sabre he is supposed to use as an infantry officer. He is described as taller and stronger than the average man and many character comment on the fact he uses a "Butchers Blade" instead of a gentlemans swrod. Throughout the books he is often at a disadvantage against swordsmen who are more skilled and have lighter, more appropriate weapons. He often beats them with strength and sometimes even shattering the opponents sword. It's interesting that the fictional character actually highlights several of the things you talk about in the video, reaches the same conclusions and prefers the weapon for those reasons!
Sharpe's sword belonged to his old colonel, didn't it? In any case, yeah he loves his blade. But that's part of his "soldier" aesthetic. He fights battles and skirmishes, not duels in fencing clubs. Sharpe is also a terrible swordsman, btw. He doesn't practise at all. So he is just a big burley dude with a disagreeable attitude. If that's who you are, then yes a big heavy sword suits you perfectly. He typically finds i hard to actually hit other swordsmen, but a swift boot to the goolies solves that problem.
Sharpe is littered with working class sticking it to the upper class sentiment. This can make for emotionally engaging entertainment, but it certainly isn't related to the practical use of sharp swords to wound and kill.
@@blue5562 Yeah, I remember Jack Aubrey preferred a long, heavy sword to make use of his strength, being a tall and broad man. Particularly I'm thinking of the battle where he borrows one from the Marine lieutenant of HMS Shannon. But I seem to recall him using a sabre rather than a straight-bladed sword like the one in the video?
Will you ever talk about the secret best sword which is also my favourite? The one no one knows about. The swedish cavalry rapier of the great northern war. Also the infantry and lifeguard swords.
The first thing that struck me about that basket hilt is that if you made a point of practicing that way, you could as easily use it with your off hand. (Why are you smiling? - I'm not left handed!) If your strong side arm was injured in the fight, you could switch hands and keep going.
It was heavily criticised by John Le Marchant, designer of the 1796 light cavalry sword, for being too long and too heavy for the average trooper to use effectively, and for it tending to turn in the hand or for the blade to break. He also said that it led to self inflicted wounding (typically to the leg or foot) and wounding to the cavalry mounts in action. Also the pattern was too vague, and as a result sword cutlers produced weapons of widely differing characteristics. The testing of blades was not rigorous, resulting in inferior blades being accepted and subsequently failing in action. The 1796 regulations introduced much more standardised and rigorous blade testing. The Austrians in the 1790s had the leading cavalry force in Europe, the pallasch pattern of 1769, of which the British 1796 pattern heavy cavalry sword was a direct copy, had a number of superiorities over the 1788 pattern from the British perspective. It was a dedicated cutting sword and so fitted better the 1796 swordsmanship regulations of the British cavalry, which emphasised the cut. It had a 35-inch blade which was lighter than that of the 1788 sword, and a hilt with an adequate guard that was also a lot lighter than the 1788. The pattern also introduced the use of riveting projections off the backstrap through the grip and blade tang, which made the attachment of the blade to the hilt much more secure, than with just a peened tang. In action the 1796 HC sword performed well against the longer, thrust centric, French cuirassier sword. A British infantry sergeant recorded seeing a British heavy cavalryman fight two cuirassiers at Waterloo, he killed one with a thrust to the throat and decapitated the other, and these were men in armour. With respect to Matt Easton, unlike John Le Marchant, he has not fought on horseback in real combat, in which his life depended on the utility of the sword in his hand. I therefore tend to trust Le Marchant's opinion preferentially.
Cuirassiers had plenty of success, though their blade was not the same sort of cut and thrust design as this one and so it doesn't seem as relevant as a direct comparison between the 1796 light/heavy and 1788 models. It sounds like Mr. Le Marchant did some important house cleaning regarding procurement and helped improve handle design, both important factors. Experienced swordsmen both agreed and disagreed, however, with the *design philosophies* of the 1796 pattern swords. At the end of the day, you choose your emphases and live with your weak points.
@@45calibermedic Le Marchant considered that the thrust from horseback was very risky, as it led to over-extension, and, if not successful, to a counter-cut. In the 1796 British swordsmanship manual the only time a thrust was allowed (obviously it occasionally happened in the heat of combat) at a mounted foe, was if he had his back turned and was in flight. If a cavalryman is trained in a cut-centric swordsmanship method, then equipping them with a long thrusting sword is a bad move. The Byzantine cataphracts and the Polish winged hussars were doubly armed, with a straight thrusting sword (spathion and palasz or koncerz respectively) for the charge, and a cutting sabre (paramerion and szabla respectively) for melee combat.
@urseliusurgel4365 Sorry for the late reply. I'd note that the Roman cavalry used a straight cut and thrust blade for centuries before the late period cataphracts were equipped in the manner you describe and add that there was plenty of cutting and thrusting both (with swords meant for it) in the medieval period: ua-cam.com/video/zTDCKMmt4_E/v-deo.html Any technique that fails is dangerous to the user because of the lost tempo (tempi) that must result from such an action.
@@45calibermedic Sabre-like swords did not exist in the Republican, Principate and Dominate Roman worlds, so what their cavalry used vis-a-vis sabres is not really relevant. Sabres are first found in Central Asia in the 6th century. My point was not that straight swords cannot cut, or that curved swords cannot thrust, but that straight swords are better at thrusting and curved swords are better at cutting. I think that this is beyond doubt. It, therefore depends on what cavalry are expected to do, that dictates what sword they are equipped with. Shock cavalry tended to be equipped with straight swords and light cavalry with curved. However, when an army has a military and social elite, like the Byzantine cataphracts/klibanophoroi or the Polish Winged Hussars, then being doubly equipped becomes attractive.
