“Who was the greatest blademaster of all time?” From the throats of dozens of students came a massed bellow. “Jearom, Gaidin!” “Yes!” Hammar shouted, turning to make sure all heard. “During his lifetime, Jearom fought over ten thousand times, in battle and single combat. He was defeated once. By a farmer with a quarterstaff! Remember that. Remember what you just saw.”
I would just like to point out the duel between Miyamoto Musashi and Sasaki Kojirō. Just because a swordsman is expecting the blow to the head or neck by the large wooden stick does not mean they will be able to stop it. The wise staffman would be able to indefinitely hide behind the longer reach of the weapon and force the swordsman into a bad position and leave them exposed, only striking offensively when the blow cannot be stopped. Matt, in the point you make about the sword doing damage everywhere it hits and the staff only doing damage if it breaks bone or hits the head, I kind of feel like you are underestimating the incapacitating factor of a bone break and overestimating a minor cut to an appendage. I would much rather take a slice to the shin than to have my shin broken in a fight. Or the arm/wrist. Unless you cut tendons the limb is still fully functional, though painfully so, but if you break the bone in that limb you have incapacitated that limb. I also think you miss the point that a long stick can be used to thrust to the sternum, pushing the opponent back and knocking the wind out of them. All from the safety of 8 feet away. I completely agree with you about the staffman being in dire straights against 3 expert swordsmen. I would, however, argue that the staffman at least has a chance of survival and victory in that contest; whereas a swordsman facing 3 expert swordsmen would not. So the staff still has the advantage over the sword in that regard. Now, sharpen one end of that staff, or put a spearhead on it, and it becomes a whole different ballgame. A person wielding a spear, which at its most basic is just a quarterstaff with a sharp point or cutting edge on one end, has a much greater chance of victory. Semper Fi
Agreed, staffs are lethal. Place a good swordsman against a good quarterstaffman and that swordsman is in serious trouble, to contradict otherwise is rather silly.
To break a bone you need quite a lot of momentum, such a strike wouldn't be possible from every position, a sharp sword however can deliver a nasty cut with just the flick of the wrist.
@@arx3516 I feel like you're overestimating how sharp swords generally were/are. An overly sharp edge would fold and be useless after an impact, so most swords take a bit more effort to cut than that. I think Matt even has a video about that if you want to know more
@@lmack3024 i got cut by a kitchen knife by accident once, it cut my skin right into the fat layer under it with little effort. Besides if the sword is for self defence you would want it to be as sharp as possible, go give you the chance to end the fight as soon as possible, and if the blade gets parried or blocked the edge would get damaged only in the portion that made contact with the opponent's weapon, wich is a small area, the rest of the blade is still sharp, a few dents won't change much.
@@arx3516 dents can change a lot for a sword, especially against clothed opponents. a dent on a blades edge can catch the clothing of an opponent and cause it to bunch up, hindering the cut. dents and chips can quickly become a problem even against regular clothing. another point; if the kitchen knife was of half decent quality then it would have been very sharp. kitchen knives are kept incredibly sharp so that they can cut with speed and precision (and it also increases the safety factor of the knife as it can bite into the food more easily, hence preventing blade slippage.)
I'm guessing the quarter staff was cheaper and easier to get away with carrying it to more places with less problems with the law. That's not the case with a sword.
Well, since we're assuming well-trained staff guy, cost doesn't seem to be that much of a factor. Someone willing to put that much time into a skill can most likely afford or loot at least a basic sword - or spear if he wants transferable skill. Law is an entirely different problem - maybe staff vs messer is more in order here.
MartinGreywolf I don't know about the cost thing. There seems to be evidence that even the peasantry in Europe would engage in martial sports like wrestling, pugilism, and quarterstaff fighting. While their schooling may not be as elaborate (or as well-documented) as those of the warrior class, I'm sure that some form of unwritten, informal, master-apprentice training went on in most Medieval communities, as I'm sure it would be in any culture around the world. And it may be just enough schooling to perhaps surprise a sword-wielding brigand or two who thought a low-born shepherd would be easy pickings.
Also a stick can be used as Tool while a sword is more or less only usefull as weapon. So i would also say it is much more common to have a staf then a sword.
I was doing some research on medieval law enforcement and what I found is that the night watch (aka watchmen) in small towns were often armed with a quarterstaff. They also carried a lantern too and I don't know how that would work with staff and lantern fighting.
Obviously, you are the expert, and I it goes almost without saying that a sword is easier to do deadly damage with than a staff. However, I've played lacrosse since I was 10 years old, all the way through college and beyond. I've been hit all over with sticks much lighter than a staff by people who aren't purposely trying to hurt me, and I can say with confidence, that a solid rap to the bone of an unprotected forearm, or the humerus, or just above the ankle will render the hand, arm, or foot in question nearly useless. It has happened to me several times. Obviously the same goes for a sword, but as you said, the staff is more capable of making those hits quickly, and the pain is debilitating. I've barely been able to hold on to my stick let alone do much with it after taking a hit between the pads on my forearm. I had to switch to my weak hand, and I imagine that this effect would be even more pronounced while holding a sword, which requires a fair amount of wrist strength to use well, after being hit with an even heavier quarterstaff. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Are the wrist and shin strikes I mentioned common with a quarterstaff? I suppose a good swordsman or woman wouldn't make it easy for one to hit his or her strong-side wrist, and that is the one that matters.
IIDASHII Yes, certainly a hit with a staff to certain parts of the body can have good effects if given with force. However, the effects of sword cuts and thrusts are much more easily administered. There is a big disparity between the effects of a sharp blade and a stick.
So a surprise hit hurt you, and put you in pain, but in combat I'm telling you that you could steel yourself to that and strike them in that moment. I've had a bone broken in a fight and didn't know about it for hours until all my adrenaline died down and I am certainly not the toughest person. You've taken hits from a lacross stick and been able to do things with the rest of your body. If it had been a fight and you were aware of them attacking you, you could have traded a blow with them and done more damage with a sword. You could have employed techniques to perhaps block, lessen or take the blow to less vulnerable part of your body.
ceomyr Its not a matter of "steeling" oneself when one's hand is literally non-functional. I didn't say it was fool proof. I just think the the amount of damage done by a proper hit from a staff is understated here.
There are different levels of non-functional. You don't have to pen a novel with that hand to win a fight. You can still use a broken hand to block another blow even though that would hurt like hell and do even more damage. You can still use the arm (if not the hand) to interfere with your opponent. You still have your sword arm and legs. A couple more hits like that and you could have more disabled parts and yes absolutely, you or I could lose to someone with a staff. I can see that if a hit from a staff comes in it can hurt you and slow you down and if they keep you at bay those hits are going to be harder to defend as you or I get more injured. It could easily happen, a staff is a weapon and it almost surely has been used successfully. I think you're right that they do damage. I think that it wouldn't take that many hits to an unarmored person to hurt them enough that their ability to fight back is hopelessly impaired. That said, I think the staff is at a disadvantage. If your sword is already coming at them, it's a fraction of a second away from dealing a blow that will disable and eventually kill them. You can survive a staff blow that you partially parried and win with a thrust even though they hit you first. I've seen some sparring between a two handed spear and a long sword, and I'm telling you that if you have a staff like that spear but you need multiple stronger hits or a strong hit to particular smaller targets to win, then I think the sword is a better weapon (though by no means guaranteed of victory).
I think that it depends heavily on the situation and intent of the user (trying to kill?). Reach is a wonderful thing. That said, if I had to choose a melee weapon to fight with in the open, it would be a spear, not a staff.
TheSteelEcho666 The English had some sorcery going on there. The Spanish fall victim to weather, and then in the late 1700s a French armada was going to help the Irish but they also fell victim to the weather.
The conclusion you reach seems to make a clear evolution of the spear and other fast pole-arms. If the downside to the staff is its lack of cutting / wounding ability, then add sharp bits of metal to one or both ends.
4:12 You can also simply attack when they attack and that will prevent them hitting your hand. Physics dictates that their neck will get hit before they get anywhere near your hand. So they'll be forced to block, parry or dodge instead of continuing for your hand.
I watched a guy, who was a trained marshal artist, hit an impact measuring device with a bow stave, not to be confused with a finished bow, and generate 2,000 ft. lbs of force. That's more than enough force to dash a man's brains out or near enough. Even with a helmet it ought to turn out the lights at least for a while. The next issue is that it has been demonstrated that most swords don't actually chop or slash through multiple layers of thick clothing all that well. Just reaching out and touching someone isn't always going to get the job done. You actually do need a good solid hit with the edge properly aligned or a stab from a blade made for stabbing. The skill of the user and the quality of the weapon used is going to make a huge difference. Letting somebody break your arm which is absolutely going to hurt like bleep and is seriously disabling possibly for life is what I call a true desperation move as in are you out of your freaking mind? Are you serious or didn't you bother to think about what you were saying? Sure they may be able to keep fighting but anybody sane is going to know the person with the broken arm is to some degree disabled for some time. Have you ever had a broken arm? I have and it isn't something you can just shrug off.
That's why he advises in a previous clip to let someone break your arms and legs a few times a year, so that you get used to the pain and in time will be able to carry on through the pain during a fight.
Could you make a video about non-lethal blade\other weapons wounds and their long-term consequences, as well as how they were tended to at the time? For example, if one had their sinew cut by a blade in a fight, so much that it does not connect the musckle to the bone anymore, what could be done to fix it and would they fully recover from that? I'm sure there are many descriptions of such things left.
Always can try direct info like GOOGLE and your LOCAL LIBRARY too, than have Matt scour resources and talk about medical injuries from weapons and how they were tended for your lazy ass. These are to SHOW weapons and fighting technique.
***** You're completely missing the point of this. I may already be knowledgeable on the topic, but I want Matt's take on it. The point to requesting a video from him isn't like requesting a lesson from a teacher, or asking someone to google facts for you, it's requesting an interesting and entertaining video because we want to hear Matt talk about it.
It depends, Swords come in so many shapes and sizes that you simply can’t rank “sword” swords arent a type of weapon, they’re a species. A greatsword would simply shatter the shaft of a spear and a long sword has very similar range to a quarterstaff.
It only works with kung fu, trust me i tried. You cant fight in formation, but maybe as a general in ancient china on horse back yeah. Dosent work well against european armor, lances are needed
Staff and Sword can be thought as the difference as a weapon used for war and designed for combat compared to an improvised weapon of sorts. A staff typically comes into playing in situations where the wielder wasn't allowed to have a sword, could not afford a sword or did not have access to a sword or something along the sorts of a far more lethal or dangerous. I'd admit my staff work has been far less then my training in other weapons, but I quite agree with the analysis of this video. However I will add things like, I'd take a staff over a sword if I had no armor and my opponent had heavy armor on, as at that point I'd want range and speed since I can't really inflict flesh wounds easily anyways, or if as stated earlier was not permitted to carry a sword, but was a stick, think using it as a walking stick or cane.
I know fighting is all about the situation, person, styles and all. But these are the videos I've been looking for! I love your site! Keep up the great work!
Lars Lars Pantsonfars It would be hard to cause a debilitating wound with a spearhead that small against an adversary who was moving around; I'm pretty sure you'd give little more than flesh wounds. There's a reason spears and bayonets and such had larger points on them, and it wasn't just to look cool.
Kodos: "They constructed a board with a nail in it, but they won't stop there. They'll construct bigger boards with bigger nails, and then they'll construct a board with a nail in it so large, it will destroy them all!!!"
people can argue this point until we are all blue in the face, but at the end of the day, if the staff was that great as an offensive weapon, why did we not see companies of them fielded in armies? well, shock horror they weren't. they used pole axs or such like. which is basically a quarterstaff with a lump of metal on the end. Great video once again Matt
Rattan, huh? If Luo Guanzhong is to be believed (because Sanguo Yanyi is totally not historical fiction, right?), Meng Huo equipped the Nanman with armor made of that and then, apparently, coated it in some kind of resin. The end result was armor that proved remarkably resistant to conventional weaponry. And it promptly backfired when, y'know, Shu used fire. Turns out coating your armor in something flammable is a really, really bad idea. As for the rest of the video: staves require two hands. There's a pretty significant trade-off there. It can't really be used very effectively in a formation (because, unlike spears, poking someone with it isn't going to kill them). It can't be used with a shield, buckler, or anything like that. And while it's light, it's also physically large. It takes up space. Good luck trying to use it effectively in a house or something. Staves are certainly effective weapons, but they have too many drawbacks to be effective on a large scale. Probably why virtually no one used them in military situations.
Matt L While the episode against the Nanman (which is a derogatory term for the southern tribes) as recorded in SGYY is not historical, the principal as mentioned in the novel does ring true. During Luo Guanzhong's time, shields were made of rattan, and even today you can find ones made in the same style. It is surprisingly resistive to cuts and piercing, especially when realising that rattan is simply a grass, and they're not coated in oil. Though the reasoning for the coating the armour was given by Meng Huo's younger brother Meng You, that they can use it to float along the rivers, rather than making it impervious to bladed weapons which it otherwise would be to an extent.
