Hey, excellent video! Would just like to add that cuts are much more difficult to do effectively against someone wearing a doublet or a gambeson, nullifying one of the big advantages of the sword grip. I'd go as far as to say that if I by some stroke of evil luck found myself in a knife/dagger fight, one of the big elements affecting my choice of grip would be whether it's winter or summer.
Thank you, very informative and useful. I've been working on utilising Chinese sabre methods in a fencing format and those points about hand protection influencing guard position clarify several of the postures.
Very informative ! Thanks Matt . As usual , i have some questions : 1) Cavalry swords were longer , heavier and unsuitable for infantry fighting. How would a cavalryman defend himself if he's dismunted or his horse is killed ? also why medieval warriors had the same swords for cavalry and infantry actions ? 2) Alfred Hutton was highly regarded as a swordsman .Did he participate in a real battle or a mélée ? do u have any accounts describing him fighitng in duels or real actions ? thanks in advance and have a nice day :)
Rami Bairi Hi - 1) not all cavalry swords were longer or heavier. The 1796 light cavalry sabre only has a 33 inch blade and weighs 2lbs, which are the same stats as lots of infantry officers' swords. In fact there is a lot of overlap and some infantry swords are longer and heavier than some cavalry swords. 2) No Alfred Hutton never saw active service because he was invalided home from India with some sort of illness. However his uncle fought in the Napoleonic Wars and his brother was actually in the Charge of the Light Brigade, during which he was shot twice and sabred a number of Russian gunners.
scholagladiatoria That's quite true! I have a reproduction US artillery sabre and it's a HUGE sword, about 42 inches long, whereas an antique German dragoon cavalry sabre I have is only 32 inches long and weighs quite a bit less.
could you do a video with the Dacian Falx, (its not quite within your swordsman ship of study, but it would be interesting to bring in an expert on this. I once had a sword physics project inspired by this sword)
What are some differences in techniques using sabres (infantry or officer or cavalry) vs. basket-hilted broadswords? Also, was there any overlap in time periods when these swords were in wide use?
I have no experience at swordsmanship because when at University the archery & fencing classes were full, so I had to settle for archery & bowling. While I learned to shoot with bow and arrows, the bowling class only taught me to roll grenades over perfectly smooth ground with no obstructions on the way to the target. I later learned the proper way to throw grenades in US Army basic training. So with no experience at swordsmanship, I must admit that I cannot imagine "fencing" on foot with my opponent and myself wielding 1796 sabres. Aren't these meant to be slashing swords used on horseback to rundown retreating infantry or static artillerymen? I can only imagine "fencing" with a relatively str8 thrusting sword.
+J.L. Roberts Originally, the term, "fencing," was referring to "the art of defense." While today, when we think of fencing we think of dueling with small, straight swords, people of the medieval and renaissance ages were referring to basically all manner of armed melee combat.
+Guilihelmus de Udene Physical Education classes were required courses for Freshman. Swimming, golf, bowling, archery, fencing, tennis, etc. This was 50 years ago when humans still walked on their hind legs, rather than being permanently seated in front of a laptop. Able bodied men were required to take Reserve Officers Training courses in uniform, and were subject to conscription into the armed forces. In elementary school we still observed air raid drills. It was the time of the Cold War, when proxy wars were being fought in Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.
you are probably aware of Pierre Vingy's cane system, but it is supposed to have been based on saber originally, as the cane has no hand guard he moves the cane further up and back so it is held with the arm almost straight up with the end hanging diagonally down at your opponents face.
I have seen a number of 1796 style blades with 3 and 4 bar steel hilts. Apparently they weren't standard issue, but were still available for officers stationed in India if they made a special order from one of the British sword makers. Even until the late 1800s, long after the pattern had supposedly been replaced many times.
You know what would make these videos amazing? If you added pictures of the subject your are talking about. Not that you aren't handsome enough already, but I would love to see weapons, mail, armour and battle examples through pictures!
Could the curvature of the blade be somewhat related to the amount of hand protection? I noticed that with the more curved sabre, when he retreats the hand, the tip of the blade comes in a similar position and orientation than the straighter blade with the hand more advanced, thus covering the body in a similar way.
Thanks for posting. This actually a video ive been hoping you would make. Ive been looking into this exact topic. As im reaaly into sabre and the larger more curved style. Anyone know where i can find more on pretty much this exact topic?
Hello!! More I see the Bolognese technique, more I think that the military sabre take much of it. I mean, sidesword is an antecesor, so sabre style should lear about it. ¿What do you think? The question is no for comparaision, because I like Bolognese and sabre very much, but more I learn, I think maybe with my bolognese sidesword techniques, I can use a military sabre too, and enjoy it without the need of learn a complete diferent style. Please tell me what you think!. Thanks!