Many good points here. 😊😊 Still there is a major factor in cavalry fighting I miss here. The long straight sword became popular with the Marlborough cavalry in the early 1700 hundreds. The main opponent at the time was the French. They used to ride up to firing distance and fire their big pistols. The British and Danish cavalry (probably inspired by the Swedes), used speed and the weight of the cavalry attack to break through the infantry lines. To do this the sword was pointed forward to push the edge of the sword into their enemies. That is what we can call a shock attack. Later it seems that the cavalry could have a role to exploit the breakthrough. Then you could use the pistols but you need something effective to cut down running enemies. Then a sabre is a better tool? What you think about this in comparison to how you present the British 1788 model versus sabres as cavalry weapons?
I’m fairly new o your channel, but I’ve enjoyed several videos already. Have you done a video on the “Patton Sword”? I think it would be extremely interesting. Thx
say what you want about the smaller one being smaller & faster - as a replica I'd absolutely want that humongous 38" blade, simply for style factor. God, it look so imposing & beautiful. For my amateur-ish testcutting I can get away with it being a bit sluggish - I'm after having fun & collecting things I like, not competition grade cutting :)
This is the third time I have watched this video because I agree with you regarding the superior design. I also agree the 1788 is to big. The CJM sword is, as you say, perfect. Given what a wonderful design it is, I hope you might consider, as part of our Wallace/Windlass collaboration, having a replica of this sword made but with the 1788 hilt. I want one. Cheers!
It really makes me think that it would be interesting to try adding modern materials to see what could be gained. AEB-L or 3V blade steel. Possibly carbon fiber reinforced with a hardened outer layer could be used to stiffen the blade with less of a weight penalty. A welded titanium guard would be tough but further weight could be reduced. Anytime you can pull weight out of the hilt you can then reduce weight out of the blade without affecting cutting performance. Especially for the none cutting areas of the lower blade it would be ideal to remove weight so as to save it for areas further up. It would be interesting to see how this would affect overall feel.
All in all, I agree with your point, although it begs the question: what about all of the other swords which fit all the same criteria? There were all sorts of dussacks, schiavonas, and backswords which ticked the very same boxes. Even in the Victorian era, why would you prefer this to say an 1845 heavy pattern sabre or a scinde pattern sabre or a royal engineer's sword with a slightly wider blade, especially since they would presumably cut better due to bbleing wider than this while handling similarly?
In modern times, I'd still take a late republic Gladius style short sword as a backup weapon, because the only time I can see myself needing something choppy or stabby in self defense is a night time and/or indoor assault on my unit's night/R&R camp where fighting would inevitably be so intimate and personal that a full length sword could barely be drawn, much less wielded, a firearm would likely hit both friends and attackers by ricochets and/or over penetrations, and a tool knife doesn't have sufficient hand stop, reach or blade profile to be effective.
I like the Scottish basket hilt sword but clearly the basket is designed for working around the shield in a close foot melee while offering maximum protection. That doesn't happen all the time so every basket sword doesn't need it.
Great video. The point that you make so well is that there is no sword perfect for every situation. This is a heavy cavalry sword and the primary function of heavy cavalry was to massacre disorganised infantry which requires cutting down from horseback thus needing reach, secondary was to defeat light cavalry which was more due to the size and power of the horses than anything else but the extra reach of this sword over a light cavalry sabre is a considerable advantage. I think what makes the difference for this blade is the advantage that it gives over earlier heavy cavalry blades against other heavy cavalry i.e. the almost full basket without losing manouverability and the half double edge. I doubt that there would have been a lot of fencing going on between two heavy cavalry units both at trot or canter so those slight advantages would be multiplied. It's unlikely that a cavalry man would use a thrust against infantry.
@@yamiyomizuki The sidebars of a mortuary hilt connect directly to the side of a pommel. That would eliminate one of the main advantages of the 1788 hilt.
I am partial to the Scottish claymore(basket)...how would it compare to the sword(a beautiful blade) you have been demonstrating? Also, in close quarter combat, could the end piece of your sword be used as a type of "club"? Thanks & good video! Subbed...
My question would be, how does the "CJM" sword handle in comparison to the 1845 blade/1821 hilt sword. My thoughts are that the 1845 slightly curved cavalry sabre blade (mated to the '21 3 bar hilt) is utterly ubiquitous, but actually has very similar handling characteristics to the CJM. Would I be correct in that assertion??? I still believe the '45/'21 "pattern" is absolutely the best sword design ever produced (for general usage - infantry/cavalry). I think the only area where it scores down compared to the CJM style sword is that the straight blade of the CJM gives it much more potential to be easier to make as you don't have to take a curve into consideration when manufacturing. And presumably that's why all the parade swords are all straight today???
Dare I ask for the edges? I see a long true edge and I'm not so sure on the false edge. Full length back edge or only half length? I think I've found the sabre I want to fence with to be honest. Heavy cav sword too. I do like my cav, horse or mechanised.
Polish hussars so called black sabre is also considered as the best, most versatile sword enabling to use both Western and Eastern kinds of fencing techniques. Best regards
The Takoba Trade blades were often made for broadsword or schiavona/palash with the lighter Takoba hilt they probably moved much faster but you needed a shield as the crossguard offered less protection than the basket.
It would make them more blade heavy as well, since you are removing significant mass from the hilt. So it would be slightly slower in recovery and redirection, but have slightly more cutting power as well.
@@HaNsWiDjAjA in Hama we use our shield primary for defense so recovery is not as big of a deal. Plus because of the coverage of the shield use can throw multiple full power strike in quick succession behind the relative safety of the shield which can be overwhelming to a unprepared opponent.
I think a sword should always be made to fit the size of the one who‘ll use it. It shouldn’t be too short but also not too long. Preferably two swords, one not longer as the arm from shoulder to pinky as secondary, and one in the length of a leg of that person as primary. Both will cover every scenario and place indoor with less space to move as well as outdoor with way more space.