Kisk79 Had no idea it was derogatory. SGYY and SGZ are both pretty consistent in using it and don't seem to be turning it into a slur when they do so (although that could be the translator toning down any inherent racism in the term). Upon actually looking up the etymology, though, I can see why. What's the preferred term?
Matt L Because it's referring to a collective group of people that include the Hmong, Kinh, Tai, and Bai peoples, as well as many other tribes who all still exist, and there was never any one polity that united them, I don't think there's really any single term that can be used to refer to them. At least nothing that's agreed upon. I think "Southern tribes" (or Nan peoples) is perhaps more appropriate though. However, there's nothing wrong with using "Nanman" in its historical context; using quotations from individuals writing at the time for example. The word itself is rather interesting though, because while today it simply means "Southern Barbarians", when it was originally termed, the character used for "Man" was written with the radical of "insect" or "reptile", and Xu Shen's dictionary of 121 AD describes them as a "snake race". So it seems even at the outset of the word being used, it was a pejorative. What makes that especially painful is when fantasy authors and fans create "snake people" that are based on Asian culture.
Alexander Salt Rattan is technically a vine. Superficially, it looks like bamboo but it's fibrous and damn near indestructible. It also make good furniture.
"Two of the disadvantages of the staff, that staff enthusiasts will argue..." Yep, I like staves, therefore they are without disadvantages - unlike every other weapon in existence. :P
You can cause internal bleeding with a staff and a broken rib can puncture a lung, you don't need to hit them solely on the head. The damage from a staff is immense and breaking a bone can put them at a huge disadvantage. You also have to have the condition of the sword being sharp if it is not maintained then it's useless and it is really hard for swords to cut through trees.
Depends on context. A quarterstaff need less training to be somewhat effective, can be stored easily without having to maintain it, is cheaper to acquire, Is quite effective against both unarmoured and lightly armoured targets furthermore it is unassuming, provides a descent array of blocks and evades for defensive measures and can, if built from hard wood such as vera wood (unassuming & cheap) or especially quebracho (axe breaker) be both hard hitting and able to block attacks even from an axe. Also, there are a number of grappling techniques with a quarterstaff that are meant to subdue an opponent without killing or even seriously injuring them.
Thiago Kurovski True, but a spear is a bladed weapon. You have to take care of the blade, which means more maintenance and a lot of places where you are allowed to wield a quarterstaff, you are not allowed to wield a spear.
Probably explains why, long after discovering the cheap and readily available long hard stick, mankind spent huge intellectual and economic resources on making swords: because swords are better (in most circumstances) at disabling or killing enemies. However, stick a spear tip on the stick, and suddenly the balance of power changes.
Don't forget the biggest part about a sword. You also have the option of an off hand item as well. If the sword guy had a shield that would change everything.
Hey, I just wanted to point out, with respect of course, I'm not trying to dispute anything or nothing, but: I really feel that the whole laceration, damage to bone, and other common methods of incapacitation other than blunt force trauma, they kind of oppose the point of the staff-weapon (I'm a longstaff user, Asian arts, rather'n quarterstaff). When we learn about subtle body points such as meridian points and even just glands, gallbladders, and nerve centers. Mind that I strongly associate the nervous system with energy channels, that affecting a nerve will also have some effect on the prana flow, and vice versa. So rather'n attempting to incapacitate ones opponent through blunt force to the body in order to break bones, one may strike very specific sites on the opponent's body to achieve a similar goal. If one is struck on a certain site in the shoulder, for example, the nerves in that region will shock and their mobility in that area of torso will not work proper. That's just the way I learned to significantly increase the potential of staffweapons, and really any blunt combat, hand to hand is where it is most common of course, we learn it in a number of Asian martial arts. But yeah, I just wanted to put my bit in, as I did not see anything about affecting people's nervous system through what I think of as aggressive acupressure lol But no, it is a very effective method of incapacitation. Cheers then! Thanks for the video, and have a goodun
The problem with attacking nerve clusters is they aren't totally reliable. People's bodies vary enough that you can't rely on striking them with accuracy. Having done a bit of martial arts the number of people I've met who don't feel certain pressure points is quite high for example. Not to mention that when people are really hyped up on adrenaline they can seem to shrug off attacks that don't physically stop them.
Lol try targeting someone in a very specific tiny part of their body that's concealed by clothing and armor while they're charging at you at full speed and flailing around. Good luck.
But what if we stuck a sword on the end of the staff? Checkmate Matt! This is an ingenious idea and I bet nobody has ever thought of it. I should file for a copyright.
Being a "staff person" myself, I definitely agree with you. A staff does a great job of causing injury and is fast with excellent reach, but the force needed to cause a severe wound is achieved much more easily with a sword. Not to mention a staff can't put holes in all your vital organs and some people just get more aggressive after being hit with a stick, in some cases it amounts to something similar to "poking the bear." As much as I love the quarterstaff, I'd take a longsword over it any day if the goal was causing deadly injuries quickly and easily.
No, the staff at that speed can cause injuries just as quickly. It can break skulls, ribs, puncture a lung if said rib is broken or brain if you break their noise and the bone goes upwards. A baseball bat can kill what makes you think a staff can? Now as easily as a sword? No, you're right but a broken hand is worse than a small non lethal cut.
Great point. One of the problems of fencing in general is that the blows are not so realistics and a touch is counted as a fierce cut or thrust. That's good for the security, but we must mantain clear in our mind that hits can be very differents
I believe it is a bit more complicated than you said: tapping someone with a sidesword on the torso which is protected by thick cloth probably will do even less than a stick hitting the side of the torso (kidney, liver). Moreover a staff has not only the head and neck as a target as the legs are vulnerable as well. It might not break them but bring them down or hinder their movement at the least.
Nonetheless a sword has more lethal power and I think that's the point Matt is trying to make, it is much easier to wound/kill a person with a sword than it is with a large stick. If this wasn't true we never would have developed swords in the first place.
agreed. i think matt is a bit of a sword fanboi (shocking i know) and he underestimates how disabling hits to the torso can be. i mean i agree with him in general but if someone breaks your ribs or winds you or even hits you hard enough in the liver then you're out of the fight.
Torc Handsomeson well thats what he actually said. but it still dotn change the fact that if you hit with same force with a sword or axe or hammer it will do more damage. He vever said it does not hurt. he did not say it cant be leathal. he just said that its less leathal than most other weapons. meaning you have to in general hit harder and cleaner with a staff to do significent damage. Against a sword you obviously have a clear reach advantage with a staff. same against an axe . but with a sword or axe even a pretty bad hit can wond you real much. while the staff requires better and harder hits. You can hit someone several times with a staff. hurting him. breaking a finger a rib and so on. while you have much higher chanse to disable the oponent with a hit from a sword or axe. still the staff is a good weapon but it has like all other weapons its drawbacks as well as it has its advantages. and one of the is its less leathal than most other weapons How leathal is a weapon is kinda depends on how easy its to kill or seriously wound your oponent. Even a pen can be leathal but compared to a staff its less deadly. a staff compared to a sword, then the staff is less deadly
edi I could use a rock to crush someones skull, I could even use a ladle, these are traits that all bludgeoning weapons share: apply enough force to the right zone = break bones. The second example you give is the ideal context in which to use a quarterstaff, it is a fantastic disabling weapon, it can pack a solid wallop depending on the user and thereby be used as a lethal weapon, but it truly excels in non lethal combat where the aim is to disable the opponent without killing or grievously wounding them. It is much easier to recover from a broken arm than it is to fully recover from sliced ligaments.
I think this is possibly an issue with blunt weapons in general. You could block a mace, club, even a hammer with part of your body and then stab someone. Even the blunt medieval weapons weren’t completely blunt.. They usually had a spike, blade, some pointy bit to cause heavy bleeding. Try to block a sword with your arm and you’ll lose the arm. Now what if you both have chainmail? The sword guy could stab or go for uncovered areas of the body, while the staff guy can do about as much damage as before because it’s blunt force. I think in an unarmored fight is where swords really shine, and where there’s few weapons as useful as a sword, except for pole-axes, spears etc.
scholagladiatoria please can you demonstrate to those Japan-obsessed freaks that there is not much difrence from cut of a long sword vs staff and cut of katana vs staff ? Do it with 90 degree angle and 45 degree angle cut from both weapons... just prove them how it truly works like, show them effects...
The katana would break and yeah there are stories of katanas break swords but the sword is a thin sharp piece of metal and the staff is a thick piece of solid wood and if the person with the katana tried to defend the staff might break the katana because the katana is very weak
What makes the quarter staff superior to swords is the fact that they are cheap and easy to make... a bit like the Sherman tank in WW2. Swords were and still are much more expensive than a pole you can make yourself, and swords do require considerable more care and maintenance than a staff too.
I personally love the staff and give it great credit for damage, speed, reach and cost. Like any weapon, the effectiveness depends a great deal on the skill of the user. One giant advantage that the sword has is that in a situation where weapons meet, I would have no problem using my free hand to grab an opponent's quarterstaff. I can't say the same about a sword.
You can’t compare “sword” to quarter staff. If your trying to say a quarterstaff is superior to all swords you would be woefully wrong, especially when you consider 13 feet long greatswords. Swords aren’t a type of weapn, they’re a whole class. One of the most diverse classes of medieval weapons.
That is a solid piece of bamboo with no cracks. The strength to weight ratio of that material is superior to most other materials. There are some carbon fiber materials that might be better. A staff like that must be expensive. In order to make a superior staff, an ancient person would need straight grained, high quality, wood. Its difficult to find. An inferior wood with good grain trumps a superior wood with horrible grain.
Legend has it that Musashi, Japan's greatest ever swordsman, only suffered one true defeat in his life and that was at the hands of Gonnosuke, who beat him using a short staff.
Y'know, if I wanted to make a quarterstaff more dangerous, instead of making it heavier I would probably put a sharp, pointy, maybe edgy thingy on the end... Oh, wait... So if you're going to go to the lengths to iron/steel/copper/bronze/unobtanium shod the ends of your staff... wouldn't you just, y'know... get a spear? O.o
What is the superior weapon is such a weird question. It's like , what is the superior utensil , a spoon or a knife? What is the superior hat, a balaclava or a sun visor? Depends what you;re doing.
Jedi Mike Remember when Jason Bourne fought off a guy armed with a knife, with a rolled up magazine? XD Fictional yes, but it was still a good bit of action cinema :).
I certainly take your point about the lesser damage capability of the staff. When you made the comment about the common statement, "A man with a staff can hold off three men with swords" I immediately thought two things; he might hold them off but he won't take them out, and the people with swords better not be good at teamwork. And as you said with your cut and thrust sword video, a heavier staff is also a compromise weapon. People can niggle about minor 'what if' issues all day but ultimately the point (!) remains.
Excellent video. I would like to raise one point though - Part of the skill of the quarterstaff is selecting vulnerable areas as targets. A whack on the arm won't faze an experienced foe...but you do not give enough credit to what a piece of wood moving at high speed can do to an exposed joint or bony area. The shock of impact sends a hand or leg nerveless, cause disarmament or temporary paralysis, maybe even breaking something. Taking the butt in your stomach or solar plexus is going to wind you and freeze you. Sure, a sword in the same place would kill instantly, but then it's a question of 'how much faster and unpredictable is a staff compared to the liklihood of landing a blow with a sword', which is not nearly as clear cut.
Swords do not kill instantly. Nor do bows. Or knives. the person has to experience a lack of oxygen, start to pass out. This is why even shot in the heart or both lungs deer will still run. Often at a full sprint for 100 yards. Sometimes more. Sometimes less. If you take this guys "advice" and toss up and arm as bait that arm will be crushed. The head under that arm will also still get hit, damn hard. And if "he" managed to run you through with his sword..."he" would be the one armed, slightly concussed fool being beat to death defenselessly by a guy with a big stick who is bleeding out. Only CNS hits shut someone down reliably. Sever the spine. Through the brain. Emergency rooms all over the world stitch up guys who have been carved up and stabbed repeatedly like a Christmas ham. Even a spear handle size shaft being whipped around and poked at half speed is more than the human body can handle.
@@theodorewood5083 good points all. Though high power rifles also have instant shutdown effects. Rounds fast enough to cause tearing hydrostatic shock in a large area of tissue (instantly liquifying a large volume of vital tissue) will put down a deer and a human instantly. See the second Rittenhouse attacker. He was mid sprint and was down and out in about a second. That bullet obliterated the contents his entire rib cage.
@@forsakenquery Its not as simple as speed. The fact you seem to think rifle shape, feed type, function have anything to do with it at all is troublesome. That platform and as a matter of fact the 223/5.56 round itself has been banned in some areas for its failure to down game. Surely some of is poorly placed shots, using the wrong bullet for the application but the point stands. For one, death by high-speed projectile is not reliably instant. people will argue in circles if it is an effect of primary, secondary and tertiary damage to the nervous system, or a "wave" through the system. Although I believe you can find data suggesting both may be at play. On the battlefield the platform failed in many, many areas. Special forces asked for a different round in the platform because, you guessed it, it lacked stopping power. They were shooting people, who decided they were going to keep fighting for a bit. Kind of folds in nicely to the conversations start. they ended up taking the 30 carbine round if i remember and putting a light .270 (6.8) bullet in it and landing on a speed/weight/surface area compromise. Im not sure if they actually adopted it. Extreme examples aside. People and animals do not reliably flop over and die even today with modern weapons.
