I'm sorry, I can't leave this alone. "THY knees are knobby, and THY thighs have the continence of a sickly chicken". Thou=you (subject - "why shouldst thou grieve me?") Thee=you (object - "I will never leave thee") Thy/thine=your (thy before consonant sound, thine before vowel sound - eg. thy legs, thine eyes) See how easy it is?
@@Gilmaris Very well, I as an Austrian (so as a native German speaker) thought the same. We have plenty of articles, personal pronouns etc. and that's why I have a feeling for that. The German word for "thou" is "du", and these are its declension flexions: du (nominative) dein (genitive m.) deine (genitive f.) dein (genitive n.) deiner (poss. nominative m.) deine (poss. nominative f.) deines (poss. nominative n.) deines (poss. genitive m.) deiner (poss. genitive f.) deines (poss. genitive n.) deinem (poss. dative m.) deiner (poss. dative f.) deinem (poss. dative n.) deinen (poss. accusative m.) deine (poss. accusative f.) dein (poss. accusative n.) deine (poss. nominative pl.) deiner (poss. genitive pl..) deinen (poss. dative pl.) deine (poss. accusative pl.) dir (dative), dich (accusative). :-)
@@Gilmaris It's easy once you know it. Most people haven't had enough exposure to that kind of grammar to figure it out, at least not a properly written form of that kind of grammar.
Also necks were generally unprotected in the period. Also, the wide point does not mean the sword was a bad stabbing weapon - just not good at penetrating armor. A wide stab wound to the neck or limb is a lot more debilitating than a narrow one.
Exactly, a broad tip will penetrate just as easily through flesh. Even with clothing and padding, what matters most for penetration is the sharpness of the edges, rather than acuteness of the tip. myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131 As per this test, where the katana was far better at thrusting through jacks than the acutely pointed longswords. And the rondell dagger fared very poorly against the jack.
Gilmaris the katana has a 0 degree edge (flat) on the back side, so the tip is actually more pointed when comparing to a longsword with a diamond cross section tip (most in that article have round cross section tips, #4 being the most narrow non-round tip). For example, say the tip of the katana edge is 20 degrees on the blade side the back is 0 degrees for a total of 20 degrees, where as a pointed longsword (such as #4) would be 12-15 degrees front and back for a total of 24-30 degrees. And yes, a sharpened angled tip penetrates cloth better than a round cross section tip, as round cross section tips were made for piercing thru and forcing apart mail rings, and being rigid and durable while doing so.
I dimly recall a medical anthropology class that covered papers on wounds during "Viking era" battles. Sure enough, there were lots and lots of left legs and feet severed and heads sliced open as well as wounds from spear thrusts.
Todd Ellner in Jorvik Viking museum in York, UK, there is a real Viking warrior that was dug up, albeit only his bones, obviously, but you can see half of the skull is missing due to a sword wound. You can walk around the body, it's in a glass coffin in the centre of the room.
if you imagine yourself in a shield wall, surrounded by your mates, protected by a shield and trading spear blows with the enemy then I imagine that hits to the legs would be very very common.. probably more so than upper body hits as the shield would defend that area
Why didn’t the Vikings have leg Armour?? Didn’t the vandal period have leg Armour?! Also I have seen images of the Varangian guard wearing some sort of leg Armour!
Another good reason is the point (heh) you made in the comparison of the longsword and the katana. That is, because the 'viking' sword has a wide spatulate tip, it allows for longer effective reach and debilitating blows even if it's just the tip that manages to go around the opponent's shield and hit them where they don't have armour; In the same situation, a very pointy tip would most likely do little more than a scratch.
The most common killing wounds (based on for example the battle of Visby) are deep cuts to the legs or hits to the head. In shield and sword combat the easiest places to strike at are the wrist and the left leg (or right if that's his stance). Especially against inexperienced fighters who don't know how to balance their weight (which means that they're almost helpless against such an attack)
Later period Viking swords often had a quite decently shaped tip for thrusting. So it may have been a matter of personal taste as often as any technical problems.