I have a quick question, I'm from the USA, and first of all, I love all of your videos, they are extremely informative and interesting. But I was wondering, is it normal to use the Imperial scale when talking about weapons (i.e. 35 inch blade vs. 89cm blade) rather than Metric even though you're obviously in the UK? I've just always wondered this because you tend to use inches rather than centimeters, and didn't know if it was just personal preference or a sort of "rule". Thanks, and cheers from Virginia Beach
Officially the British use metric system, but tonns of people still use Imperial system as well as Metric System, I'm unsure why. I guess it's still the cultural norm somehow.
That's kinda what I figured. So pretty much, in the UK you stand an equal opportunity of confusing people with Metric measurements as you do with Imperial. As an American, I say BOLLOCKS! :)
I'd generally agree with what Alduin said. Just speaking for myself here, but I would assume more or less that most other British people would also be the same to a greater or lesser extent, but I find I use the metric system for smaller measurements, and just say feet and inches for anything larger than 50cm probably.
I thought singlestick was the practice of fighting with the victorian walkingstick. Those walkingsticks in England and France seemed quite sturdy and had often quite a heavy head.
What you describe sound to me like La cane or Cudgel Singlestick is originaly a trainer for broadsword/saber/cutlass Techniques from singlestick and other European stick fighting were similar i think (might be wrong) How does Irish shilelag goes with singlestick techniques?
Can you do a video on French saber schools during the Napoleonic Wars? I'm particularly interested in the Poles of the Imperial Guard.Would they would have been taught Polish saber techniques rather than French?
Heyas, I did a fundraiser organised by 2 students of mine who train in the Dojo on the hoody. The Schola badge is on the sword arm :-) Don't train in Bujikan personally.
Very informative discussion, and useful outline of the various source material. For practice purposes, is there a stirrup hilted and curved bladed training sabre available to do Georgian sabre?
Hmm. So you eventually came to the conclusion that Roworth authored the treatise after all? Is there a good online resource that explains or summarises the chain of arguments that led there? The last time I had a discussion about it was about a year ago and I got the impression that there was still no consensus on the authorship.
Pradana P. M. We know it was Roworth because an author of an encyclopaedia plagiarised some of the text and Roworth went to court to defend his authorship of it. We don't know why he didn't publish his own name more clearly with the manual, but it was possibly out of respect to Henry Angelo, who he seems to have known well and was publishing a book at almost the same time.
I get the impression from this video that the fencing schools of the day were still more interested in sabre vs sabre, or at least a variation of sword vs another variation of sword. As I understand it, in fact, the military use of the sabre was for officers to defend themselves, mostly against bayonet. Was defence against pole arms covered in both of there periods, at schools for gentlemen?
I don't do HEMA but I think Matt's previously said that a full basket hilt restricts wrist movement and limits what kind of cuts you can do. Though I don't know how applicable that is to this victorian sabre as it seems much less restrictive at the bottom than a basket hilt. Also I'm guessing the thinner guard is much more convenient for every day carry.
I have a (cold steel) cutlass which has a hand-guard quite similar to that of your sabre. I find my fingers on the one side to be remarkably vulnerable to a hack or slash - the back of the hand is well-protected. A thin steel band over the unprotected side would fix the problem and still leave the weapon comfortably wearable. Was this ever done, and if not, why not?
+grantlandsmith Your fingers aren't supposed to stick out much from under the inside of the guard, and least if your grip is correct. It's mostly there just to protect your thumb. It's often asymmetrical in such a way for a couple of reasons: to conserve metal and weight, and to be worn on your side more easily - you'll note that the inside of the sword in action is also on the inside when hanging by your hip, and a larger guard on that side interferes with movement and chafes clothing rather easily. Symmetrical guards are only really useful for mass production, so as to be usable by both right- and left-handed people. That being said, I had a look at the Cold Steel "1917 Naval Cutlass", based on the actual US Navy model of the same name, and I find the guard to be...crap. It does indeed offer no protection to the inside of the hand. The design of swords, in my opinion, really took a wrong turn at the turn of the century. I also find the Cold Steel style of blacked "tacticool" steel and clipped points rather gross, but that's probably just me. If you like everything else about it (whatever floats your boat), you should look at their "1917 *hybrid* cutlass", it has a far better guard.
Hey Matt Can you a video about left handed people and their significance in medieval warfare if any?this came to my mind when I heard that circular stairs were meant to deter left handed people from fighting their way up but it seems unnecessary seeing as not much people are lefties
It depends which way a stairway winds. If is to the right, which most are, actually hinders a right hand user, because left hand/foot will be first to advance.
Mozak Nekulai Well, the left hand still has to reach around the barrier. And also, the winding occurs on both sides of the staircase, so both arms are limited in movement (the whole thing winds in a spiral).