I think the big reason for the popularity of the quarter staff is that it's no -lethal and it's a lot cheaper than the sword. That's probably why it was and still is so popular is you don't have to kill with it and it's so much cheaper than a sword.
I frankly think you are far underestimating the damage possible with a hard fast staff thrust. I can easily see cracked ribs, ruptured organs, and other damage just from simple staff punches into the center of mass. Each punch would also hold the swordsman at bay, a full staff length away and unable to respond. You might want to re-read your Sweatnam.
That is retarded. I played lacrosse with traditional wooden shafts. Poke checks from atheletes wanting to deal damage are NOTHING compared to slashes. Though, take outs do WAY more damage than any stick or club.
Quarter staff is better if you're not looking to kill anyone and still defend yourself. Like you scholagladiatoria said, an expert staff user is able to hold 3 swordsman at bay. Probably why monks prefer it as a weapon.
You left out the part where they're novice swordsmen. The problem is that three opponents means three separate angles of attack. If you're up against expert swordsmen, you're going to get surrounded and stabbed to death unless the terrain is very favorable to you.
Joshua Rutterbush thats true, best way to handle this situation is to funnel the 3 into a line. Like fighting in an alley, where they cant surround you and you fully use the reach advantage
Harvey Kent I think that you, and most people are forgetting a very important thing. you don't duel every day. a sword, a proper fighting sword, just isn't very useful. a quarter staff? walking stick, which is much more useful when you don't even have a trail to follow, carry pole, tent pole, poke that thing at a distance stick, it's not particularly threatening, but can be remarkably effective as a weapon. you can even sacrifice it for whatever end confident that you can afford to make another one... it is just a good everyday tool that can deal with violent problems.... also remember that a broken bone could mean slow death, or crippled for life... a sharp rap on the ankle could do as much real harm whether it was a sword or a quarter staff.
Vidar D All of those reasons are why I'm glad that currently my college allows me to bring my staff. It isn't an actual quarterstaff, but it is more of staff with one really good bashing end. But basically when it comes to defence, it's basically 5 inch knife or my staff. I also made it myself with basically a pocket knife, so yeah, it's something for me.
Found this video whilst researching staffs as something to learn, from this your videos seem super interesting, informed and informative, thanks! I'd argue tho that the staff is not a weapon designed to fight against swords, yes a competent swordsman could beat a good staffs-man but theirs a reason they say the staff is the weapon of the poor, it has an insane advantage over most everyday weapons that would be available to normal people in working class/peasant communities from fists or a rock up to even smaller bladed articles, knives, etc. Anyway, these are just my thoughts, going to watch the next videos now, thanks for spending the time to make this stuff! xx
I didn't even believe this could be a debate until this video and the comments on it. How anyone could honestly believe a stick is better than a sword generally in combat is a mystery to me. What do these people think, that everyone who ever invented or chose to use a sword is just dim? I mean honestly, if a stick is superior, explain all of history. Amazing.
+Brandon ”Innomen” Sergent This is one of those things that I find scholagladiatoria is good at highlighting; There aren't really that many weapons that are inherently superior to other weapons, because all weapons have their niche based on when they were made, by whom, and most importantly, what they were used for. Quarterstaffs are great... for being extremely cheap and simple to make and maybe putting up a decent defense if you're well-trained in its use, but they really are not great at killing people. You can kill someone if you hit them very hard in the head with one, but most likely that would take several whacks, and every other melee weapon would do the job quicker, wether it is a spear, a sword, an axe, or even a much shorter, heavier stick (in other words, a club). This is before you even get into the problems with armor and shields that completley cripple a quarterstaff's ability to do damage.
HellbirdIV So essentially a QS has logistical advantages over all the purpose build weapons and people are conflating QS as a platform vs QS as an object. Thus training with a QS is in a sense a good investment of time because 1, much of that training is valid for other weapons, and 2, a QS or equivalent is essentially readily available everywhere you're likely to be. But still, it baffles me that anyone would apples to apples seriously think a QS is superior to a sword.
+Brandon “Innomen” Sergent Spear>Quarterstaff>Sword. Here's why the quarter staff gets skipped over through history... because you make the end pointy and it's then technically a spear. What's amazing is that anyone would ever think any kind of sword would have an advantage on a banded and/or capped quarter staff (or even a normal one) which is basically a 7 foot double ended flanged mace, and if you engineer it well you loose barely any speed at all. But the take home is if you make one of those ends a knife or a hammer, it's a vastly better weapon aka spear, pike, halberd, those pole hammer things...
Houston Davis _"What's amazing is that anyone would ever think any kind of sword would have an advantage on a banded and/or capped quarter staff..."_ That's weird to me. The video explained why a sword does indeed have the advantage. I mean a sword cuts stuff. One good hit virtually anywhere and you're dead from blood loss. Similar good hits on most places on the body with a staff and you've got a broken bone pretty much. I mean sure there are plenty of ways to kill a person in one hit with a staff but it's way harder because the target area is smaller and you'd having to do internal damage. You hit a tensed muscle and I'm basically just getting a bruise. Do the same with a sword and I have a bleeding gash and a useless limb. If I had to fight someone and choose sword or quarter staff and the other guy got what I didn't pick, I'd pick sword. He'd probably win because I'm a wimp with no training but I think it would be a lot easier to get lucky with a sword than a quarter staff. Hell I might even just try to throw the thing and tackle the dude. I know I'm not going to get cut by the staff. /shrugs Heh, irl I have a cdwl and I'm pretty good about avoiding conflict I think and I live in a pretty safe town so this is all academic for me X)
Brandon Sergent _“That's weird to me. The video explained why a sword does indeed have the advantage. I mean a sword cuts stuff. One good hit virtually anywhere and you're dead from blood loss.”_ Basically the video is wrong in this regard. The notion that a sword is going to get a good lethal cut through even leather armor is a stretch. And medically the idea that just any kind of cut with a sword is life threatening is just crazy-town. If you could get a good thrust to the torso with no armor or just crap leather or cloth armor then yes, that’s trouble. _“Similar good hits on most places on the body with a staff and you've got a broken bone pretty much. I mean sure there are plenty of ways to kill a person in one hit with a staff but it's way harder because the target area is smaller and you'd having to do internal damage. You hit a tensed muscle and I'm basically just getting a bruise. Do the same with a sword and I have a bleeding gash and a useless limb.”_ This is where I get honestly baffled. You are not just getting a bruise. If someone got caught in the arm or leg full force with a quarter staff they can kiss that limb good-bye, FOREVER, and they would mostly like die from the injury (back in the day I mean) because that bone is shattered to shit. And no one really keeps fighting with a broken limb. No one’s gonna black knight it “I’ll bite your legs off!” Head=dead. And if you get caught in the torso you better have some kind of plate on cause eventually your ribs are gonna get turned in from the jabs. _“If I had to fight someone and choose sword or quarter staff and the other guy got what I didn't pick, I'd pick sword.”_ I would totally pick the quarterstaff. Better reach, better defense, and I’d rather get cut then crushed. If it was no armor I _might_ pick the sword if I was confident I could get inside. But I’m not trained at all to do that so I wouldn’t be confident haha. _“I think it would be a lot easier to get lucky with a sword than a quarter staff. Hell I might even just try to throw the thing and tackle the dude. I know I'm not going to get cut by the staff.”_ The Staff is 6 or 7 or even 8 feet, so 72-96 inches. The sword is 36-54 (longer blades were unwieldy and often illegal even to those who could carry), so out of the gate you’re starting with HALF the reach (mostly likely it would be 84 vs 36ish). You can’t get lucky if you can’t get close. The guy with the quarter staff only needs to keep you at distance long enough to get one good crack at you from literally _any_ direction. Which shouldn’t be hard to do considering the quarter staff guy can jab you without you being able to reach to tag him back with the sword.
how could three guys with practically any weapon lose to a guy with a quarterstaff? couldn't the other two simply tackle him and grab ahold of the staff while he attacks the third person? i suppose they would have to be timid, and not willing to risk their lives for their allies in that fight.
how is the quaterstaff against armor? sounds like if you hit someone in the head who has a padded helmet, it not going to kill them, and the staff man will be open for attack from the swordsman. Also what is your opinion on holding the staff with both hands in the middle? 1/3 1.3
Well for this you can look to the S.C.A. They use rattan for their swords and the main piece of armor that is required is a good helm. I have been hit quite a good whack in the head, certainly one that without a helm would have cracked my skull. As it was it just made me stumble a bit, hardly enough to matter. So I imagine that your assessment is correct. If you only have a staff and a full armored opponent comes up your best bet is to thrust to his head if you can and use that split second to run.
hit in the helmet does nothing, in my reconstruction one handed training sword bash on the head all the time, and even strong hit with dane-axe not penetrate helmet
swietoslaw Are you using an actual Danish Axe or a lighter practice one? Penetration isn't necessary. The concussive force of the axe is enough to cause disorientation, a concussion or even neck injuries. All of which set you up nicely for a kill.
swietoslaw That's because you were sparring, not really fighting. If someone hit you in the head with a quarterstaff with full force you would get a concussion at the very least. In medieval times padding wasn't really worn for protection, but to make the armor more comfortable. Medieval helmets or armor in general were not very shock resistant.
Haha I like how you point out that you can block an incoming blow with a limb. A friend of mine "attacked" me with a staff last week (only using 25% speed) for fun and I blocked it and closed the distance, now another guy saw this and says "you couldn't do that if he went with 100% speed. Well stupid as I am I tell my friend to aim for my head with 100% speed, first he hesitated but after ensuring him I knew what I was doing, he did it. I blocked it with my arm as I moved in and demonstrated a hit to the nose (I didn't touch him, my fist was 2 cm from his face, cuz you know, I don't wanna hurt him xD ) Anyways my point is, yes you can actually use a limb to block, it is gonna hurt like hell (think I almost broke my wrist) but it is better to hurt a limb than lose your life.
Thats why people didnt carry staffs to wars. Cuts on arms can damage nerves, making ur arm unusable. Staffs can break bones.But bones are harder,much harder.
A historical account of a Quarterstaff incident stated that a farmer had hit his neighbour and left a wound 8inches long and four/five inches deep to his head. Don't underestimate the power of the stick. The stick used by this guy is historically way too short and light. It looks like a Japanese bo. Rely on people who actually used them to kill and defend themselves against people trying to kill them rather than modern experts relying on safe sparring.
This seems like a slightly poor analysis, it wouldnt take a very heavy staff to be fairly devastating to an unarmored opponent. A strike to an arm could turn into a block instantly.
From what I know of quarter staffs, the biggest advantages were the reach and the speed. They are very fast, and a big part of that is that you can literally grab them anywhere, so if it is knocked aside or wide, instead of having to bring that end back you can just spin it around and use the opposite end. You can block/attack with any part of the weapon as well, so it is very versatile. They aren't as deadly as traditional weapons, obviously, but a popular way to increase the effectiveness was to add spikes to the end. This limited where you could grab it, but was still worth the trade off. Also, a precise hit to the chest, neck or head could still be lethal. The biggest problem was always that they were absolutely useless against armored opponents. The most you could hope for would be to maybe disarm or trip them (It is VERY difficult to stand up in full armor), but you had no way to damage them. Overall they are good weapons that can be deadly, but really only in self-defense. One of the biggest advantages, I think, would be that they were uncommon, so opponents might underestimate them and/or be caught off guard.
This whole vlog and forum smack of "my kung-fu is stronger than your kung-fu!" all over again. Both weapons only really deliver decisive blows in the hands of a trained wielder. If both warriors are well trained, I would say the staff has a SMALL advantage. If both are novices, then I give the advantage to the sword. To those that claim they have fended off staff strikes with bare hands, or can grab a staff for advantage, I say that you have NEVER fought a skilled staff wielder. To grab the staff of a master might well be the last thing you do. To those that think the strikes of a staff are weak, I've seen a full grown man in metal armor fly through the air after being hit with a padded staff. It always boils down to WHO is fighting, not with WHAT. As to those who ask "why do so many carry swords into combat?", I have the answer: swords were a status symbol. Being very expensive to buy, a good sword was 'bling' to the warriors of history, proof that he was of high social standing. OH so many fail to realize the most common war implement of the middle ages were farm implements, as most armies were conscript... all eyes turn to the high ranking knights, with expensive armor, weapons, and of course horses.
My humble opinion is that this video is more valuable in raising discussion than providing information much by itself. Though the uploader doesn't suggest that his interpretation is the final one, seems he favors swords over quarterstaff. Personally I believe that a substantial opinion would have to consider a lot of things like 1 vs 1 combat or formation combat, space available, terrain and what I think was totally ignored in the discussions - armor presence. One very good reason of having sharp edges and points in weaponry is because of the need to overcome armor before going through skin and flesh and bones and reach vital organs. Against plate armor a quarterstaff would have very small effect. And while as some people rightly mentioned, a thrust with the blunt end of a quarterstaff against solar plexus or throat or some other sensitive part, would have great effect, those would be few targets available in the opponent, while a sword having both edge and point would exploit any possible target in the opponent.