I am a novice but highly interested, know too little about fencing but just wonder if the style of sword-fighting/ fencing of the cumbersomb longer sword is much different too regular fencing/fighting styles by using much less the nimble movements of the waving blade for parry or defence but use the advantage of the weight of the blade by using your arms as the nimble fast parrying wave and the back of the terso and ricasso for parry, and much less the wrist movements for fast blade cutting/attacks with nimble swords, therefore have more control over the thrust with the reach of the blade. The advantage of the leverage in parry and blade weight over the much lighter blade attacking is huge. The thrust given so much easier then the light short blade. I hope you get what I mean trying to describe the images in my head in writing.
Hi I bought a spoil of war Japanese officers sword,it has his families markings on the tang,I would love to put it back to its former glory,but I was told about yourself at a bushcraft fair,would you be able to sharpen it? And the leather scabbard needs some attention, look forward to your comments ,thankyou Tony
In practice, would sword vs. sword combat be a consideration for these weapons? If the majority of the enemy would've been bayonet armed infantry, then perhaps a heavier blade would've been an advantage vs the rare case of facing off against an enemy officer armed with a smaller quicker blade. Even if you found yourself in that situation, you could simply compel your lads to bayonet the Frog/Colonist/Hun et c. and carry on with your day.
How about reproduction made by Windlass? We already have quintessence of Matt's knowledge and experience in the form of Easton gymnasium saber, it would be really great to be able to acquire something similar but sharp.
If I had that heavy original sword and had to face off against someone with a more agile blade, the thing I'd hope to do is get another weapon, which is lighter and suited for parrying. I'm not ambidextrous, but using two weapons in tandem is not too hard for me, especially when they fill different roles.
Great video, as usual. Just wondering when did the British Armed forces cease training their soldiers or officers in how to fight with a sword? When did the swords become rank symbols and stop being intended as deadly weapons?
"This is 5 inches longer, and boy do you feel it?!"
--Matt Easton, scholagladiatoria, 2022
Oh man, I usually catch those but I missed that one!
This guy is FULL of innuendo. It's great.
@@johnshite4656 It's pretty hard not to have tons of accidental innuendo when your main topic is swords. Almost every sword related term is innuendo of some kind.
@@jaspermooren5883 I agree.... but if you go back to older videos Matt does a lot of it on purpose, I'm quite sure of it. Not always, not in every video. But there are definitely examples of it on his channel.
I don't blame him, I'd emphasize all that too, it's great.
"... it feels so much more comfortable in the hand" too
Matt's magical sword producing shed never ceases to produce examples of antique military sabers.
Even though 18/19th century is pretty far from my main time period of interest, I find it makes for my favorite videos from Matt because it seems it's when his passion really comes out to shine the most.
It's what he knows best. From what I've seen, most surviving swords are from the 19th century. And that's one of the periods he studies for HEMA
@@hazzardalsohazzard2624 Also if you want an antique medieval or renaissance sword good luck. A castillon sword costs a lot of money.
I like when Matt talks about the pre-Napoleonic antiques he owns. I'm starting to quite like the 17th century lately... lots of variety, ranging from almost medieval-like cutting swords to walloon hilts, basket hilts, rapiers, dussacks and other early sabers, and smallswords. Although a 16th century rapier or a medieval longsword (or arming sword) will probably always be at the top of my most wanted list.
My favorite basket-hilted sword is the Schiavona, there is just something about the symatry of it .
Depends, some designs are asymmetrical. But I do love me my Schiavona, and think that it actually is a better general purpose sword than the example Matt gives, due to the ricasso ring grip giving more options and fine control of the point, without losing much.
My favorite is the Scottish Back Sword.
This one looks like someone saw a schiavona once and wanted to remake it
The Schiavona is similar, but has one advantage: you can put the index finger over the guard and the thumb along the blade, so more grip options. Also way better looking and cooler pommel imo
I love the dragoon look of this hilt though
Agreed, the options for using a ricasso ring grip increases fine control of the tip.
For some reason I like the Pappenheimer better it has the same advantages but better cover. Any thoughts on that one?
@@renshan3657 Yeah it comes down to personal preference I guess. Cheers mate
Seeing the guard on the thumbnail my first thought was actually "is that a Schiavona?"
Fun to watch Matt hold up a late 19th Century pattern Royal Horse Artillery sword - identical to what my great-grandfather would've carried while serving in the Royal Canadian Artillery in Flanders and Archangelsk during WWI and immediately afterwards - and be able to look over my shoulder at the virtually identical sword I bought when I was commissioned into the Royal Canadian Artillery in 1989. Solingen rather than Wilkinson, but there you are. History hasn't ended - we're still living it.
" those who learn from history are doomed to repeat it along with those who would not learn, because Stupid People are the majority."
rev tole snopes nw georgia.
So, will you be working with a manufacturer to make a great mid-range reproduction of this more recent version? I'd love something like this but with a symmetrical scroll-hilt, and ideally both a HEMA practice blade and a sharp blade you can switch between.
Personally, I'd love to see a faithful replica of the 1796 light cavalry saber, a well-designed spadroon, or something with a toledo-style blade.
stop making want to buy stuff!!
@@INTERNERT Sometimes I like to peruse sword sites just to salivate. I call it swordporn. When you can't afford the real thing but a bit of fantasy goes a long way.
LK Chen is making one I think
@@chatter4427 Chen stands for good quality, right?
Answer is clearly the spadroon.
😂😂😂
☝️😎
It does everything, and it does it in the eminently stylish format of the smallsword
Pipe backed spadroon would be best. :-)
Well really, this is just a giant spadroon with more hand protection.
A good spadroon is perhaps the most efficient sword, looking at effectiveness over encumbrance.
a good all-purpose double edged blade with the gracefulness of a rapier. The basket is really nice, like a rib cage.
I wonder about those guards.... couldn't a thin blade slip right through one of those spaces and impale the user's hand? I would think a solid rounded shape would be best to deflect thrusts.