I've actually been through multiple castle stairways, and all of them wind to the right as one climbs up. It's clearly made, in defenders advantage. If the attacker is a leftie, he has some chance, but slim, because their width don't allow at very best more than 2 people up at the same time.
Mozak Nekulai Well in a 1vs.1, the person below still has a disadvantage. That's all I was saying. You probably noticed both walls are curving, but if you tried to swing a stick or something, you'd have a very narrow avenue through which to swing. What hand your using doesn't matter as much (though the right hand is probably worse, I agree).
Very interesting thankyou, Do you know of anyone producing a sword suitable as a Gymnasium sabre for the 1796 light cavalry sabre or the Infantry fighting sabre discussed in the video?
AcoraZ3RO I don't like the restriction of basket hilts. They force you to use a hammer grip and cut in a certain way, and they make full use of the point difficult.
scholagladiatoria Matt, I wonder if there is a basket hilt to fit you described by Silver. I am not too sure as to how fully developed the "close hilt" that he wrote about was, but it seems that its grip was long enough and its hilt sufficiently spacious to use the sword in both a hammer and sabre grip. If you have any thoughts on the topic, I'd be glad to read them!
Sergeants still carried them. You'd imagine that no one would really prefer to lug around something so big and awkward and of limited use by choice though! It was a status thing for sergeants but officers had more choice.
Funnily I just now read about this in 1815 The Armies at Waterloo. It says that with the advent of bayonets that pikes were superseded. So there really wasn't much point to officers being encumbered by spears that would only be useful in very specific instances.
Not when people are firing at you from 200 feet away. From what I've read, during the Peninsular war they were only useful for helping to defend infantry from cavalry. But most sergeants would get rid of them and use a less awkward substitute weapon instead like pistols. There's one account of a sergeant chasing after the French; the point of his pike got stabbed in the ground and he ran into the sharpened but end and got stabbed through the body. He had to be discharged because of the wound.
Yes but at 200 feet range a spontoon is still more advantageous than an infantry saber right? That said I did not know infantry officers used firearms, I thought they had to rely on their own melee weapon and the muskets of his subordinates.
I have been interested in why in Europe they started favoring the rapier of the long sword or arming sword. Is this due to preference or was there an actual benefit to the rapier?
Due to firearms, plate armour wasnt as useful, if you wear a metal plate and get shot, the plate makes the wound worse, so people wore less armour, with less armour in the way, the blade can be thinner and still effective, with technological advance, they could produce longer thinner blades, that wouldn't snap the first time they were hit. Plus, the rapier is largely a civilian weapon. With less armour, both for yourself and the opponent, reach became even more important as your body wasn't as well protected, so the rapier was specialised towards a long reach and thrusting
ZayWooT It also bears mentioning that the rapier was invented by duelists intended for use in unarmored CIVILIAN fencing, not as a weapon of war. Though to be fair, many musketeers (prior to the invention of the bayonet) and ranking officers carried rapiers in war, because they were not expecting to enter into a melee, but were instead armed for single combat against an individual who made it through the pike wall guarding the "shot".
SavageDutchman Well kinda... Armoured and unarmoured fighting was very different though... I know Matt here has some videos on rapiers and the development of them
You don't throw an arm out backwards when you recover, you pull it in ... you throw it out when you advance your attack or threat. Perhaps Colin got a bit muddled on that one ...
Rikitocker Rowarth describes two positions for the hand in which to begin, either the left hand is raised to the height of the left ear or it is rested on the left hand side of the hip. The action in the 1805 book on page 13 it's described thus, 'At the instant of lunging, the left hand should drop on the left thigh; from whence it should be thrown up smartly to the left as you recover, which will assist in regaining your position.' In this instance, Rowarth differs from others as he does take the arm down in the lunge and then raise the arm to recover.
+Colin Fieldhouse Cheers Colin, Roworth must "take the arm down and raise the arm to recover" as it states ..."the left hand should drop on the left thigh" - this is lowering - "from whence it should be thrown up smartly to the left as you recover " - and this is raising it again hence the word "up". This action is nothing less than text book lunge and recover. He is still levering the left arm up and down, upon the expansion and contraction of the lunge. This expansion and contraction is standard all the way back to Capoferro. What it seemed you were saying in the video is that one throws the arm out when recovering, which might seem contradictory if people are not reading closely. The levering action - so called throwing the arm out left or rearward upon recovery - of Roworth is essentially performing the same mechanical function of raising the arm upon the recovery. The difference is merely one of leaving the arm horizontal to the rear - Rowarth - and bending the arm at the elbow, most everyone else. It's a subtle nuance but one worth mentioning.
Colin Fieldhouse It's more for my own clarification Colin - I look forward to visiting you lads when I get to Blighty next - I was just over recently but missed out on a few visits I had planned. Cheers!