Thrusts with a staff, similar to a spear, to the throat, solar plexus, and groin/bladder of the opponent could be pretty effective in my opinion. You don't have to just swing the staff to do damage to an opponent. But mostly I agree, it's a stick and a sword has an edge and a point to work with.
The main force of hitting with the staff comes from leverage not weight. If you do full length "roundhouse" attacks they will do a lot of damage (though obviously still not a lot of bleeding).
I love your channel! I have been a subber for a couple of years(maybe longer) How did I miss these videos?!?! I love quarter staffs, I take a lot of walks and live in the rural area(mountains, creeks, etc) of The State of Kentucky. I enjoy using my quarter staff as a walking stick, for when I'm walking my pup, or just hiking.
I would say it would depend on the staff's tactics. If you keep your distance and aim for the arms and legs, you don't need to knock them out or cause heavy blunt force trauma. The staff can cause quite a lot of pain on the wrist and ankles (and the area around them if you miss slightly), or the side of the knees even, and it would impair the swordsperson's fighting ability. You can't fight well if you have trouble holding your arm or sword up, or have trouble walking. I say wrist because hand guards don't necessarily protect the wrist, and certainly not from attacks from the side of the guard during say, a counter to a sword thrust. And even if your hits mainly fall on the guard, that still has the effect of making them grip harder and tiring their hand. Or you can use the reach advantage to bind parry. The staff has better leverage, even against two handed swords because you can change the position of the fulcrum. Then let's not forget blows to the gonads. Yes, swords can do that too, but that generally opens up the swordsperson to an attack more than it does for staffs. Obviously you would need more patience with a staff, since the sword is more efficiently dangerous.
Also, you can not only bind the sword, but you can also bind their arms, sometimes even at the same time as the sword. You can also bind their legs, or trip them up if the opportunity arises (eg, you feint a retreat and catch them while they're either running at you or even just a lunge). Or if you can get a staff thrust to their chest, you can push them away, or use them to push yourself away.
With this approach, though, you fall into the age-old "Ultimate hero vs. ultimate evil" issue: the good guy needs to win every single fight, while the bad guy only needs to win once. Yes, you can whack at your opponent's arms and legs in the hopes of hurting them enough to gain an advantage of some sort... but that's going to take a long time and a lot of hits, while your sword-wielding opponent only needs to score one or two good hits to end the fight in their favor.
Don't know if you've ever been whacked with a staff on the wrist or ankles before, but you don't need a lot of hits to make the sword wrist or the ankles hurt enough to be disabling enough to not be able to fight properly. And did I mention the gonads? The point being is that the tactics matter a lot, not just standalone considerations of one or few hits. A person with a staff versus a sword would have to move about a lot more and probably predominantly sideways evasive counterattacks.
If you have superhuman powers to always have your tactics work regardless of opponent and you always hit someone's sword wrist or groin or whatever and magically defend against everything and everything then you can probably win against any mere mortal, with any weapon, or no weapon at all, because you're magic. Yes tactics help, but there are simple tactics to counter your tactics. It's not like you've come up with any sure fire way to win. I've seen people lose in spear versus sword sparring session where your specific tactics were basically employed (hit them while being cautious to defend and keep distance) except it was even easier for them as they only needed one hit to win and it didn't even have to be a hard hit to small specific moving targets. The leverage of the two handed spear and a moving fulcrum never seemed to matter even though they did get into clinches with their weapons. In those situations it seemed just as likely for the sword to win. Based on seeing sparring between some fighters who looked pretty good with sword versus spear, I'd be hesitant to say the quarterstaff has a decisive advantage. A spear wins out most of the time, sure, but not by so much that it would be safe for them to always get multiple hits before their opponent is disabled and it wasn't such a magically fast weapon as to guarantee shots against small targets on an opponent who is fighting back. If you suddenly changed the rules and the practice spear became a practice quarter staff that had to hit specific targets or strike hard maybe multiple times to win, suddenly the sword wielder could afford to take a hit or two to non vital locations when charging and end up winning most of the time.
I mention tactics, because it is clear from the video and everyone else's comments that they envision a certain style of staff against a sword and did not consider the necessity of the staff wielder to play a completely different game plan from the "stand and deliver". Namely, the staff wielder would probably be doing more running away and keeping distance. That is not a hard tactic to make work. Getting joint and groin hits may be harder, but constantly backing away (to the side) is not that difficult.
That backsword is a really nice thing. Really good looking. :) And it makes me wanna have one and fence with it. Looks very elegant, aestetic and practical. Ontopic.: Ive tried this with a friend. Ended with a wound on his hand and some hits on my head and limbs ^^
I think staves would be a great option for police/guards/security type operations where lethality wasn't necessarily wanted. Anybody know of this ever being a thing?
A few people have mentioned that the only time Miyamoto Musashi ever lost a duel, it was to a man with a staff. But remember: Musashi and Musō Gonnosuke fought two duels, and Musashi won the first. In that duel, Gonnosuke used a bo staff (basically a Japanese quarterstaff). Musashi defeated him via the technique described in the video: he got in too close for the long staff to be useful. Musō Gonnosuke entered seclusion and developed a new art using the short staff, or jo. He then challenged Musashi to a rematch, and won. I think what this means is that there is no "best weapon." A long staff is better in some situations, a heavy sword for others, a light sword for others, a short staff for still others, and a spear may be the bestest thing ever in some other situation. Axes, daggers, they all have some situation where they are the very best weapon to have.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the way to make the staff more capable of causing injury is to put a metal point on the end and turn it into a spear.
+chrisofnottingham Jabs with it can be pretty nasty. Going for the neck and nuts is cheap, easy to block and annoying-- But you do it enough and it'll mess with their psyche and eventually one will get through. Obviously, it's not very sportsman-like to do in a sparring match. But in dire situation, anything goes.
If you have to weigh down your staff with butt caps and blades to be effective, guess what, you might as well get something else that most of us on this planet call a spear. ;)
I've given this match a lot of thought too. The staff fighter is an eggshell compared to the damage the sword fighter can take before he goes down, but the staff fighter has the advantage most of the time. I once wondered if gloves could mitigate the problem of not having hand protection, but gloves can be a little irritating to work with when using a staff. When you slide you hands, you either get too much grip or too little. And If you had some kickass gauntlets, you probably wouldn't be using a staff anyway. I must admit, I'm a big staff fan. Aside from being a weapon, they are great tools for all sorts of other, more mundane tasks. Maybe the staff is popular because despite being humble, it's also pretty effective and useful for all kinds of things.
I'm commenting on your discussion of a staff man able to hold off 3 swordsmen. One person can fight multiple attackers by continuing moving and keep the attackers directly in front of you not allowing them to surround you. The defender actually ends up fighting one attacker at a time with the other attackers getting in each others way. I used this technique in karate and it worked well.
I totally agree. Simply trying to find a staff person to sparr against someone with a steel training sword is a good indicator that they are not very confident. Mostly they decline, because their staff could get damaged, or other excuses...
What kind of staff man takes a committed hit at an enemy's head with no movement? Also the take the hit tactic assumes that you don't get knocked off balance by the strike. Good video but that suicide tactic is just not thought through. Staffs often had cuts, nubs, etc in the end for twisting and tearing. Bamboo and rattan staffs were sometimes cut at an angle on the end to make them spear like.
Y'know, I'm not convinced. I've only just started screwing around with a quarterstaff after about 7 years of sword and board, and I'd already rather use a quarterstaff than just a sword (obviously a shield changes things). Mine is 6' long, 1 1/2" thick maple, and it moved lighting quick and I'm absolutely convinced that I could break bone without much trouble
Nice to know that all the Jackie Chan movies where he picks up a random wooden pole and has to hit people on the body many many times is actually accurate.
the stick sounds to me like a perfect weapon for a pacifist fighter who doesn't want to hurt his opponents, just incapacitate them You mentioned the flanged mace, I always wondered how much strength a flanged mace actually has and what it does when it hits a human body or a piece of armor. of course it hurts, but how much?
Can you cover use of the basket hilt sword and targe, how does having full hand protection change the use of a shield, and why do sabers at least intially tend to have less hand protection then baskethilt swords?
I think that if you want to block a staff strike with your forearm, you'd need to move in close before the block, otherwise you'd have no chance at slowing it down.
The man is superior when he masters how to use a chosen tool as a weapon.The hands are quicker than a person with a pistol, is is only practice that make you a master.Only .00001% would train with a pistol because they think the gun is almighty so why practice.
the staff has something about it that can be said today. it has lasted as a practical skill to learn for modern defense in the case of hiking with a walking stick. swords are not common carry items any more. as a traveler in the middle ages (given the proper funds) I would likely carry a staff with a sword at my side. I would use the staff as a walking stick until attacked then use the staff until my first chance to draw my sword for use.
Probably depends on the type of armor and type of sword/staff. Plate armor is gonna be hard to pierce or cut but will also have padding to block the relatively light impact of a staff just about anywhere but the head. Chain mail might still block a sword but it would do less well against the impact so in that case both weapons only break bone and the longer reach might win out.
I like your vids. Always well thought out. In actuality though it's just a argument of "ifs and buts". Until you have two men stand in and actually put these theories to the test,that is take a solid hit from a staff then you cannot say at least with any certainty that being "hit with a stick" could not incapacitate a attacker armed with a sword. Until that happens even the most knowledgeable opinion is just that. A opinion.
“Who was the greatest blademaster of all time?”
From the throats of dozens of students came a massed bellow. “Jearom, Gaidin!”
“Yes!” Hammar shouted, turning to make sure all heard. “During his lifetime, Jearom fought over ten thousand times, in battle and single combat. He was defeated once. By a farmer with a quarterstaff! Remember that. Remember what you just saw.”
Rip Robert Jordan 🫡
I would just like to point out the duel between Miyamoto Musashi and Sasaki Kojirō. Just because a swordsman is expecting the blow to the head or neck by the large wooden stick does not mean they will be able to stop it. The wise staffman would be able to indefinitely hide behind the longer reach of the weapon and force the swordsman into a bad position and leave them exposed, only striking offensively when the blow cannot be stopped.
Matt, in the point you make about the sword doing damage everywhere it hits and the staff only doing damage if it breaks bone or hits the head, I kind of feel like you are underestimating the incapacitating factor of a bone break and overestimating a minor cut to an appendage. I would much rather take a slice to the shin than to have my shin broken in a fight. Or the arm/wrist. Unless you cut tendons the limb is still fully functional, though painfully so, but if you break the bone in that limb you have incapacitated that limb. I also think you miss the point that a long stick can be used to thrust to the sternum, pushing the opponent back and knocking the wind out of them. All from the safety of 8 feet away.
I completely agree with you about the staffman being in dire straights against 3 expert swordsmen. I would, however, argue that the staffman at least has a chance of survival and victory in that contest; whereas a swordsman facing 3 expert swordsmen would not. So the staff still has the advantage over the sword in that regard. Now, sharpen one end of that staff, or put a spearhead on it, and it becomes a whole different ballgame. A person wielding a spear, which at its most basic is just a quarterstaff with a sharp point or cutting edge on one end, has a much greater chance of victory.
Semper Fi
Agreed, staffs are lethal. Place a good swordsman against a good quarterstaffman and that swordsman is in serious trouble, to contradict otherwise is rather silly.
To break a bone you need quite a lot of momentum, such a strike wouldn't be possible from every position, a sharp sword however can deliver a nasty cut with just the flick of the wrist.
@@arx3516 I feel like you're overestimating how sharp swords generally were/are. An overly sharp edge would fold and be useless after an impact, so most swords take a bit more effort to cut than that. I think Matt even has a video about that if you want to know more
@@lmack3024 i got cut by a kitchen knife by accident once, it cut my skin right into the fat layer under it with little effort. Besides if the sword is for self defence you would want it to be as sharp as possible, go give you the chance to end the fight as soon as possible, and if the blade gets parried or blocked the edge would get damaged only in the portion that made contact with the opponent's weapon, wich is a small area, the rest of the blade is still sharp, a few dents won't change much.
@@arx3516 dents can change a lot for a sword, especially against clothed opponents. a dent on a blades edge can catch the clothing of an opponent and cause it to bunch up, hindering the cut. dents and chips can quickly become a problem even against regular clothing. another point; if the kitchen knife was of half decent quality then it would have been very sharp. kitchen knives are kept incredibly sharp so that they can cut with speed and precision (and it also increases the safety factor of the knife as it can bite into the food more easily, hence preventing blade slippage.)
I'm guessing the quarter staff was cheaper and easier to get away with carrying it to more places with less problems with the law. That's not the case with a sword.
Well, since we're assuming well-trained staff guy, cost doesn't seem to be that much of a factor. Someone willing to put that much time into a skill can most likely afford or loot at least a basic sword - or spear if he wants transferable skill.
Law is an entirely different problem - maybe staff vs messer is more in order here.