@@johnshite4656, that’s possible, of course, but it wouldn’t be easy.
13:40 kinda reminds me of the STI 2011. Someone went "damn, this gun handles wonderfully despite being in .45 and the trigger is just stellar. Let's make a modern one out of it." The resulting beastie is one of the top competition picks to this day.
Thanks, Matt.
For some reason, when watching this, I started thinking about the old video about the high quality replica of the Sutton Hoo sword, and was wondering whether it would be possible to revisit it now you have better camera resolution.
The old footage was good for the day, but imagine being able to see the pattern welds and decoration in 4K on a big screen!
Legit one of my favorite guard designs. It's basically a baskethilt but without everything I don't like about baskethilts.
Here's a rough video idea:
I'm sure there must be some strategy for using a slower more cumbersome sword against a more nimble one, even if it isn't optimal, I imagine there must be ways of navigating the fight, even if you're still disadvantaged.
Having a light and nimble buckler/shield would be the perfect counterbalance so you can parry with it and focus on thrusting and cutting with the blade.
Note that 16th/17th-century swords were often even longer than this one. The idea that you need a blade under 38in on foot isn't appropriate for those periods, at least not for civilian sidearms. Some military writers did recommended shorter blades on the field, though many settled on around or exactly 36in. Swords very similar 18th/19th-century officer's swords existed in the 16th/17th century, but I don't know of any sources that particularly recommends them. Instead, manuals from those periods recommend blades of 37-48+ inches for civilian sidearms.
Expert range management, it is does’t matter how nimble a sword is if the opponent isn’t in range to hit you. Like Matt has said, reach is another form of speed. Lots of backing up, side stepping, feet strategic hit cus a heavier weapon would tire a person out more in prolonged fight than a lighter one.
There's a strategy for using a bolt action sniper rifle against someone wielding an UZI also. Hit them at range, punch through their armor, don't let them close.
If there's a big difference in range, the guy with the range disadvantage is probably in big trouble. Do not attack someone wielding a greatsword with your dagger, even though it's a faster weapon. On the other hand, if the fast weapon can close effectively, the slower heavier weapon becomes a disadvantage.
ua-cam.com/video/GAPwMrDGAfE/v-deo.html
The video is very good, but I think it understates the importance of variability between combatants and overstates the importance of variability between swords. Combatants are very seldom equal and differences in swords are not all that great.
I just rewatched your earlier video on this model. I'll once again note that this sword is similar to George Silver's "short sword" in its basic details, & he considered it a good sidearm for fighting on foot. He specified blades of 37-40 inches, the ability to cut & thrust well, & a basket hilt. We don't know the exact details of the basket hilt he wanted, but we know it allowed something along the lines of the thumb-up grip, which he recommended for using in his variable fight. Because of that clear description of how to hold the sword in certain position as well as the existence of 16th-century British backswords with long & rather narrow blades, I suspect Silver's short sword had a somewhat nimbler blade than this cavalry sword.
By 16th/17th-century standard, 38 inches is not a long blade for fighting on foot. I get around a 42in blade with Girard Thibault's measure, & his rapier system includes a fair number of cuts. & other authors recommended significantly longer rapiers. Shorter & lighter swords almost identical to later infantry officer's swords existed in the 16th century & early 17th century, but nobody seems to have gotten that excited about them & instead preferred additional reach (at least for unarmored single combat on foot). Perhaps they were just wrong, but I doubt it. It seems awfully curious that so many people would have carried such long & heavy sidearms if they could have done better (or even as well) with more convenient ones. It's more likely that later infantry were shorter & lighter primarily for convenience of carry.
Hey Matt, ever talked about the Alehouse Dagger? It seems to be the best bladed implement for someone whose primary aim is not fighting even in the modern day.
Also,it is worn when one want to have fun.
It looks like a marriage between an archer's dagger and a parrying dagger
I also would like to learn more about these, though it might make a better collaborative set of videos with Tod's Workshop. Granted there is already a lot of things I want to buy from Tod.
Yes, please! I'd love to see this!!!!
Could you demonstrate the difference in cutting ability between these two swords on some targets? I think that would make for a great video!
Loved the breakdown of the different kinds of swords and their applications!
I'd love to buy a replica of the original full sized version actually.
How tall are you? Are you a centaur?
Hey Matt a video on the sarissa would be real nice.
Ok, now we need Windlass to make this design in various sizes. The Easton Best Basket Hilt in size sizes 28 to 38.
As expected, a brilliant analysis of the pros and cons of this weapon. Thank you.
That CJM blade has something very aesthetically pleasing about it, perhaps in the smooth transition from the double fullers to the double edged section. It seems also that they didn’t taper quite as much as some 1788 examples, although the one you show in this video seems to be fairly wide towards the ‘sweet spot’ anyway…
I don't agree that a 38 inch blade is too heavy and slow to use on foot unless your really tall. 37 to 38 inch blade length is my perfect blade length according to George Silver, I'm 6'2 and have no issues what so ever fencing lighter swords using Silvers method, the swords i use weigh on average 1.2 kg's although i have used 1.4 kg backsword that was well balanced and the handling was superb .
George Silvers system is from a earlier time i know but looking at the blade of your sword it does appear to be similar. Was woundering what weight is that sword.
It's interesting how different people get different lengths with Silver's measure. It's really quite unclear, but he did specify 37in blades for men of average height & 39-40in blades for tall men. I'm 5'10" & easily get a 38in blade even when doing a constrained version of Silver's measure. This strikes me as consistent with the text, as average male height in Silver's day in England was probably 5'7"-5'8". I'm not sure how much the 1788 in this video weighs, but one at the Royal Armouries with a slightly longer blade is 1.335kg. I suspect Silver's short sword was 1.2kg or less, as he wrote that it was "light" & condemned many rapiers for being too heavy. There are British backswords with basket hilts & 37-40in blades from earlier in the 16th century that come in at around 1.2kg. I think of Silver's short sword as having a blade more akin to robust short rapier than a heavy basket-hilt sword focused on cutting.