It is but not by too much. It's narrower as well. The point of balance is a lot further back due to the less mass towards the tip. It is very thin. There is a minute surface crack on the false edge on the right hand side, which may point to the fact it may have been too narrow. The sword has been sharpened at some point in its life before being stored.
Colin Fieldhouse Thanks for taking the time to reply, that's really interesting. How does it differ to the 1803 flank officer's sword? That's still on the 'yet to acquire' pile for me. The 1796 I have is just 1.2 mm thick at the tip, giving it the most extreme distal taper I have in my collection. It's pretty much the standard troopers' version with the exception of a small copper disc at the peen, which I suspect may be a repair. At the moment I'm trying to build a small library of regulation swords, but the custom jobs are always interesting to hear/read about.
lancer D i don't have a pair of digital calipers so I don't have the exact measurement, but in my notes comparing the 2 I noted that is was just thinner than my 1796, but by the tiniest of margins.
A quick (but unrelated) question: in fiction there seem to be lots of instances where people wearing not very much armour at all defeat opponents wearing plate armour, how realistic is this? Obviously whoever is wearing the more advanced armour has a huge advantage, but would it even be possible for a skilled unarmoured fighter to beat an okay fighter who is wearing full plate? Sorry for spamming this question.
Well those that had the best armor usually had also the best training. Nonetheless I would consider a guy with a poleaxe vs a knight with a sword still a match. A guy with a mace alone would have a huge disadvantage (getting in range), although with a shield it gets much better.
Michael Henman There were plenty of instances in historical sources of exceptional fighters overcoming much better equipped opponents. The Catalan chronicler Ramon Muntaner recorded than an almogavar (unarmored Aragonese light infantry) once slew five mail-clad mounted French men-at-arms in combat; two he killed with his javelins that pierced their mail, two had their horses brought down with his long spear, after which he cut their throats as they lay pinned under their dead mounts, and the last one had his jaw shattered by a well-thrown rock! On another instance an almogavar put three men-at-arms hors de combat during a boarding fight in a galley, piercing two of them through their visors with his spear and cutting off the greave-clad leg (probably made of hardened leather) of the third with his coutell. Now these all might have been exaggerated, but even if the number of armored knights in those occasions was reduced to one that still would have been an impressive feat on the unarmored fighter part, wouldnt it?
Kevin J. Dildonik I feel that I have to point out that while what you said is true, there is also another side to the coin. Someone unused to wearing armor would find moving about in it clumsy and possibly disorienting, and in a fight thats very dangerous. 60 or 30 pounds of metal on your body greatly magnify the impact of your balance, not to mention it has huge impact on your stamina in a prolonged combat, induce overheating and dehydration, and in the case of some armor limit the way you can move certain body parts. There was a reason why even well trained warriors in the past often chose not to don their full regalia when the mission required stealth and speed rather than maximum protection. Cheers
Hey, excellent video!
Would just like to add that cuts are much more difficult to do effectively against someone wearing a doublet or a gambeson, nullifying one of the big advantages of the sword grip. I'd go as far as to say that if I by some stroke of evil luck found myself in a knife/dagger fight, one of the big elements affecting my choice of grip would be whether it's winter or summer.
Thank you, very informative and useful. I've been working on utilising Chinese sabre methods in a fencing format and those points about hand protection influencing guard position clarify several of the postures.
That as excellent. Very interested to hear more about Georgian era fencing. Well done chaps. More of that please!
I can't hear the word Georgian without instantly thinking "gambrel roofs". Side effect of loving Lovecraft. This video went deep, very cool.
Very informative ! Thanks Matt . As usual , i have some questions :
1) Cavalry swords were longer , heavier and unsuitable for infantry fighting. How would a cavalryman defend himself if he's dismunted or his horse is killed ? also why medieval warriors had the same swords for cavalry and infantry actions ?
2) Alfred Hutton was highly regarded as a swordsman .Did he participate in a real battle or a mélée ? do u have any accounts describing him fighitng in duels or real actions ? thanks in advance and have a nice day :)
Rami Bairi Hi - 1) not all cavalry swords were longer or heavier. The 1796 light cavalry sabre only has a 33 inch blade and weighs 2lbs, which are the same stats as lots of infantry officers' swords. In fact there is a lot of overlap and some infantry swords are longer and heavier than some cavalry swords. 2) No Alfred Hutton never saw active service because he was invalided home from India with some sort of illness. However his uncle fought in the Napoleonic Wars and his brother was actually in the Charge of the Light Brigade, during which he was shot twice and sabred a number of Russian gunners.
scholagladiatoria
That's quite true! I have a reproduction US artillery sabre and it's a HUGE sword, about 42 inches long, whereas an antique German dragoon cavalry sabre I have is only 32 inches long and weighs quite a bit less.
could you do a video with the Dacian Falx, (its not quite within your swordsman ship of study, but it would be interesting to bring in an expert on this. I once had a sword physics project inspired by this sword)
What are some differences in techniques using sabres (infantry or officer or cavalry) vs. basket-hilted broadswords?