MartinGreywolf I don't know about the cost thing. There seems to be evidence that even the peasantry in Europe would engage in martial sports like wrestling, pugilism, and quarterstaff fighting. While their schooling may not be as elaborate (or as well-documented) as those of the warrior class, I'm sure that some form of unwritten, informal, master-apprentice training went on in most Medieval communities, as I'm sure it would be in any culture around the world. And it may be just enough schooling to perhaps surprise a sword-wielding brigand or two who thought a low-born shepherd would be easy pickings.
Also a stick can be used as Tool while a sword is more or less only usefull as weapon. So i would also say it is much more common to have a staf then a sword.
I was doing some research on medieval law enforcement and what I found is that the night watch (aka watchmen) in small towns were often armed with a quarterstaff. They also carried a lantern too and I don't know how that would work with staff and lantern fighting.
Michael Walz This is why I like the dagger as a defensive/parrying weapon say over a buckler or something.
Obviously, you are the expert, and I it goes almost without saying that a sword is easier to do deadly damage with than a staff. However, I've played lacrosse since I was 10 years old, all the way through college and beyond. I've been hit all over with sticks much lighter than a staff by people who aren't purposely trying to hurt me, and I can say with confidence, that a solid rap to the bone of an unprotected forearm, or the humerus, or just above the ankle will render the hand, arm, or foot in question nearly useless. It has happened to me several times. Obviously the same goes for a sword, but as you said, the staff is more capable of making those hits quickly, and the pain is debilitating. I've barely been able to hold on to my stick let alone do much with it after taking a hit between the pads on my forearm. I had to switch to my weak hand, and I imagine that this effect would be even more pronounced while holding a sword, which requires a fair amount of wrist strength to use well, after being hit with an even heavier quarterstaff. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Are the wrist and shin strikes I mentioned common with a quarterstaff? I suppose a good swordsman or woman wouldn't make it easy for one to hit his or her strong-side wrist, and that is the one that matters.
IIDASHII Yes, certainly a hit with a staff to certain parts of the body can have good effects if given with force. However, the effects of sword cuts and thrusts are much more easily administered. There is a big disparity between the effects of a sharp blade and a stick.
So a surprise hit hurt you, and put you in pain, but in combat I'm telling you that you could steel yourself to that and strike them in that moment. I've had a bone broken in a fight and didn't know about it for hours until all my adrenaline died down and I am certainly not the toughest person.
You've taken hits from a lacross stick and been able to do things with the rest of your body. If it had been a fight and you were aware of them attacking you, you could have traded a blow with them and done more damage with a sword. You could have employed techniques to perhaps block, lessen or take the blow to less vulnerable part of your body.
ceomyr Its not a matter of "steeling" oneself when one's hand is literally non-functional. I didn't say it was fool proof. I just think the the amount of damage done by a proper hit from a staff is understated here.
There are different levels of non-functional. You don't have to pen a novel with that hand to win a fight. You can still use a broken hand to block another blow even though that would hurt like hell and do even more damage. You can still use the arm (if not the hand) to interfere with your opponent. You still have your sword arm and legs. A couple more hits like that and you could have more disabled parts and yes absolutely, you or I could lose to someone with a staff.
I can see that if a hit from a staff comes in it can hurt you and slow you down and if they keep you at bay those hits are going to be harder to defend as you or I get more injured. It could easily happen, a staff is a weapon and it almost surely has been used successfully. I think you're right that they do damage. I think that it wouldn't take that many hits to an unarmored person to hurt them enough that their ability to fight back is hopelessly impaired.
That said, I think the staff is at a disadvantage. If your sword is already coming at them, it's a fraction of a second away from dealing a blow that will disable and eventually kill them. You can survive a staff blow that you partially parried and win with a thrust even though they hit you first.
I've seen some sparring between a two handed spear and a long sword, and I'm telling you that if you have a staff like that spear but you need multiple stronger hits or a strong hit to particular smaller targets to win, then I think the sword is a better weapon (though by no means guaranteed of victory).
I think that it depends heavily on the situation and intent of the user (trying to kill?). Reach is a wonderful thing. That said, if I had to choose a melee weapon to fight with in the open, it would be a spear, not a staff.
I just noticed that if your ears was a little longer and pointier you would be an elf.
+Jinseual Cannot unsee
+Jinseual to be fair, if anyone's ears were a little longer and pointer, they'd be an elf.
Or Vulcans.
i noticed most youtube comments are like you, 13 years old.
Fant Asm I would be happy to feel young again, so many things in my life I would have changed if I went back to 13.
Matt, everyone in England knows that, in the 16th century an English soldier could easily beat 3 armored Spaniards with his bare hands!
Or an armada of them with the weather.
Cold Steel Fanboy Katana Lover , I just wanted to tell you that your name is beautiful. Never change :)
Three whole Spaniards? That's as many as ten Frenchmen!
TheSteelEcho666 The English had some sorcery going on there. The Spanish fall victim to weather, and then in the late 1700s a French armada was going to help the Irish but they also fell victim to the weather.
Andrew Penman Yes, we called upon the ancient sky god "Joggonotep" who crushed the foe in the name of glorious England.
The conclusion you reach seems to make a clear evolution of the spear and other fast pole-arms. If the downside to the staff is its lack of cutting / wounding ability, then add sharp bits of metal to one or both ends.
I mean, a baseball bat is my answer to that let's see if that cannot kill a person.
4:12
You can also simply attack when they attack and that will prevent them hitting your hand.
Physics dictates that their neck will get hit before they get anywhere near your hand.
So they'll be forced to block, parry or dodge instead of continuing for your hand.
I watched a guy, who was a trained marshal artist, hit an impact measuring device with a bow stave, not to be confused with a finished bow, and generate 2,000 ft. lbs of force. That's more than enough force to dash a man's brains out or near enough. Even with a helmet it ought to turn out the lights at least for a while. The next issue is that it has been demonstrated that most swords don't actually chop or slash through multiple layers of thick clothing all that well. Just reaching out and touching someone isn't always going to get the job done. You actually do need a good solid hit with the edge properly aligned or a stab from a blade made for stabbing.
The skill of the user and the quality of the weapon used is going to make a huge difference.
Letting somebody break your arm which is absolutely going to hurt like bleep and is seriously disabling possibly for life is what I call a true desperation move as in are you out of your freaking mind? Are you serious or didn't you bother to think about what you were saying? Sure they may be able to keep fighting but anybody sane is going to know the person with the broken arm is to some degree disabled for some time. Have you ever had a broken arm? I have and it isn't something you can just shrug off.
That's why he advises in a previous clip to let someone break your arms and legs a few times a year, so that you get used to the pain and in time will be able to carry on through the pain during a fight.
@@stonem0013 🤣😂😆😁😉
You need a giant pencil sharpener
Could you make a video about non-lethal blade\other weapons wounds and their long-term consequences, as well as how they were tended to at the time? For example, if one had their sinew cut by a blade in a fight, so much that it does not connect the musckle to the bone anymore, what could be done to fix it and would they fully recover from that? I'm sure there are many descriptions of such things left.
History would have plenty of such cases, i'm interested to know too
A very good Question, I too would love some insight into what sort of wounds soldiers and civilians were likely to encounter in fights.
This could be and interesting topic.
Always can try direct info like GOOGLE and your LOCAL LIBRARY too, than have Matt scour resources and talk about medical injuries from weapons and how they were tended for your lazy ass. These are to SHOW weapons and fighting technique.
***** You're completely missing the point of this. I may already be knowledgeable on the topic, but I want Matt's take on it. The point to requesting a video from him isn't like requesting a lesson from a teacher, or asking someone to google facts for you, it's requesting an interesting and entertaining video because we want to hear Matt talk about it.
This is one of the clearest descriptions of a subject that I have seen. Really good. I learn new things from this guy, and that is a good thing.
Now make the staff a spear, and the "staff" suddenly is almost always supperior.
It depends, Swords come in so many shapes and sizes that you simply can’t rank “sword” swords arent a type of weapon, they’re a species. A greatsword would simply shatter the shaft of a spear and a long sword has very similar range to a quarterstaff.
*simply adds a pointed metal parts at each end of quarterstaff* now you have a two headed spear!, profit
It only works with kung fu, trust me i tried. You cant fight in formation, but maybe as a general in ancient china on horse back yeah. Dosent work well against european armor, lances are needed
"if you break a bone, you're not going to incapacitate your opponent" - Matt Easton 2015
in addition to hits to the head, dont forget that hits to the spine may be crippling as well. Great video series!
Staff and Sword can be thought as the difference as a weapon used for war and designed for combat compared to an improvised weapon of sorts. A staff typically comes into playing in situations where the wielder wasn't allowed to have a sword, could not afford a sword or did not have access to a sword or something along the sorts of a far more lethal or dangerous. I'd admit my staff work has been far less then my training in other weapons, but I quite agree with the analysis of this video. However I will add things like, I'd take a staff over a sword if I had no armor and my opponent had heavy armor on, as at that point I'd want range and speed since I can't really inflict flesh wounds easily anyways, or if as stated earlier was not permitted to carry a sword, but was a stick, think using it as a walking stick or cane.
I know fighting is all about the situation, person, styles and all. But these are the videos I've been looking for! I love your site! Keep up the great work!
So the problem with the staff is that it has no pointy end to stick 'em with.
Put a good 2 inch spike on the end, and walla, a valid weapon! aka, a spear -_-
Lars Lars Pantsonfars
A 2 inch spike would not make for much of a spearhead.
Traditionally, no. Functionally, yes it would. Maybe you'd just call it a "spiked staff", but it would do the same job as a spear.
Lars Lars Pantsonfars
It would be hard to cause a debilitating wound with a spearhead that small against an adversary who was moving around; I'm pretty sure you'd give little more than flesh wounds. There's a reason spears and bayonets and such had larger points on them, and it wasn't just to look cool.
Kodos: "They constructed a board with a nail in it, but they won't stop there. They'll construct bigger boards with bigger nails, and then they'll construct a board with a nail in it so large, it will destroy them all!!!"
people can argue this point until we are all blue in the face, but at the end of the day, if the staff was that great as an offensive weapon, why did we not see companies of them fielded in armies? well, shock horror they weren't. they used pole axs or such like. which is basically a quarterstaff with a lump of metal on the end. Great video once again Matt
Rattan, huh? If Luo Guanzhong is to be believed (because Sanguo Yanyi is totally not historical fiction, right?), Meng Huo equipped the Nanman with armor made of that and then, apparently, coated it in some kind of resin. The end result was armor that proved remarkably resistant to conventional weaponry. And it promptly backfired when, y'know, Shu used fire. Turns out coating your armor in something flammable is a really, really bad idea.
As for the rest of the video: staves require two hands. There's a pretty significant trade-off there. It can't really be used very effectively in a formation (because, unlike spears, poking someone with it isn't going to kill them). It can't be used with a shield, buckler, or anything like that. And while it's light, it's also physically large. It takes up space. Good luck trying to use it effectively in a house or something. Staves are certainly effective weapons, but they have too many drawbacks to be effective on a large scale. Probably why virtually no one used them in military situations.
Matt L While the episode against the Nanman (which is a derogatory term for the southern tribes) as recorded in SGYY is not historical, the principal as mentioned in the novel does ring true. During Luo Guanzhong's time, shields were made of rattan, and even today you can find ones made in the same style. It is surprisingly resistive to cuts and piercing, especially when realising that rattan is simply a grass, and they're not coated in oil. Though the reasoning for the coating the armour was given by Meng Huo's younger brother Meng You, that they can use it to float along the rivers, rather than making it impervious to bladed weapons which it otherwise would be to an extent.
Kisk79
Had no idea it was derogatory. SGYY and SGZ are both pretty consistent in using it and don't seem to be turning it into a slur when they do so (although that could be the translator toning down any inherent racism in the term). Upon actually looking up the etymology, though, I can see why.
What's the preferred term?
Matt L
Because it's referring to a collective group of people that include the Hmong, Kinh, Tai, and Bai peoples, as well as many other tribes who all still exist, and there was never any one polity that united them, I don't think there's really any single term that can be used to refer to them. At least nothing that's agreed upon.
I think "Southern tribes" (or Nan peoples) is perhaps more appropriate though. However, there's nothing wrong with using "Nanman" in its historical context; using quotations from individuals writing at the time for example.
The word itself is rather interesting though, because while today it simply means "Southern Barbarians", when it was originally termed, the character used for "Man" was written with the radical of "insect" or "reptile", and Xu Shen's dictionary of 121 AD describes them as a "snake race". So it seems even at the outset of the word being used, it was a pejorative. What makes that especially painful is when fantasy authors and fans create "snake people" that are based on Asian culture.
Matt L Interestingly, the Japanese called the portuguese Nanban, which is exactly the same as Nanman: Southern Barbarians.
Alexander Salt Rattan is technically a vine. Superficially, it looks like bamboo but it's fibrous and damn near indestructible. It also make good furniture.
"Two of the disadvantages of the staff, that staff enthusiasts will argue..."
Yep, I like staves, therefore they are without disadvantages - unlike every other weapon in existence. :P
Matt, are you going to talk about "polearm vs sword *in armour*" topic?