I'm a big fan of baskets and half bbaskets. I love the Cold Steel English Backsword (now that they fixed the bugs from initial release); it's my fencing "go to" and that sword reminds me a lot of it
Addendum: The Cold Steel English Backsword is shorter than that 1788 example and probably lighter or at least more nimble.
Who would you recommend for a sword maker if you were going to commission a modern reproduction of a military saber?
Vince Evans perhaps.
So... essentially 19 mins to say 'size matters'. We love you, Matt Easton!
What about Schiavona - can you do a review of that beautiful sword? Cheers from Romania!
Matt, I really enjoyed the linked article. Nice work tracking down Charles James Mitchell, Esq. Thank you for taking us along on that journey.
I have been a fan of the schiavona since I first saw one in Stone's "Glossary of Arms and Armor" nearly 40 years ago, was never able to find one when I could afford one. I think I may like the look of this better! If you can get someone to make a medium price-range replica, I'll definitely buy one!
Get out of my head Matt! As someone who literally just commented on your other video just the other day, I was thinking how it could be improved for a smaller person on foot. And low and behold here you come with this video!
Matt, really great video as always. Your 1788 HC sword is indeed wonderful - and a full 1 1/2 inches longer than my 1796 HC Trooper's sword, which dwarfs the rest of the blades in my collection. Much though I love it, it's a crude thing in comparison - as you know. It would be interesting (I am a better theoretical historian than trawler of archives) to know how much cheaper the 1796 was than the 1788. I suspect that cost was a big factor, once government lackeys were doing the buying, rather than regimental colonels whose own lives and reputations might depend on how the swords wielded by their men performed. Quite apart from the extra 1-2 inches length and double fuller of the blade, the hilt of the 1788 must have been very much more expensive to make than the crude, mass produced disc and stirrup guard of the 1796. As ever, HMG would save money at the expense of soldiers' lives.
I feel the same carrying and shooting percussion revolvers. The 1851 Colt Navy in .36 is perfectly sized and powered for unmounted carry and combat. The 1860 Colt Army is slightly longer and thicker to handle, making it slower for drawing from a belt, but twice as powerful to accommodate mounted combat.
Watching Mr Easton brandish these swords brings to mind the famous quotation from the Bhagavad Gita "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds..."
For a less expensive, non custom option, I'm seriously looking at the Cold Steel English Backsword
Be careful with CS!
CS is known for really crude executions and piss poor quality control.
I got two CS weapons:
The companion dagger of the hand and a half sword: overall very nice, but the pommel protrudes slightly and the leather wrapping is definitely budget level, but nothing is irritating the hand or the eyes too much.
Shamshir: beautiful at a distance, but oh boy, everything that could go wrong did go wrong! The crossguard is slightly canted causing a part of it to protrude from the grip and injure the hand of the user. The grip is too long and slipper. I could fix both problems by adding a cord wrapping, but that looks a bit weird. The steel is ok and so is the sharpening. The fuller is a bit wobbly and asymmetrical. You can even see where the machine jumped out of the grove and left a deep scratch! The grip has gaps that are impossible to clean. The grip is supposed to be black, but the white plastic shines through at multiple spots due to a piss poor paint job. Similarly, the fresh-out-of-the-box, unused saber had already the golden lacquer peeling off!
PS: I didn't return the latter due to toll and bureaucracy. It would have been cheaper and faster to buy a new one.
I have it. It's possibly the best CS piece I've held. Very nice & good handling.
@@edi9892 I see Cold Steel as the go-to shop for mass produced zombie choppers. If you need it cheap and crude and don't care much for craftmanship or aesthetics then Cold Steel is okay.
I really like United Cutlery, the factory sharpening is shit but the overall quality is great, and at a pretty decent price point. I have the gladius machete and the Night Watchman sword cane from them, both work well. Had to re-bevel both, though.
This comes up with knives for utility and camp and bushcraft nowadays. Most are not served by an enormous Bowie blade around camp but a smaller knife than that. I also had this conversation with Phillip Tom in the late 90s over acquiring a genuine Chinese Dao for my Hung Gar practice. He had a hard time coming up with historical examples that would be proportionally appropriate for my 6'2" height compared to a smaller Cantonese man of the 19th century, to say nothing of what the correct use of the sword would be in the Hung Gar context.
Now, my work is all 18th century mounted HEMA and just as I commented on your first video of the 1788 HC sword, I want one!! 😎 Cheers!
Very similar handguars on the Norwegian Tessaks or Dusacks in the Mayhaugen museum in lillehammer. They have over 100 dusacks as it was part of the arming of the peasantry of king cheistian IV
If a commander pulled you into an armory and told you nothing more than "Pick a sword, we're sending you into battle. That is all," the _first_ thing you should do is contemplate the intelligence gathering capabilities of your side, and whether or not you picked the _correct_ one. But the _second_ thing is to find the one sword that is most likely to help you come back home intact, no matter what it is you end up facing in combat.
The so-called "Best" sword design is the design that lets you do this. Generalist in function and form, but actually _good enough_ at everything as opposed to _mediocre_ at everything. Those designs certainly meet these requirements!
You want to send me into battle with a sword? This is the year 2022. Bring me to the armory where the guns are kept unless you want to be the commander of a small padded room in a mental health facility.
How big a fencer are you ???
Matt Easton!!
Just an old timer warrior.
Wow !!! You are a very trained swordman. ❤
It is telling that the only real downside to these swords is "Ah well, if you use a cavalry one on foot then it's not so good". Yeah, true. On foot you want something shorter that's more appropriate for your height. But beyond that, the design is spot on.