Also, was there any overlap in time periods when these swords were in wide use?
Great video and information as always, thanks
I have no experience at swordsmanship because when at University the archery & fencing classes were full, so I had to settle for archery & bowling. While I learned to shoot with bow and arrows, the bowling class only taught me to roll grenades over perfectly smooth ground with no obstructions on the way to the target. I later learned the proper way to throw grenades in US Army basic training.
So with no experience at swordsmanship, I must admit that I cannot imagine "fencing" on foot with my opponent and myself wielding 1796 sabres. Aren't these meant to be slashing swords used on horseback to rundown retreating infantry or static artillerymen? I can only imagine "fencing" with a relatively str8 thrusting sword.
J.L. Roberts The technique is modified, but basically the same.
+J.L. Roberts Originally, the term, "fencing," was referring to "the art of defense." While today, when we think of fencing we think of dueling with small, straight swords, people of the medieval and renaissance ages were referring to basically all manner of armed melee combat.
+Guilihelmus de Udene Physical Education classes were required courses for Freshman. Swimming, golf, bowling, archery, fencing, tennis, etc. This was 50 years ago when humans still walked on their hind legs, rather than being permanently seated in front of a laptop. Able bodied men were required to take Reserve Officers Training courses in uniform, and were subject to conscription into the armed forces. In elementary school we still observed air raid drills. It was the time of the Cold War, when proxy wars were being fought in Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.
I don't think bowling is a grenade throwing simulation, I could be wrong though.
you are probably aware of Pierre Vingy's cane system, but it is supposed to have been based on saber originally, as the cane has no hand guard he moves the cane further up and back so it is held with the arm almost straight up with the end hanging diagonally down at your opponents face.
Great video as always!
I have seen a number of 1796 style blades with 3 and 4 bar steel hilts. Apparently they weren't standard issue, but were still available for officers stationed in India if they made a special order from one of the British sword makers. Even until the late 1800s, long after the pattern had supposedly been replaced many times.
Divertedflight Yes, Indian cavalry were still being issued with 1796-like blades until the end of WW1. I own a couple of examples.
Highly interesting. Good thing I got a more modern straight saber, its better for the kind of HEMA fencing I want to learn.
You know what would make these videos amazing?
If you added pictures of the subject your are talking about.
Not that you aren't handsome enough already, but I would love to see weapons, mail, armour and battle examples through pictures!
Could the curvature of the blade be somewhat related to the amount of hand protection?
I noticed that with the more curved sabre, when he retreats the hand, the tip of the blade comes in a similar position and orientation than the straighter blade with the hand more advanced, thus covering the body in a similar way.
Was hoping this would escalate into a duel.
...it did, it was a mental duel.The guy with the beard obviously was the victor.
ami2evil I can live with that!
Thanks for posting. This actually a video ive been hoping you would make. Ive been looking into this exact topic. As im reaaly into sabre and the larger more curved style. Anyone know where i can find more on pretty much this exact topic?
Hello!! More I see the Bolognese technique, more I think that the military sabre take much of it. I mean, sidesword is an antecesor, so sabre style should lear about it. ¿What do you think? The question is no for comparaision, because I like Bolognese and sabre very much, but more I learn, I think maybe with my bolognese sidesword techniques, I can use a military sabre too, and enjoy it without the need of learn a complete diferent style.
Please tell me what you think!.
Thanks!
I have a quick question, I'm from the USA, and first of all, I love all of your videos, they are extremely informative and interesting. But I was wondering, is it normal to use the Imperial scale when talking about weapons (i.e. 35 inch blade vs. 89cm blade) rather than Metric even though you're obviously in the UK? I've just always wondered this because you tend to use inches rather than centimeters, and didn't know if it was just personal preference or a sort of "rule". Thanks, and cheers from Virginia Beach
Officially the British use metric system, but tonns of people still use Imperial system as well as Metric System, I'm unsure why. I guess it's still the cultural norm somehow.
That's kinda what I figured. So pretty much, in the UK you stand an equal opportunity of confusing people with Metric measurements as you do with Imperial. As an American, I say BOLLOCKS! :)
I'd generally agree with what Alduin said. Just speaking for myself here, but I would assume more or less that most other British people would also be the same to a greater or lesser extent, but I find I use the metric system for smaller measurements, and just say feet and inches for anything larger than 50cm probably.
k0vert
Good thing we got the internet and you can convert that in a matter of seconds.
Great video!
I thought singlestick was the practice of fighting with the victorian walkingstick. Those walkingsticks in England and France seemed quite sturdy and had often quite a heavy head.