You can cause internal bleeding with a staff and a broken rib can puncture a lung, you don't need to hit them solely on the head. The damage from a staff is immense and breaking a bone can put them at a huge disadvantage. You also have to have the condition of the sword being sharp if it is not maintained then it's useless and it is really hard for swords to cut through trees.
Depends on context. A quarterstaff need less training to be somewhat effective, can be stored easily without having to maintain it, is cheaper to acquire, Is quite effective against both unarmoured and lightly armoured targets furthermore it is unassuming, provides a descent array of blocks and evades for defensive measures and can, if built from hard wood such as vera wood (unassuming & cheap) or especially quebracho (axe breaker) be both hard hitting and able to block attacks even from an axe.
Also, there are a number of grappling techniques with a quarterstaff that are meant to subdue an opponent without killing or even seriously injuring them.
Context is overrated.
***** Ninjas will disagree. At least half of Ninjitsu is changing context by surprising, blinding or distracting your opponent.
***** Depends on the context.
Thiago Kurovski True, but a spear is a bladed weapon. You have to take care of the blade, which means more maintenance and a lot of places where you are allowed to wield a quarterstaff, you are not allowed to wield a spear.
Swords can be qite effective untrained just hack at the fellow
Probably explains why, long after discovering the cheap and readily available long hard stick, mankind spent huge intellectual and economic resources on making swords: because swords are better (in most circumstances) at disabling or killing enemies. However, stick a spear tip on the stick, and suddenly the balance of power changes.
Don't forget the biggest part about a sword. You also have the option of an off hand item as well. If the sword guy had a shield that would change everything.
And most importantly, sword has a pommel, THAT changes everything.
Great video, Matt. I love how you string the topics of your videos to kind of reply to each other.
Hey, I just wanted to point out, with respect of course, I'm not trying to dispute anything or nothing, but: I really feel that the whole laceration, damage to bone, and other common methods of incapacitation other than blunt force trauma, they kind of oppose the point of the staff-weapon (I'm a longstaff user, Asian arts, rather'n quarterstaff). When we learn about subtle body points such as meridian points and even just glands, gallbladders, and nerve centers. Mind that I strongly associate the nervous system with energy channels, that affecting a nerve will also have some effect on the prana flow, and vice versa.
So rather'n attempting to incapacitate ones opponent through blunt force to the body in order to break bones, one may strike very specific sites on the opponent's body to achieve a similar goal.
If one is struck on a certain site in the shoulder, for example, the nerves in that region will shock and their mobility in that area of torso will not work proper.
That's just the way I learned to significantly increase the potential of staffweapons, and really any blunt combat, hand to hand is where it is most common of course, we learn it in a number of Asian martial arts.
But yeah, I just wanted to put my bit in, as I did not see anything about affecting people's nervous system through what I think of as aggressive acupressure lol
But no, it is a very effective method of incapacitation.
Cheers then! Thanks for the video, and have a goodun
The problem with attacking nerve clusters is they aren't totally reliable. People's bodies vary enough that you can't rely on striking them with accuracy. Having done a bit of martial arts the number of people I've met who don't feel certain pressure points is quite high for example. Not to mention that when people are really hyped up on adrenaline they can seem to shrug off attacks that don't physically stop them.
Lol try targeting someone in a very specific tiny part of their body that's concealed by clothing and armor while they're charging at you at full speed and flailing around. Good luck.
I really love the way your clearly elucidate your topic. Well done!
if I had a dollar for every time something was explained "very simply."
But what if we stuck a sword on the end of the staff? Checkmate Matt! This is an ingenious idea and I bet nobody has ever thought of it. I should file for a copyright.
Did you ever hit your camera while making these videos?
No.
don't be a kill joy, just lie to us.
+Amiibo Charles ok, yes i have
3:44
what a retarded question, this guy must be pokemon fan, 13 years old.
Being a "staff person" myself, I definitely agree with you. A staff does a great job of causing injury and is fast with excellent reach, but the force needed to cause a severe wound is achieved much more easily with a sword. Not to mention a staff can't put holes in all your vital organs and some people just get more aggressive after being hit with a stick, in some cases it amounts to something similar to "poking the bear." As much as I love the quarterstaff, I'd take a longsword over it any day if the goal was causing deadly injuries quickly and easily.
No, the staff at that speed can cause injuries just as quickly. It can break skulls, ribs, puncture a lung if said rib is broken or brain if you break their noise and the bone goes upwards. A baseball bat can kill what makes you think a staff can? Now as easily as a sword? No, you're right but a broken hand is worse than a small non lethal cut.
The sword obviously wins. The quarterstaff has no pommel to end them rightly.
topkek
dunno, you ever seen a baseball game?
+merlijn van helm it's a reference to a video Skallagrim did. There's a bit of a meme among his fans based on it.
I made a quarterstaff that consists of a bunch of pommels stacked end on end.
merlijn van helm that meme went over your head so much it ended someone rightly
Great point. One of the problems of fencing in general is that the blows are not so realistics and a touch is counted as a fierce cut or thrust. That's good for the security, but we must mantain clear in our mind that hits can be very differents
I believe it is a bit more complicated than you said: tapping someone with a sidesword on the torso which is protected by thick cloth probably will do even less than a stick hitting the side of the torso (kidney, liver). Moreover a staff has not only the head and neck as a target as the legs are vulnerable as well. It might not break them but bring them down or hinder their movement at the least.
Nonetheless a sword has more lethal power and I think that's the point Matt is trying to make, it is much easier to wound/kill a person with a sword than it is with a large stick. If this wasn't true we never would have developed swords in the first place.
agreed. i think matt is a bit of a sword fanboi (shocking i know) and he underestimates how disabling hits to the torso can be. i mean i agree with him in general but if someone breaks your ribs or winds you or even hits you hard enough in the liver then you're out of the fight.
hazardouslaugh
The staff is a bit like the mace: you can crush someones skull with it or youuse it to knock someone down and capture him.
Torc Handsomeson well thats what he actually said. but it still dotn change the fact that if you hit with same force with a sword or axe or hammer it will do more damage.
He vever said it does not hurt. he did not say it cant be leathal. he just said that its less leathal than most other weapons. meaning you have to in general hit harder and cleaner with a staff to do significent damage.
Against a sword you obviously have a clear reach advantage with a staff. same against an axe . but with a sword or axe even a pretty bad hit can wond you real much. while the staff requires better and harder hits.
You can hit someone several times with a staff. hurting him. breaking a finger a rib and so on. while you have much higher chanse to disable the oponent with a hit from a sword or axe.
still the staff is a good weapon but it has like all other weapons its drawbacks as well as it has its advantages. and one of the is its less leathal than most other weapons
How leathal is a weapon is kinda depends on how easy its to kill or seriously wound your oponent. Even a pen can be leathal but compared to a staff its less deadly. a staff compared to a sword, then the staff is less deadly
edi I could use a rock to crush someones skull, I could even use a ladle, these are traits that all bludgeoning weapons share: apply enough force to the right zone = break bones. The second example you give is the ideal context in which to use a quarterstaff, it is a fantastic disabling weapon, it can pack a solid wallop depending on the user and thereby be used as a lethal weapon, but it truly excels in non lethal combat where the aim is to disable the opponent without killing or grievously wounding them. It is much easier to recover from a broken arm than it is to fully recover from sliced ligaments.
I think this is possibly an issue with blunt weapons in general. You could block a mace, club, even a hammer with part of your body and then stab someone. Even the blunt medieval weapons weren’t completely blunt.. They usually had a spike, blade, some pointy bit to cause heavy bleeding. Try to block a sword with your arm and you’ll lose the arm. Now what if you both have chainmail? The sword guy could stab or go for uncovered areas of the body, while the staff guy can do about as much damage as before because it’s blunt force. I think in an unarmored fight is where swords really shine, and where there’s few weapons as useful as a sword, except for pole-axes, spears etc.
Or you could just use katana and cut the staff in half along with the user... and the fort behind him.
TenshiCZ The problem with the katanas is that they frequently cut entire countries in half and this causes lots of political disturbances.
scholagladiatoria please can you demonstrate to those Japan-obsessed freaks that there is not much difrence from cut of a long sword vs staff and cut of katana vs staff ?
Do it with 90 degree angle and 45 degree angle cut from both weapons... just prove them how it truly works like, show them effects...
ss4456 He probably already did
I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not but the katana actually kind of sucks.
The katana would break and yeah there are stories of katanas break swords but the sword is a thin sharp piece of metal and the staff is a thick piece of solid wood and if the person with the katana tried to defend the staff might break the katana because the katana is very weak
What makes the quarter staff superior to swords is the fact that they are cheap and easy to make... a bit like the Sherman tank in WW2. Swords were and still are much more expensive than a pole you can make yourself, and swords do require considerable more care and maintenance than a staff too.
I personally love the staff and give it great credit for damage, speed, reach and cost. Like any weapon, the effectiveness depends a great deal on the skill of the user. One giant advantage that the sword has is that in a situation where weapons meet, I would have no problem using my free hand to grab an opponent's quarterstaff. I can't say the same about a sword.
Galen H I don’t know, if for whatever reason I was REALLY fighting someone, I would choose grabbing their sword over getting killed
I do as long as it is stationary
You can’t compare “sword” to quarter staff. If your trying to say a quarterstaff is superior to all swords you would be woefully wrong, especially when you consider 13 feet long greatswords. Swords aren’t a type of weapn, they’re a whole class. One of the most diverse classes of medieval weapons.
Sure but that's IF you can catch it but your hand will be broken making it useless and if you break the sword hand then they got no weapon.
That is a solid piece of bamboo with no cracks. The strength to weight ratio of that material is superior to most other materials. There are some carbon fiber materials that might be better. A staff like that must be expensive. In order to make a superior staff, an ancient person would need straight grained, high quality, wood. Its difficult to find. An inferior wood with good grain trumps a superior wood with horrible grain.
That big white wall behind you is crying out for a display of weaponry.
Legend has it that Musashi, Japan's greatest ever swordsman, only suffered one true defeat in his life and that was at the hands of Gonnosuke, who beat him using a short staff.
And musashi won fights with oars too.l
Y'know, if I wanted to make a quarterstaff more dangerous, instead of making it heavier I would probably put a sharp, pointy, maybe edgy thingy on the end... Oh, wait...
So if you're going to go to the lengths to iron/steel/copper/bronze/unobtanium shod the ends of your staff... wouldn't you just, y'know... get a spear? O.o
Quarterstaff, the next generation of mythical OP weapon after katanas
What is the superior weapon is such a weird question. It's like , what is the superior utensil , a spoon or a knife? What is the superior hat, a balaclava or a sun visor? Depends what you;re doing.
Jedi Mike Exacty.
Well said.
Jedi Mike Remember when Jason Bourne fought off a guy armed with a knife, with a rolled up magazine? XD
Fictional yes, but it was still a good bit of action cinema :).
Jedi Mike The acoubra is the superior hat, regardless of circumstance
musicalcarpentry Bollocks, what if... er... oh... allright, fair call.
I certainly take your point about the lesser damage capability of the staff. When you made the comment about the common statement, "A man with a staff can hold off three men with swords" I immediately thought two things; he might hold them off but he won't take them out, and the people with swords better not be good at teamwork. And as you said with your cut and thrust sword video, a heavier staff is also a compromise weapon.
People can niggle about minor 'what if' issues all day but ultimately the point (!) remains.
Excellent video. I would like to raise one point though -
Part of the skill of the quarterstaff is selecting vulnerable areas as targets. A whack on the arm won't faze an experienced foe...but you do not give enough credit to what a piece of wood moving at high speed can do to an exposed joint or bony area. The shock of impact sends a hand or leg nerveless, cause disarmament or temporary paralysis, maybe even breaking something. Taking the butt in your stomach or solar plexus is going to wind you and freeze you. Sure, a sword in the same place would kill instantly, but then it's a question of 'how much faster and unpredictable is a staff compared to the liklihood of landing a blow with a sword', which is not nearly as clear cut.
Swords do not kill instantly. Nor do bows. Or knives. the person has to experience a lack of oxygen, start to pass out. This is why even shot in the heart or both lungs deer will still run. Often at a full sprint for 100 yards. Sometimes more. Sometimes less. If you take this guys "advice" and toss up and arm as bait that arm will be crushed. The head under that arm will also still get hit, damn hard. And if "he" managed to run you through with his sword..."he" would be the one armed, slightly concussed fool being beat to death defenselessly by a guy with a big stick who is bleeding out.
Only CNS hits shut someone down reliably. Sever the spine. Through the brain.
Emergency rooms all over the world stitch up guys who have been carved up and stabbed repeatedly like a Christmas ham. Even a spear handle size shaft being whipped around and poked at half speed is more than the human body can handle.
@@theodorewood5083 good points all. Though high power rifles also have instant shutdown effects. Rounds fast enough to cause tearing hydrostatic shock in a large area of tissue (instantly liquifying a large volume of vital tissue) will put down a deer and a human instantly. See the second Rittenhouse attacker. He was mid sprint and was down and out in about a second. That bullet obliterated the contents his entire rib cage.