The only places where backswords become less desirable are where swords generally are less good - In a close mass of men, any sword becomes difficult to use. And even then, a cut-and-thrust sword with a knuckleduster grip isn't bad by sword standards. Whatever bit of you sword you manage to make contact with, you do some damage, not too bad.
concerning modern swords I think the Palash is my favorite class,though I'd probably also go for a slightly shorter blade, like 35 or 36 inches in total, while still remaining rather beefy. Since I will mostly wear some kind of armor item, I will choose to tank the less threatening strikes from more nimble fighters. And yes, forearm protection will always be on my loadout
Have you read the Sharpe books? He uses what's described as a "Heavy Cavalry Sword" rather than the sabre he is supposed to use as an infantry officer. He is described as taller and stronger than the average man and many character comment on the fact he uses a "Butchers Blade" instead of a gentlemans swrod. Throughout the books he is often at a disadvantage against swordsmen who are more skilled and have lighter, more appropriate weapons. He often beats them with strength and sometimes even shattering the opponents sword.
It's interesting that the fictional character actually highlights several of the things you talk about in the video, reaches the same conclusions and prefers the weapon for those reasons!
Spreading good word about Sharpe, now that's soldiering. :)
I was about to say, "Richard Sharpe, and to a lesser degree Jack Aubrey, have entered the chat."
Sharpe's sword belonged to his old colonel, didn't it?
In any case, yeah he loves his blade. But that's part of his "soldier" aesthetic. He fights battles and skirmishes, not duels in fencing clubs.
Sharpe is also a terrible swordsman, btw. He doesn't practise at all. So he is just a big burley dude with a disagreeable attitude. If that's who you are, then yes a big heavy sword suits you perfectly. He typically finds i hard to actually hit other swordsmen, but a swift boot to the goolies solves that problem.
Sharpe is littered with working class sticking it to the upper class sentiment. This can make for emotionally engaging entertainment, but it certainly isn't related to the practical use of sharp swords to wound and kill.
@@blue5562 Yeah, I remember Jack Aubrey preferred a long, heavy sword to make use of his strength, being a tall and broad man. Particularly I'm thinking of the battle where he borrows one from the Marine lieutenant of HMS Shannon. But I seem to recall him using a sabre rather than a straight-bladed sword like the one in the video?
Matt thank you for covering this fascinating sword design.
Beautiful hilt. I think the Schiavona hilts are beautiful as well.
Will you ever talk about the secret best sword which is also my favourite? The one no one knows about. The swedish cavalry rapier of the great northern war. Also the infantry and lifeguard swords.
Lifeguard sword..... because you never know when you'll have to fight off a shark when saving a drowning swimmer.
@Sisyphean Taskmaster lol
epic
I've used this design for a fantasy character who has human strength, but superhuman endurance: he doesn't get tired so easy. And he uses a shield.
I came here for a video about spadroons
I suppose it is like two spadroons stuck together.
As soon as I saw the title and thumbnail I knew what sword it was - I remember the video you did a while ago on the same sword ⚔️
Once again I learn from a Master. Thank you Matt for educating me.
The first thing that struck me about that basket hilt is that if you made a point of practicing that way, you could as easily use it with your off hand. (Why are you smiling? - I'm not left handed!) If your strong side arm was injured in the fight, you could switch hands and keep going.
"Pałasz" is a Hungarian word, that transited through Polish.
Two excellent origins :):)
Thanks for a video!
The basket is a real good confidence builder.
Really glad that the guy from Right Said Fred landed on his feet with his antique weapons career
It was heavily criticised by John Le Marchant, designer of the 1796 light cavalry sword, for being too long and too heavy for the average trooper to use effectively, and for it tending to turn in the hand or for the blade to break. He also said that it led to self inflicted wounding (typically to the leg or foot) and wounding to the cavalry mounts in action. Also the pattern was too vague, and as a result sword cutlers produced weapons of widely differing characteristics. The testing of blades was not rigorous, resulting in inferior blades being accepted and subsequently failing in action. The 1796 regulations introduced much more standardised and rigorous blade testing. The Austrians in the 1790s had the leading cavalry force in Europe, the pallasch pattern of 1769, of which the British 1796 pattern heavy cavalry sword was a direct copy, had a number of superiorities over the 1788 pattern from the British perspective. It was a dedicated cutting sword and so fitted better the 1796 swordsmanship regulations of the British cavalry, which emphasised the cut. It had a 35-inch blade which was lighter than that of the 1788 sword, and a hilt with an adequate guard that was also a lot lighter than the 1788. The pattern also introduced the use of riveting projections off the backstrap through the grip and blade tang, which made the attachment of the blade to the hilt much more secure, than with just a peened tang. In action the 1796 HC sword performed well against the longer, thrust centric, French cuirassier sword. A British infantry sergeant recorded seeing a British heavy cavalryman fight two cuirassiers at Waterloo, he killed one with a thrust to the throat and decapitated the other, and these were men in armour. With respect to Matt Easton, unlike John Le Marchant, he has not fought on horseback in real combat, in which his life depended on the utility of the sword in his hand. I therefore tend to trust Le Marchant's opinion preferentially.
Cuirassiers had plenty of success, though their blade was not the same sort of cut and thrust design as this one and so it doesn't seem as relevant as a direct comparison between the 1796 light/heavy and 1788 models. It sounds like Mr. Le Marchant did some important house cleaning regarding procurement and helped improve handle design, both important factors. Experienced swordsmen both agreed and disagreed, however, with the *design philosophies* of the 1796 pattern swords. At the end of the day, you choose your emphases and live with your weak points.