What you describe sound to me like La cane or Cudgel
Singlestick is originaly a trainer for broadsword/saber/cutlass
Techniques from singlestick and other European stick fighting were similar i think (might be wrong)
How does Irish shilelag goes with singlestick techniques?
9:21 the truth comes out of Matt, agreeing that a thrusting straight sword is useless on the battlefield.
Can you do a video on French saber schools during the Napoleonic Wars? I'm particularly interested in the Poles of the Imperial Guard.Would they would have been taught Polish saber techniques rather than French?
As well, would it be possible to list links to the sources being discussed (Rowarth, Angelo, Taylor, Wait and Hutton)?
this was too cool.
Weird question. If you wear heavy hand defence and use medieval weapons as it they are sabres, would those medieval weapons deal more damage?
Is Colin a member of the Bujikan or practice Japanese Budo like Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu as well? I could not help but notice his jacket or hoody :D
ThegnThrand I think he may have been, yes.
Heyas, I did a fundraiser organised by 2 students of mine who train in the Dojo on the hoody. The Schola badge is on the sword arm :-) Don't train in Bujikan personally.
Colin Fieldhouse Cool was just curious it is a good combat stye I have practiced it for years.
Colin Fieldhouse In Chinese that character means heart.
Xue Lang JA!
Very informative discussion, and useful outline of the various source material. For practice purposes, is there a stirrup hilted and curved bladed training sabre available to do Georgian sabre?
+D Fraser Purpleheart Synthetic Sabre V4
Much high! So Georgian! Wow! Such fight! Good explain!
Sorry, couldn't help myself ;)
Hmm. So you eventually came to the conclusion that Roworth authored the treatise after all? Is there a good online resource that explains or summarises the chain of arguments that led there? The last time I had a discussion about it was about a year ago and I got the impression that there was still no consensus on the authorship.
Pradana P. M. We know it was Roworth because an author of an encyclopaedia plagiarised some of the text and Roworth went to court to defend his authorship of it. We don't know why he didn't publish his own name more clearly with the manual, but it was possibly out of respect to Henry Angelo, who he seems to have known well and was publishing a book at almost the same time.
Is there anything in print or online where I can look up those sources, then -- especially the court records?
interesting video. Do you own an 1803 infantry sabre you could do a video on? I've wanted one for a long time but they're always too expensive for me.
I get the impression from this video that the fencing schools of the day were still more interested in sabre vs sabre, or at least a variation of sword vs another variation of sword.
As I understand it, in fact, the military use of the sabre was for officers to defend themselves, mostly against bayonet. Was defence against pole arms covered in both of there periods, at schools for gentlemen?
What's the advantage of the thin hand guard vs a full hand guard?
I don't do HEMA but I think Matt's previously said that a full basket hilt restricts wrist movement and limits what kind of cuts you can do. Though I don't know how applicable that is to this victorian sabre as it seems much less restrictive at the bottom than a basket hilt.
Also I'm guessing the thinner guard is much more convenient for every day carry.
I have a (cold steel) cutlass which has a hand-guard quite similar to that of your sabre. I find my fingers on the one side to be remarkably vulnerable to a hack or slash - the back of the hand is well-protected. A thin steel band over the unprotected side would fix the problem and still leave the weapon comfortably wearable. Was this ever done, and if not, why not?
+grantlandsmith Your fingers aren't supposed to stick out much from under the inside of the guard, and least if your grip is correct. It's mostly there just to protect your thumb. It's often asymmetrical in such a way for a couple of reasons: to conserve metal and weight, and to be worn on your side more easily - you'll note that the inside of the sword in action is also on the inside when hanging by your hip, and a larger guard on that side interferes with movement and chafes clothing rather easily. Symmetrical guards are only really useful for mass production, so as to be usable by both right- and left-handed people. That being said, I had a look at the Cold Steel "1917 Naval Cutlass", based on the actual US Navy model of the same name, and I find the guard to be...crap. It does indeed offer no protection to the inside of the hand. The design of swords, in my opinion, really took a wrong turn at the turn of the century. I also find the Cold Steel style of blacked "tacticool" steel and clipped points rather gross, but that's probably just me. If you like everything else about it (whatever floats your boat), you should look at their "1917 *hybrid* cutlass", it has a far better guard.
they where having to reinvent the old sword fighting skills that had be lost. they should have read George silver or Bolognese side sword fight
Can anyone recommend steel trainer for 1796 infantry officer saber? I'm interested in earlier military saber, been using bf nylon for a while now.
You keep saying Military Sabre does that mean that there was a Civilian Sabre System. What is the difference between then?
Military sabre of pre-1900 as opposed to modern sport sabre.
Hey Matt Can you a video about left handed people and their significance in medieval warfare if any?this came to my mind when I heard that circular stairs were meant to deter left handed people from fighting their way up but it seems unnecessary seeing as not much people are lefties
Spiral staircase would deter right-handed people too. It's designed to make it easier for the person up above to fight the person below.