@@forsakenquery Irrelevant pre 2000fps projectiles.
@@theodorewood5083 any AR 15 type rifle exceeds this by 50% or more.
@@forsakenquery Its not as simple as speed. The fact you seem to think rifle shape, feed type, function have anything to do with it at all is troublesome. That platform and as a matter of fact the 223/5.56 round itself has been banned in some areas for its failure to down game. Surely some of is poorly placed shots, using the wrong bullet for the application but the point stands.
For one, death by high-speed projectile is not reliably instant. people will argue in circles if it is an effect of primary, secondary and tertiary damage to the nervous system, or a "wave" through the system. Although I believe you can find data suggesting both may be at play. On the battlefield the platform failed in many, many areas. Special forces asked for a different round in the platform because, you guessed it, it lacked stopping power. They were shooting people, who decided they were going to keep fighting for a bit. Kind of folds in nicely to the conversations start. they ended up taking the 30 carbine round if i remember and putting a light .270 (6.8) bullet in it and landing on a speed/weight/surface area compromise. Im not sure if they actually adopted it.
Extreme examples aside. People and animals do not reliably flop over and die even today with modern weapons.
I think the big reason for the popularity of the quarter staff is that it's no -lethal and it's a lot cheaper than the sword. That's probably why it was and still is so popular is you don't have to kill with it and it's so much cheaper than a sword.
I frankly think you are far underestimating the damage possible with a hard fast staff thrust. I can easily see cracked ribs, ruptured organs, and other damage just from simple staff punches into the center of mass. Each punch would also hold the swordsman at bay, a full staff length away and unable to respond.
You might want to re-read your Sweatnam.
That is retarded. I played lacrosse with traditional wooden shafts. Poke checks from atheletes wanting to deal damage are NOTHING compared to slashes.
Though, take outs do WAY more damage than any stick or club.
I just had a great idea! Since the problem with the staff is that it isn't sharp, we could place a sharpened metal end on the top of it!
Quarter staff is better if you're not looking to kill anyone and still defend yourself. Like you scholagladiatoria said, an expert staff user is able to hold 3 swordsman at bay. Probably why monks prefer it as a weapon.
You left out the part where they're novice swordsmen. The problem is that three opponents means three separate angles of attack. If you're up against expert swordsmen, you're going to get surrounded and stabbed to death unless the terrain is very favorable to you.
Joshua Rutterbush thats true, best way to handle this situation is to funnel the 3 into a line. Like fighting in an alley, where they cant surround you and you fully use the reach advantage
Harvey Kent I think that you, and most people are forgetting a very important thing. you don't duel every day. a sword, a proper fighting sword, just isn't very useful. a quarter staff? walking stick, which is much more useful when you don't even have a trail to follow, carry pole, tent pole, poke that thing at a distance stick, it's not particularly threatening, but can be remarkably effective as a weapon. you can even sacrifice it for whatever end confident that you can afford to make another one... it is just a good everyday tool that can deal with violent problems....
also remember that a broken bone could mean slow death, or crippled for life... a sharp rap on the ankle could do as much real harm whether it was a sword or a quarter staff.
Vidar D All of those reasons are why I'm glad that currently my college allows me to bring my staff. It isn't an actual quarterstaff, but it is more of staff with one really good bashing end. But basically when it comes to defence, it's basically 5 inch knife or my staff. I also made it myself with basically a pocket knife, so yeah, it's something for me.
Drew Dorman You are a massive nerd.
Found this video whilst researching staffs as something to learn, from this your videos seem super interesting, informed and informative, thanks!
I'd argue tho that the staff is not a weapon designed to fight against swords, yes a competent swordsman could beat a good staffs-man but theirs a reason they say the staff is the weapon of the poor, it has an insane advantage over most everyday weapons that would be available to normal people in working class/peasant communities from fists or a rock up to even smaller bladed articles, knives, etc. Anyway, these are just my thoughts, going to watch the next videos now, thanks for spending the time to make this stuff! xx
I'd say a competent staffsman can be a swordsman too. Musashi lost to a staffman.
I reeeeally love that basket hilt sword 😍😍😍
If you are a Mage and your Quarterstaff is a Magic Staff, you can do a lot of damage in melee combat :)
I didn't even believe this could be a debate until this video and the comments on it.
How anyone could honestly believe a stick is better than a sword generally in combat is a mystery to me.
What do these people think, that everyone who ever invented or chose to use a sword is just dim? I mean honestly, if a stick is superior, explain all of history.
Amazing.
+Brandon ”Innomen” Sergent This is one of those things that I find scholagladiatoria is good at highlighting; There aren't really that many weapons that are inherently superior to other weapons, because all weapons have their niche based on when they were made, by whom, and most importantly, what they were used for. Quarterstaffs are great... for being extremely cheap and simple to make and maybe putting up a decent defense if you're well-trained in its use, but they really are not great at killing people.
You can kill someone if you hit them very hard in the head with one, but most likely that would take several whacks, and every other melee weapon would do the job quicker, wether it is a spear, a sword, an axe, or even a much shorter, heavier stick (in other words, a club). This is before you even get into the problems with armor and shields that completley cripple a quarterstaff's ability to do damage.
HellbirdIV
So essentially a QS has logistical advantages over all the purpose build weapons and people are conflating QS as a platform vs QS as an object.
Thus training with a QS is in a sense a good investment of time because 1, much of that training is valid for other weapons, and 2, a QS or equivalent is essentially readily available everywhere you're likely to be.
But still, it baffles me that anyone would apples to apples seriously think a QS is superior to a sword.
+Brandon “Innomen” Sergent Spear>Quarterstaff>Sword. Here's why the quarter staff gets skipped over through history... because you make the end pointy and it's then technically a spear.
What's amazing is that anyone would ever think any kind of sword would have an advantage on a banded and/or capped quarter staff (or even a normal one) which is basically a 7 foot double ended flanged mace, and if you engineer it well you loose barely any speed at all.
But the take home is if you make one of those ends a knife or a hammer, it's a vastly better weapon aka spear, pike, halberd, those pole hammer things...
Houston Davis
_"What's amazing is that anyone would ever think any kind of sword would have an advantage on a banded and/or capped quarter staff..."_
That's weird to me. The video explained why a sword does indeed have the advantage.
I mean a sword cuts stuff. One good hit virtually anywhere and you're dead from blood loss.
Similar good hits on most places on the body with a staff and you've got a broken bone pretty much. I mean sure there are plenty of ways to kill a person in one hit with a staff but it's way harder because the target area is smaller and you'd having to do internal damage. You hit a tensed muscle and I'm basically just getting a bruise. Do the same with a sword and I have a bleeding gash and a useless limb.
If I had to fight someone and choose sword or quarter staff and the other guy got what I didn't pick, I'd pick sword.
He'd probably win because I'm a wimp with no training but I think it would be a lot easier to get lucky with a sword than a quarter staff.
Hell I might even just try to throw the thing and tackle the dude. I know I'm not going to get cut by the staff.
/shrugs
Heh, irl I have a cdwl and I'm pretty good about avoiding conflict I think and I live in a pretty safe town so this is all academic for me X)
Brandon Sergent
_“That's weird to me. The video explained why a sword does indeed have the advantage. I mean a sword cuts stuff. One good hit virtually anywhere and you're dead from blood loss.”_
Basically the video is wrong in this regard. The notion that a sword is going to get a good lethal cut through even leather armor is a stretch. And medically the idea that just any kind of cut with a sword is life threatening is just crazy-town. If you could get a good thrust to the torso with no armor or just crap leather or cloth armor then yes, that’s trouble.
_“Similar good hits on most places on the body with a staff and you've got a broken bone pretty much. I mean sure there are plenty of ways to kill a person in one hit with a staff but it's way harder because the target area is smaller and you'd having to do internal damage. You hit a tensed muscle and I'm basically just getting a bruise. Do the same with a sword and I have a bleeding gash and a useless limb.”_
This is where I get honestly baffled. You are not just getting a bruise. If someone got caught in the arm or leg full force with a quarter staff they can kiss that limb good-bye, FOREVER, and they would mostly like die from the injury (back in the day I mean) because that bone is shattered to shit. And no one really keeps fighting with a broken limb. No one’s gonna black knight it “I’ll bite your legs off!” Head=dead. And if you get caught in the torso you better have some kind of plate on cause eventually your ribs are gonna get turned in from the jabs.
_“If I had to fight someone and choose sword or quarter staff and the other guy got what I didn't pick, I'd pick sword.”_
I would totally pick the quarterstaff. Better reach, better defense, and I’d rather get cut then crushed. If it was no armor I _might_ pick the sword if I was confident I could get inside. But I’m not trained at all to do that so I wouldn’t be confident haha.
_“I think it would be a lot easier to get lucky with a sword than a quarter staff. Hell I might even just try to throw the thing and tackle the dude. I know I'm not going to get cut by the staff.”_
The Staff is 6 or 7 or even 8 feet, so 72-96 inches. The sword is 36-54 (longer blades were unwieldy and often illegal even to those who could carry), so out of the gate you’re starting with HALF the reach (mostly likely it would be 84 vs 36ish). You can’t get lucky if you can’t get close. The guy with the quarter staff only needs to keep you at distance long enough to get one good crack at you from literally _any_ direction. Which shouldn’t be hard to do considering the quarter staff guy can jab you without you being able to reach to tag him back with the sword.
Casually saying I have a thick shaft lmao
how could three guys with practically any weapon lose to a guy with a quarterstaff? couldn't the other two simply tackle him and grab ahold of the staff while he attacks the third person? i suppose they would have to be timid, and not willing to risk their lives for their allies in that fight.
Thiago Kurovski Exactly.
I encourage any martial artist to try it. Fighting multiple opponents with any level of contact is a horrible (and very fun) experience. :)
Soullessnut It all depends on the skill of the people involved.
Essentially the knife vs baseball bat debate again, unfortunately we can see the results all too often... The knife almost always comes out on top.
how is the quaterstaff against armor? sounds like if you hit someone in the head who has a padded helmet, it not going to kill them, and the staff man will be open for attack from the swordsman.
Also what is your opinion on holding the staff with both hands in the middle? 1/3 1.3
Good question.
Well for this you can look to the S.C.A. They use rattan for their swords and the main piece of armor that is required is a good helm. I have been hit quite a good whack in the head, certainly one that without a helm would have cracked my skull. As it was it just made me stumble a bit, hardly enough to matter. So I imagine that your assessment is correct. If you only have a staff and a full armored opponent comes up your best bet is to thrust to his head if you can and use that split second to run.
hit in the helmet does nothing, in my reconstruction one handed training sword bash on the head all the time, and even strong hit with dane-axe not penetrate helmet
swietoslaw
Are you using an actual Danish Axe or a lighter practice one? Penetration isn't necessary. The concussive force of the axe is enough to cause disorientation, a concussion or even neck injuries. All of which set you up nicely for a kill.
swietoslaw That's because you were sparring, not really fighting. If someone hit you in the head with a quarterstaff with full force you would get a concussion at the very least. In medieval times padding wasn't really worn for protection, but to make the armor more comfortable. Medieval helmets or armor in general were not very shock resistant.
4:00 Or possibly move the lead hand back while also simultaneously thrusting with the back hand in manner of the 'pool que' thrust?
Haha I like how you point out that you can block an incoming blow with a limb. A friend of mine "attacked" me with a staff last week (only using 25% speed) for fun and I blocked it and closed the distance, now another guy saw this and says "you couldn't do that if he went with 100% speed. Well stupid as I am I tell my friend to aim for my head with 100% speed, first he hesitated but after ensuring him I knew what I was doing, he did it. I blocked it with my arm as I moved in and demonstrated a hit to the nose (I didn't touch him, my fist was 2 cm from his face, cuz you know, I don't wanna hurt him xD ) Anyways my point is, yes you can actually use a limb to block, it is gonna hurt like hell (think I almost broke my wrist) but it is better to hurt a limb than lose your life.
Thats why people didnt carry staffs to wars. Cuts on arms can damage nerves, making ur arm unusable. Staffs can break bones.But bones are harder,much harder.
A historical account of a Quarterstaff incident stated that a farmer had hit his neighbour and left a wound 8inches long and four/five inches deep to his head. Don't underestimate the power of the stick. The stick used by this guy is historically way too short and light. It looks like a Japanese bo. Rely on people who actually used them to kill and defend themselves against people trying to kill them rather than modern experts relying on safe sparring.
I'm amazed the cabinet behind you survived this video with its glass doors intact.
This seems like a slightly poor analysis, it wouldnt take a very heavy staff to be fairly devastating to an unarmored opponent. A strike to an arm could turn into a block instantly.
It looks like someone's never been hit with a stick before
From what I know of quarter staffs, the biggest advantages were the reach and the speed. They are very fast, and a big part of that is that you can literally grab them anywhere, so if it is knocked aside or wide, instead of having to bring that end back you can just spin it around and use the opposite end. You can block/attack with any part of the weapon as well, so it is very versatile. They aren't as deadly as traditional weapons, obviously, but a popular way to increase the effectiveness was to add spikes to the end. This limited where you could grab it, but was still worth the trade off. Also, a precise hit to the chest, neck or head could still be lethal.