@@45calibermedic Le Marchant considered that the thrust from horseback was very risky, as it led to over-extension, and, if not successful, to a counter-cut. In the 1796 British swordsmanship manual the only time a thrust was allowed (obviously it occasionally happened in the heat of combat) at a mounted foe, was if he had his back turned and was in flight. If a cavalryman is trained in a cut-centric swordsmanship method, then equipping them with a long thrusting sword is a bad move. The Byzantine cataphracts and the Polish winged hussars were doubly armed, with a straight thrusting sword (spathion and palasz or koncerz respectively) for the charge, and a cutting sabre (paramerion and szabla respectively) for melee combat.
@urseliusurgel4365 Sorry for the late reply. I'd note that the Roman cavalry used a straight cut and thrust blade for centuries before the late period cataphracts were equipped in the manner you describe and add that there was plenty of cutting and thrusting both (with swords meant for it) in the medieval period:
ua-cam.com/video/zTDCKMmt4_E/v-deo.html
Any technique that fails is dangerous to the user because of the lost tempo (tempi) that must result from such an action.
@@45calibermedic Sabre-like swords did not exist in the Republican, Principate and Dominate Roman worlds, so what their cavalry used vis-a-vis sabres is not really relevant. Sabres are first found in Central Asia in the 6th century. My point was not that straight swords cannot cut, or that curved swords cannot thrust, but that straight swords are better at thrusting and curved swords are better at cutting. I think that this is beyond doubt. It, therefore depends on what cavalry are expected to do, that dictates what sword they are equipped with. Shock cavalry tended to be equipped with straight swords and light cavalry with curved. However, when an army has a military and social elite, like the Byzantine cataphracts/klibanophoroi or the Polish Winged Hussars, then being doubly equipped becomes attractive.
Though I have been partial to the Scottish basket hilt broadsword, I can really see the benefits of the 1788 and later pattern.
Many good points here. 😊😊
Still there is a major factor in cavalry fighting I miss here. The long straight sword became popular with the Marlborough cavalry in the early 1700 hundreds. The main opponent at the time was the French. They used to ride up to firing distance and fire their big pistols.
The British and Danish cavalry (probably inspired by the Swedes), used speed and the weight of the cavalry attack to break through the infantry lines.
To do this the sword was pointed forward to push the edge of the sword into their enemies. That is what we can call a shock attack.
Later it seems that the cavalry could have a role to exploit the breakthrough. Then you could use the pistols but you need something effective to cut down running enemies. Then a sabre is a better tool?
What you think about this in comparison to how you present the British 1788 model versus sabres as cavalry weapons?
1840 Heavy Cavalry Saber is the most powerful sword...it can cut through katanas AND longswords...weebs and neckbeards shall weep at the sight of it
I’m fairly new o your channel, but I’ve enjoyed several videos already. Have you done a video on the “Patton Sword”? I think it would be extremely interesting. Thx
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your research, analysis and presentation. Which sword best combines the fundamental qualities of speed and blade length?
say what you want about the smaller one being smaller & faster - as a replica I'd absolutely want that humongous 38" blade, simply for style factor.
God, it look so imposing & beautiful.
For my amateur-ish testcutting I can get away with it being a bit sluggish - I'm after having fun & collecting things I like, not competition grade cutting :)
This is the third time I have watched this video because I agree with you regarding the superior design. I also agree the 1788 is to big. The CJM sword is, as you say, perfect. Given what a wonderful design it is, I hope you might consider, as part of our Wallace/Windlass collaboration, having a replica of this sword made but with the 1788 hilt. I want one. Cheers!
To the point of making a "perfect" infantry sword, what would you think of a finger ring hilt like on the "Munich" type swords with that blade?
It really makes me think that it would be interesting to try adding modern materials to see what could be gained. AEB-L or 3V blade steel. Possibly carbon fiber reinforced with a hardened outer layer could be used to stiffen the blade with less of a weight penalty. A welded titanium guard would be tough but further weight could be reduced. Anytime you can pull weight out of the hilt you can then reduce weight out of the blade without affecting cutting performance. Especially for the none cutting areas of the lower blade it would be ideal to remove weight so as to save it for areas further up. It would be interesting to see how this would affect overall feel.
Did under armor buy out superdry?
Please do a video highlighting swords designed for specific environments.
Thanks for sharing, they're beautiful swords!
My grandfather had a basket hilt broad sword that was his grandfather's sword in Scotland.
I wish I knew what happened to that beautiful piece.
Quite literally, he got a subscription from me due to the Jaguar reference. That alone commands my respect.
My first thought when you held that sword up was - "Ooh, I'd love that hilt with a cutlass blade on it". I always devolve to cutlasses...
Whenever I see anything about "best," my immediate response is, "best for what?"
All in all, I agree with your point, although it begs the question: what about all of the other swords which fit all the same criteria? There were all sorts of dussacks, schiavonas, and backswords which ticked the very same boxes. Even in the Victorian era, why would you prefer this to say an 1845 heavy pattern sabre or a scinde pattern sabre or a royal engineer's sword with a slightly wider blade, especially since they would presumably cut better due to bbleing wider than this while handling similarly?
In modern times, I'd still take a late republic Gladius style short sword as a backup weapon, because the only time I can see myself needing something choppy or stabby in self defense is a night time and/or indoor assault on my unit's night/R&R camp where fighting would inevitably be so intimate and personal that a full length sword could barely be drawn, much less wielded, a firearm would likely hit both friends and attackers by ricochets and/or over penetrations, and a tool knife doesn't have sufficient hand stop, reach or blade profile to be effective.
I like the Scottish basket hilt sword but clearly the basket is designed for working around the shield in a close foot melee while offering maximum protection. That doesn't happen all the time so every basket sword doesn't need it.
The best sword is obviously the Holy Chainsword.
i love the design asthetically! maybe the victorian era sword with the cavillary sword's handle? ^^
My favourite sword is any sort of rapier. They're gorgeous
Great video. The point that you make so well is that there is no sword perfect for every situation.