It depends which way a stairway winds. If is to the right, which most are, actually hinders a right hand user, because left hand/foot will be first to advance.
Mozak Nekulai
Well, the left hand still has to reach around the barrier. And also, the winding occurs on both sides of the staircase, so both arms are limited in movement (the whole thing winds in a spiral).
I've actually been through multiple castle stairways, and all of them wind to the right as one climbs up. It's clearly made, in defenders advantage. If the attacker is a leftie, he has some chance, but slim, because their width don't allow at very best more than 2 people up at the same time.
Mozak Nekulai
Well in a 1vs.1, the person below still has a disadvantage. That's all I was saying.
You probably noticed both walls are curving, but if you tried to swing a stick or something, you'd have a very narrow avenue through which to swing. What hand your using doesn't matter as much (though the right hand is probably worse, I agree).
Every time someone measures something small in 16ths of an inch, the little Napoleon inside me dies a little.
I thought napolionic sword fighting in battle was slash & bash on the battlefield
Very interesting thankyou, Do you know of anyone producing a sword suitable as a Gymnasium sabre for the 1796 light cavalry sabre or the Infantry fighting sabre discussed in the video?
Tom Hibberd Peter Regenyei could produce one easily - there are no standard models available yet though.
scholagladiatoria Cheers, I've drawn up a rough specification and sent it off to him :-)
Tom Hibberd If you do get a 1796 LC gymnasium sabre made, I'd love to see how that turns out.
James Grant Repshire If I get one I'll probably have it sent to Matt Easton to do a a review if he doesn't mind.
Out of curiosity, why do you prefer saber to backsword?
AcoraZ3RO I don't like the restriction of basket hilts. They force you to use a hammer grip and cut in a certain way, and they make full use of the point difficult.
scholagladiatoria I hadn't thought of that. That's definitely something to consider.
scholagladiatoria Matt, I wonder if there is a basket hilt to fit you described by Silver. I am not too sure as to how fully developed the "close hilt" that he wrote about was, but it seems that its grip was long enough and its hilt sufficiently spacious to use the sword in both a hammer and sabre grip. If you have any thoughts on the topic, I'd be glad to read them!
Why did infantry officers actually do away with the Spontoon? It would appear to be an immense advantage against bayonets and infantry swords.
Sergeants still carried them. You'd imagine that no one would really prefer to lug around something so big and awkward and of limited use by choice though! It was a status thing for sergeants but officers had more choice.
Funnily I just now read about this in 1815 The Armies at Waterloo. It says that with the advent of bayonets that pikes were superseded. So there really wasn't much point to officers being encumbered by spears that would only be useful in very specific instances.
Very specific? Wouldn't it be useful in any field battle?
Not when people are firing at you from 200 feet away. From what I've read, during the Peninsular war they were only useful for helping to defend infantry from cavalry. But most sergeants would get rid of them and use a less awkward substitute weapon instead like pistols.
There's one account of a sergeant chasing after the French; the point of his pike got stabbed in the ground and he ran into the sharpened but end and got stabbed through the body. He had to be discharged because of the wound.
Yes but at 200 feet range a spontoon is still more advantageous than an infantry saber right? That said I did not know infantry officers used firearms, I thought they had to rely on their own melee weapon and the muskets of his subordinates.
I have been interested in why in Europe they started favoring the rapier of the long sword or arming sword. Is this due to preference or was there an actual benefit to the rapier?
Due to firearms, plate armour wasnt as useful, if you wear a metal plate and get shot, the plate makes the wound worse, so people wore less armour, with less armour in the way, the blade can be thinner and still effective, with technological advance, they could produce longer thinner blades, that wouldn't snap the first time they were hit. Plus, the rapier is largely a civilian weapon.
With less armour, both for yourself and the opponent, reach became even more important as your body wasn't as well protected, so the rapier was specialised towards a long reach and thrusting
ZayWooT It also bears mentioning that the rapier was invented by duelists intended for use in unarmored CIVILIAN fencing, not as a weapon of war. Though to be fair, many musketeers (prior to the invention of the bayonet) and ranking officers carried rapiers in war, because they were not expecting to enter into a melee, but were instead armed for single combat against an individual who made it through the pike wall guarding the "shot".
Thousand Yard Stare I did write "Plus, the rapier is largely a civilian weapon."
So basically the functionality of a longsword was no longer needed so they went towards the rapier/saber.
SavageDutchman Well kinda... Armoured and unarmoured fighting was very different though... I know Matt here has some videos on rapiers and the development of them
You don't throw an arm out backwards when you recover, you pull it in ... you throw it out when you advance your attack or threat. Perhaps Colin got a bit muddled on that one ...