The biggest problem was always that they were absolutely useless against armored opponents. The most you could hope for would be to maybe disarm or trip them (It is VERY difficult to stand up in full armor), but you had no way to damage them.
Overall they are good weapons that can be deadly, but really only in self-defense. One of the biggest advantages, I think, would be that they were uncommon, so opponents might underestimate them and/or be caught off guard.
Well, if you coated the end in metal it becomes like a mace so it can do well against armor. Bo staff's are very deadly like so is a baseball bat.
This whole vlog and forum smack of "my kung-fu is stronger than your kung-fu!" all over again. Both weapons only really deliver decisive blows in the hands of a trained wielder. If both warriors are well trained, I would say the staff has a SMALL advantage. If both are novices, then I give the advantage to the sword.
To those that claim they have fended off staff strikes with bare hands, or can grab a staff for advantage, I say that you have NEVER fought a skilled staff wielder. To grab the staff of a master might well be the last thing you do. To those that think the strikes of a staff are weak, I've seen a full grown man in metal armor fly through the air after being hit with a padded staff.
It always boils down to WHO is fighting, not with WHAT. As to those who ask "why do so many carry swords into combat?", I have the answer: swords were a status symbol. Being very expensive to buy, a good sword was 'bling' to the warriors of history, proof that he was of high social standing. OH so many fail to realize the most common war implement of the middle ages were farm implements, as most armies were conscript... all eyes turn to the high ranking knights, with expensive armor, weapons, and of course horses.
My humble opinion is that this video is more valuable in raising discussion than providing information much by itself. Though the uploader doesn't suggest that his interpretation is the final one, seems he favors swords over quarterstaff. Personally I believe that a substantial opinion would have to consider a lot of things like 1 vs 1 combat or formation combat, space available, terrain and what I think was totally ignored in the discussions - armor presence. One very good reason of having sharp edges and points in weaponry is because of the need to overcome armor before going through skin and flesh and bones and reach vital organs. Against plate armor a quarterstaff would have very small effect. And while as some people rightly mentioned, a thrust with the blunt end of a quarterstaff against solar plexus or throat or some other sensitive part, would have great effect, those would be few targets available in the opponent, while a sword having both edge and point would exploit any possible target in the opponent.
Thrusts with a staff, similar to a spear, to the throat, solar plexus, and groin/bladder of the opponent could be pretty effective in my opinion. You don't have to just swing the staff to do damage to an opponent. But mostly I agree, it's a stick and a sword has an edge and a point to work with.
It's a thick piece of would you can coat with metal at the ends. A baseball bat is a stick too but wouldn't want to get hit by that.
Also, the swordsman obviously has the range advantage, since he can unscrew his pommel and throw it at the Staff man to end him rightly.
Quarterstaves have some specific bodily targets, elbow, knee, collar bone, throat, groin, the parts that break when struck by a quarterstaff.
The main force of hitting with the staff comes from leverage not weight. If you do full length "roundhouse" attacks they will do a lot of damage (though obviously still not a lot of bleeding).
TheCalcaholic lol
I love your channel! I have been a subber for a couple of years(maybe longer) How did I miss these videos?!?! I love quarter staffs, I take a lot of walks and live in the rural area(mountains, creeks, etc) of The State of Kentucky. I enjoy using my quarter staff as a walking stick, for when I'm walking my pup, or just hiking.
I would say it would depend on the staff's tactics. If you keep your distance and aim for the arms and legs, you don't need to knock them out or cause heavy blunt force trauma. The staff can cause quite a lot of pain on the wrist and ankles (and the area around them if you miss slightly), or the side of the knees even, and it would impair the swordsperson's fighting ability. You can't fight well if you have trouble holding your arm or sword up, or have trouble walking. I say wrist because hand guards don't necessarily protect the wrist, and certainly not from attacks from the side of the guard during say, a counter to a sword thrust.
And even if your hits mainly fall on the guard, that still has the effect of making them grip harder and tiring their hand. Or you can use the reach advantage to bind parry. The staff has better leverage, even against two handed swords because you can change the position of the fulcrum.
Then let's not forget blows to the gonads. Yes, swords can do that too, but that generally opens up the swordsperson to an attack more than it does for staffs.
Obviously you would need more patience with a staff, since the sword is more efficiently dangerous.
Also, you can not only bind the sword, but you can also bind their arms, sometimes even at the same time as the sword. You can also bind their legs, or trip them up if the opportunity arises (eg, you feint a retreat and catch them while they're either running at you or even just a lunge).
Or if you can get a staff thrust to their chest, you can push them away, or use them to push yourself away.
With this approach, though, you fall into the age-old "Ultimate hero vs. ultimate evil" issue: the good guy needs to win every single fight, while the bad guy only needs to win once. Yes, you can whack at your opponent's arms and legs in the hopes of hurting them enough to gain an advantage of some sort... but that's going to take a long time and a lot of hits, while your sword-wielding opponent only needs to score one or two good hits to end the fight in their favor.
Don't know if you've ever been whacked with a staff on the wrist or ankles before, but you don't need a lot of hits to make the sword wrist or the ankles hurt enough to be disabling enough to not be able to fight properly. And did I mention the gonads?
The point being is that the tactics matter a lot, not just standalone considerations of one or few hits. A person with a staff versus a sword would have to move about a lot more and probably predominantly sideways evasive counterattacks.
If you have superhuman powers to always have your tactics work regardless of opponent and you always hit someone's sword wrist or groin or whatever and magically defend against everything and everything then you can probably win against any mere mortal, with any weapon, or no weapon at all, because you're magic.
Yes tactics help, but there are simple tactics to counter your tactics. It's not like you've come up with any sure fire way to win. I've seen people lose in spear versus sword sparring session where your specific tactics were basically employed (hit them while being cautious to defend and keep distance) except it was even easier for them as they only needed one hit to win and it didn't even have to be a hard hit to small specific moving targets.
The leverage of the two handed spear and a moving fulcrum never seemed to matter even though they did get into clinches with their weapons. In those situations it seemed just as likely for the sword to win.
Based on seeing sparring between some fighters who looked pretty good with sword versus spear, I'd be hesitant to say the quarterstaff has a decisive advantage. A spear wins out most of the time, sure, but not by so much that it would be safe for them to always get multiple hits before their opponent is disabled and it wasn't such a magically fast weapon as to guarantee shots against small targets on an opponent who is fighting back. If you suddenly changed the rules and the practice spear became a practice quarter staff that had to hit specific targets or strike hard maybe multiple times to win, suddenly the sword wielder could afford to take a hit or two to non vital locations when charging and end up winning most of the time.
I mention tactics, because it is clear from the video and everyone else's comments that they envision a certain style of staff against a sword and did not consider the necessity of the staff wielder to play a completely different game plan from the "stand and deliver". Namely, the staff wielder would probably be doing more running away and keeping distance. That is not a hard tactic to make work. Getting joint and groin hits may be harder, but constantly backing away (to the side) is not that difficult.
That backsword is a really nice thing. Really good looking. :)
And it makes me wanna have one and fence with it.
Looks very elegant, aestetic and practical.
Ontopic.: Ive tried this with a friend. Ended with a wound on his hand and some hits on my head and limbs ^^
Another worthwhile advantage of a staff is that, unlike many types of swords, it is very hard to break.
I think staves would be a great option for police/guards/security type operations where lethality wasn't necessarily wanted. Anybody know of this ever being a thing?
A few people have mentioned that the only time Miyamoto Musashi ever lost a duel, it was to a man with a staff. But remember: Musashi and Musō Gonnosuke fought two duels, and Musashi won the first. In that duel, Gonnosuke used a bo staff (basically a Japanese quarterstaff). Musashi defeated him via the technique described in the video: he got in too close for the long staff to be useful. Musō Gonnosuke entered seclusion and developed a new art using the short staff, or jo. He then challenged Musashi to a rematch, and won.
I think what this means is that there is no "best weapon." A long staff is better in some situations, a heavy sword for others, a light sword for others, a short staff for still others, and a spear may be the bestest thing ever in some other situation. Axes, daggers, they all have some situation where they are the very best weapon to have.
ive seen some pictures were the qstaff had some metalrings on it with small spikes perhaps it was used to increase the affectiveness
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the way to make the staff more capable of causing injury is to put a metal point on the end and turn it into a spear.
+chrisofnottingham lmao, ikr?
+chrisofnottingham
Jabs with it can be pretty nasty.
Going for the neck and nuts is cheap, easy to block and annoying--
But you do it enough and it'll mess with their psyche and eventually one will get through.
Obviously, it's not very sportsman-like to do in a sparring match.
But in dire situation, anything goes.
If you have to weigh down your staff with butt caps and blades to be effective, guess what, you might as well get something else that most of us on this planet call a spear. ;)
Gandalf uses a staff an a longsword simultaneously. Then again he's an Istari so regular laws of bio-mechanics don't apply to him
I've given this match a lot of thought too. The staff fighter is an eggshell compared to the damage the sword fighter can take before he goes down, but the staff fighter has the advantage most of the time. I once wondered if gloves could mitigate the problem of not having hand protection, but gloves can be a little irritating to work with when using a staff. When you slide you hands, you either get too much grip or too little. And If you had some kickass gauntlets, you probably wouldn't be using a staff anyway.
I must admit, I'm a big staff fan. Aside from being a weapon, they are great tools for all sorts of other, more mundane tasks. Maybe the staff is popular because despite being humble, it's also pretty effective and useful for all kinds of things.
I'm commenting on your discussion of a staff man able to hold off 3 swordsmen. One person can fight multiple attackers by continuing moving and keep the attackers directly in front of you not allowing them to surround you. The defender actually ends up fighting one attacker at a time with the other attackers getting in each others way. I used this technique in karate and it worked well.
I totally agree.
Simply trying to find a staff person to sparr against someone with a steel training sword is a good indicator that they are not very confident.
Mostly they decline, because their staff could get damaged, or other excuses...
What kind of staff man takes a committed hit at an enemy's head with no movement? Also the take the hit tactic assumes that you don't get knocked off balance by the strike.
Good video but that suicide tactic is just not thought through.
Staffs often had cuts, nubs, etc in the end for twisting and tearing. Bamboo and rattan staffs were sometimes cut at an angle on the end to make them spear like.
Y'know, I'm not convinced. I've only just started screwing around with a quarterstaff after about 7 years of sword and board, and I'd already rather use a quarterstaff than just a sword (obviously a shield changes things). Mine is 6' long, 1 1/2" thick maple, and it moved lighting quick and I'm absolutely convinced that I could break bone without much trouble
Nice to know that all the Jackie Chan movies where he picks up a random wooden pole and has to hit people on the body many many times is actually accurate.
the stick sounds to me like a perfect weapon for a pacifist fighter who doesn't want to hurt his opponents, just incapacitate them
You mentioned the flanged mace, I always wondered how much strength a flanged mace actually has and what it does when it hits a human body or a piece of armor. of course it hurts, but how much?
Can you cover use of the basket hilt sword and targe, how does having full hand protection change the use of a shield, and why do sabers at least intially tend to have less hand protection then baskethilt swords?
I think that if you want to block a staff strike with your forearm, you'd need to move in close before the block, otherwise you'd have no chance at slowing it down.
Can you do a video on any quarterstaff fighting techniques?
The man is superior when he masters how to use a chosen tool as a weapon.The hands are quicker than a person with a pistol, is is only practice that make you a master.Only .00001% would train with a pistol because they think the gun is almighty so why practice.
the staff has something about it that can be said today. it has lasted as a practical skill to learn for modern defense in the case of hiking with a walking stick. swords are not common carry items any more. as a traveler in the middle ages (given the proper funds) I would likely carry a staff with a sword at my side. I would use the staff as a walking stick until attacked then use the staff until my first chance to draw my sword for use.
from a distance it looks like your shirt says "pogchamp"
what if both fighters are armored? Is there then a significant change in each weapons effectiveness?
Probably depends on the type of armor and type of sword/staff. Plate armor is gonna be hard to pierce or cut but will also have padding to block the relatively light impact of a staff just about anywhere but the head. Chain mail might still block a sword but it would do less well against the impact so in that case both weapons only break bone and the longer reach might win out.
chain mail will absorb way more than enough to make a quaterstaff pointless.
How well would a quarterstaff perform against other kinds of swords (ie longer or shorter than a rapier)?
jump and swing?
David Nguyen I'm sorry?
Northern Fried Chicken jump
and swing
I gave myself a hell of a thwack on the knee while incorporating footwork into flourishes. Hurt like hell but I kept training.
I like your vids. Always well thought out. In actuality though it's just a argument of "ifs and buts". Until you have two men stand in and actually put these theories to the test,that is take a solid hit from a staff then you cannot say at least with any certainty that being "hit with a stick" could not incapacitate a attacker armed with a sword. Until that happens even the most knowledgeable opinion is just that. A opinion.
It's funny I have been debating the advantages and disadvantages of bladed weapons and walking sticks with a other you tuber and u post this video