This is a heavy cavalry sword and the primary function of heavy cavalry was to massacre disorganised infantry which requires cutting down from horseback thus needing reach, secondary was to defeat light cavalry which was more due to the size and power of the horses than anything else but the extra reach of this sword over a light cavalry sabre is a considerable advantage. I think what makes the difference for this blade is the advantage that it gives over earlier heavy cavalry blades against other heavy cavalry i.e. the almost full basket without losing manouverability and the half double edge. I doubt that there would have been a lot of fencing going on between two heavy cavalry units both at trot or canter so those slight advantages would be multiplied.
It's unlikely that a cavalry man would use a thrust against infantry.
It would be interesting to see this hilt with a regular broadsword blade or with a rapier blade.
Well then you would just have a rapier without a cross guard.
that existed, it's called a mortuary hilt backsword
@@yamiyomizuki The sidebars of a mortuary hilt connect directly to the side of a pommel. That would eliminate one of the main advantages of the 1788 hilt.
Very nice!
Cheers Matt!
I am partial to the Scottish claymore(basket)...how would it compare to the sword(a beautiful blade) you have been demonstrating? Also, in close quarter combat, could the end piece of your sword be used as a type of "club"? Thanks & good video! Subbed...
In the last video I'd thought it looked a bit like a war rapier, reminded me of a few Pappenheimer's I've seen...
Mr. Mitchell has good taste! I too like that blade!
My question would be, how does the "CJM" sword handle in comparison to the 1845 blade/1821 hilt sword. My thoughts are that the 1845 slightly curved cavalry sabre blade (mated to the '21 3 bar hilt) is utterly ubiquitous, but actually has very similar handling characteristics to the CJM. Would I be correct in that assertion??? I still believe the '45/'21 "pattern" is absolutely the best sword design ever produced (for general usage - infantry/cavalry). I think the only area where it scores down compared to the CJM style sword is that the straight blade of the CJM gives it much more potential to be easier to make as you don't have to take a curve into consideration when manufacturing. And presumably that's why all the parade swords are all straight today???
Basket hilts are very easy to hold with point in line with a spadroon/smallsword style grip, with no lessening of structure.
Going back to the Rob Roy fight for the speed comparison.
Dare I ask for the edges?
I see a long true edge and I'm not so sure on the false edge.
Full length back edge or only half length?
I think I've found the sabre I want to fence with to be honest. Heavy cav sword too. I do like my cav, horse or mechanised.
Fantastic analysis of ground combat…what are your thoughts on naval engagements of the era, prior to steam?
Hello good Sir. What are your thoughts on the Model 1913 Patton Cavalry Saber
Polish hussars so called black sabre is also considered as the best, most versatile sword enabling to use both Western and Eastern kinds of fencing techniques. Best regards
The Takoba Trade blades were often made for broadsword or schiavona/palash with the lighter Takoba hilt they probably moved much faster but you needed a shield as the crossguard offered less protection than the basket.
It would make them more blade heavy as well, since you are removing significant mass from the hilt. So it would be slightly slower in recovery and redirection, but have slightly more cutting power as well.
@@HaNsWiDjAjA in Hama we use our shield primary for defense so recovery is not as big of a deal. Plus because of the coverage of the shield use can throw multiple full power strike in quick succession behind the relative safety of the shield which can be overwhelming to a unprepared opponent.
I think a sword should always be made to fit the size of the one who‘ll use it. It shouldn’t be too short but also not too long. Preferably two swords, one not longer as the arm from shoulder to pinky as secondary, and one in the length of a leg of that person as primary. Both will cover every scenario and place indoor with less space to move as well as outdoor with way more space.
I am a novice but highly interested, know too little about fencing but just wonder if the style of sword-fighting/ fencing of the cumbersomb longer sword is much different too regular fencing/fighting styles by using much less the nimble movements of the waving blade for parry or defence but use the advantage of the weight of the blade by using your arms as the nimble fast parrying wave and the back of the terso and ricasso for parry, and much less the wrist movements for fast blade cutting/attacks with nimble swords, therefore have more control over the thrust with the reach of the blade. The advantage of the leverage in parry and blade weight over the much lighter blade attacking is huge. The thrust given so much easier then the light short blade. I hope you get what I mean trying to describe the images in my head in writing.
I’ve just realised the subtle joke of Matt favouring Under Armour t shirts
Hi I bought a spoil of war Japanese officers sword,it has his families markings on the tang,I would love to put it back to its former glory,but I was told about yourself at a bushcraft fair,would you be able to sharpen it? And the leather scabbard needs some attention, look forward to your comments ,thankyou Tony
I like my Katana probably because I trained in that art, I like the speed at which one attacks with the katana
this sword will also be a great functional display weapon for both wearing in ceremonial social context and for home and self defence
In practice, would sword vs. sword combat be a consideration for these weapons? If the majority of the enemy would've been bayonet armed infantry, then perhaps a heavier blade would've been an advantage vs the rare case of facing off against an enemy officer armed with a smaller quicker blade. Even if you found yourself in that situation, you could simply compel your lads to bayonet the Frog/Colonist/Hun et c. and carry on with your day.
How about reproduction made by Windlass?
We already have quintessence of Matt's knowledge and experience in the form of Easton gymnasium saber, it would be really great to be able to acquire something similar but sharp.
What is your opinion on Col. THOMAS H. MONSTERY? I've read his book on Arms. And found it interesting.
If I had that heavy original sword and had to face off against someone with a more agile blade, the thing I'd hope to do is get another weapon, which is lighter and suited for parrying. I'm not ambidextrous, but using two weapons in tandem is not too hard for me, especially when they fill different roles.
Great video, as usual. Just wondering when did the British Armed forces cease training their soldiers or officers in how to fight with a sword? When did the swords become rank symbols and stop being intended as deadly weapons?
probably around the time of bolt action rifles and machine guns