Rikitocker Rowarth describes two positions for the hand in which to begin, either the left hand is raised to the height of the left ear or it is rested on the left hand side of the hip. The action in the 1805 book on page 13 it's described thus, 'At the instant of lunging, the left hand should drop on the left thigh; from whence it should be thrown up smartly to the left as you recover, which will assist in regaining your position.' In this instance, Rowarth differs from others as he does take the arm down in the lunge and then raise the arm to recover.
+Colin Fieldhouse Cheers Colin, Roworth must "take the arm down and raise the arm to recover" as it states ..."the left hand should drop on the left thigh" - this is lowering - "from whence it should be thrown up smartly to the left as you recover " - and this is raising it again hence the word "up". This action is nothing less than text book lunge and recover. He is still levering the left arm up and down, upon the expansion and contraction of the lunge. This expansion and contraction is standard all the way back to Capoferro. What it seemed you were saying in the video is that one throws the arm out when recovering, which might seem contradictory if people are not reading closely. The levering action - so called throwing the arm out left or rearward upon recovery - of Roworth is essentially performing the same mechanical function of raising the arm upon the recovery. The difference is merely one of leaving the arm horizontal to the rear - Rowarth - and bending the arm at the elbow, most everyone else. It's a subtle nuance but one worth mentioning.
Ah I see what you're saying :-) yes I wasn't quite as clear as I could have been.
Colin Fieldhouse It's more for my own clarification Colin - I look forward to visiting you lads when I get to Blighty next - I was just over recently but missed out on a few visits I had planned. Cheers!
Looking forward to it! I've got a video series planned on Rowarth to be filmed over the summer which I hope you'll like.
Colin's sword is thinner at the tip than the 1796 lcs? How is that even possible? With the one I've got if it were any thinner it'd be tinfoil :P
It is but not by too much. It's narrower as well. The point of balance is a lot further back due to the less mass towards the tip. It is very thin. There is a minute surface crack on the false edge on the right hand side, which may point to the fact it may have been too narrow. The sword has been sharpened at some point in its life before being stored.
Colin Fieldhouse Thanks for taking the time to reply, that's really interesting. How does it differ to the 1803 flank officer's sword? That's still on the 'yet to acquire' pile for me. The 1796 I have is just 1.2 mm thick at the tip, giving it the most extreme distal taper I have in my collection. It's pretty much the standard troopers' version with the exception of a small copper disc at the peen, which I suspect may be a repair. At the moment I'm trying to build a small library of regulation swords, but the custom jobs are always interesting to hear/read about.
lancer D i don't have a pair of digital calipers so I don't have the exact measurement, but in my notes comparing the 2 I noted that is was just thinner than my 1796, but by the tiniest of margins.
A quick (but unrelated) question: in fiction there seem to be lots of instances where people wearing not very much armour at all defeat opponents wearing plate armour, how realistic is this?
Obviously whoever is wearing the more advanced armour has a huge advantage, but would it even be possible for a skilled unarmoured fighter to beat an okay fighter who is wearing full plate?
Sorry for spamming this question.
Michael Henman Yes, it is not at all realisttic.
Well those that had the best armor usually had also the best training. Nonetheless I would consider a guy with a poleaxe vs a knight with a sword still a match. A guy with a mace alone would have a huge disadvantage (getting in range), although with a shield it gets much better.
scholagladiatoria Thanks.
Michael Henman
There were plenty of instances in historical sources of exceptional fighters overcoming much better equipped opponents. The Catalan chronicler Ramon Muntaner recorded than an almogavar (unarmored Aragonese light infantry) once slew five mail-clad mounted French men-at-arms in combat; two he killed with his javelins that pierced their mail, two had their horses brought down with his long spear, after which he cut their throats as they lay pinned under their dead mounts, and the last one had his jaw shattered by a well-thrown rock! On another instance an almogavar put three men-at-arms hors de combat during a boarding fight in a galley, piercing two of them through their visors with his spear and cutting off the greave-clad leg (probably made of hardened leather) of the third with his coutell. Now these all might have been exaggerated, but even if the number of armored knights in those occasions was reduced to one that still would have been an impressive feat on the unarmored fighter part, wouldnt it?
Kevin J. Dildonik
I feel that I have to point out that while what you said is true, there is also another side to the coin. Someone unused to wearing armor would find moving about in it clumsy and possibly disorienting, and in a fight thats very dangerous. 60 or 30 pounds of metal on your body greatly magnify the impact of your balance, not to mention it has huge impact on your stamina in a prolonged combat, induce overheating and dehydration, and in the case of some armor limit the way you can move certain body parts. There was a reason why even well trained warriors in the past often chose not to don their full regalia when the mission required stealth and speed rather than maximum protection. Cheers
The point is not quite as fat as the 1796