I'm not sure there were so few people in mail by the end of the Viking era, at least in Anglo-Saxon England. Ryan Lavelle's _Alfred's Wars_ includes some interesting calculations based on the provision that 5 hides of land were to provide one fyrdman, and of an entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 1008 that has 8 hides of land provide one helmet and one byrnie for a fleet that was being raised, noting that this alone would yield 6,000-9,000 byrnies and helmets for use in the army (using Domesday Book data for the hides). Thietmar of Merseburg claimed that Æthelred kept quite a stock of byrnies in London in 1016 (some 24,000 byrnies, he said). Many fyrdmen would have been thegns; England's petty nobility was very numerous, after all. So maybe not all or even most fyrdmen would have worn mail, but I think 10% is probably too low a figure for the 11th century.
When pondering issues like these, I often find it useful to rephrase the question. Not “why didn’t the ABC people do XYZ?”, but rather “why DID the ABC people do DEF?” I think it helps to try to remember that contemporary people weren’t stupid-the design of whatever they used, be it tools, weapons, buildings or what have you had an intended purpose. Asking the latter question better illuminates that purpose, in my opinion.
Yea people tend to look at ancient and older civilizations as if they were stupid, they weren’t, I mean they literally knew the earth was round because some dude stared at the sun going up and down every day from different regions of the known world
This makes sense. The spear points demonstrate that they could make a point, they just chose a chopper instead. One thing I'll note is that for a lot of migration era applications (self defense against robbers, sailing, horseback riding) cutting swords are often the preferred choice. The gladius was pointy but it was a primary weapon and usually paired with javelins instead of a spear. Excellent analysis.
Also the gladius was meant to be used very close up in mass formations of men. Big pitched battles like that were fairly rare in the Viking era, raids and skirmishes were much more common.
Thank you for this. I was one of the people asking about it. Rounded tips are seen on some early iron swords, and certainly more of a squared off tip would bite better than a narrow tip when hacking at an ankle, but also (please correct me if I am wrong) a bronze sword will bend but a longer sword made out of bloomery iron will 1) bend more easily (leverage), and 2) crack and fail due to slag inclusions, so getting a point stuck in your opponents wooden shield would be bad. Not everyone had top of the line Ulfberhts or pattern welded blades that could take the stress of a bound up thrust, they often had high phosphorus (cold short) bloomery iron made from bog ore.
Another thing to reinforce your theory is that like you said most soldiers if they had armour would most likely had a helmet, to hit someone on the head you don’t need a pointy sword but a heavy large weapon to cause blunt force trauma
Yes please talk more about viking era stuff. Would love to hear more about seaxes. Perhaps talk about how the very different shapes affect their funtion. Thanks for the context as always, in V.E. combat, your not relying on your sword for armour piercing. You have other options, be it other weapons or other target areas, thats if they are even wearing armour.
Seaxes and the related single egded "swords" are really a bit more common but all to often forgotten. A sword was an upgrade but some thing like the Seax of Beagnoth/Thames scramasax, a long knife of some kind would be in every ones belt from the iron age on.
Mat, relating to the issue of shields. It can not be stressed enough that you never ever want to stab a pointy very expensive sword into a cheap wall of wooden shields as it will get stuck and you will lose it. A spear head is a relatively disposable item, a sword on the other hand is for prestige. Some vandal era swords had no point at all and were completely rounded. If you are fighting at a time when the primary defensive formation is a shield wall you would be at a disadvantage using a later period pointy blade both in your ability to chop at exposed body parts and your ability to reduce the shield wall itself by chopping those shields to pieces which was the standard tactic of the day with sword and primarily axes. The point construction on later blades does not indicate a superiority in stabbing through mail but rather a reduction in the utility of the cut when facing plate. When facing full plate thrusting is what is left to you as a fighter in that contex, not what is best overall. The Gladius is an exception in several ways, first it was a standard issue mass produced blade not a prestige item. Second it often faced enemies using shields of construction that would not bind a sword. It had a very specific method of use and it's short wide blade and great grip should give it the leverage to recover stuck tips most of the time.
You would not deliberately cut into a shield with either sword or axe, as that would mean you had effectively disarmed yourself. As Hank Reinhardt explains: ua-cam.com/video/VqdpKHNQqqs/v-deo.html Yes, the video quality sucks, but what do you expect from a viking era clip? :p That aside, I agree with just about everything you said.
Well here in Czech Republic, in case of old Slavs 8-10th century (Great Morava and so on..) mail was really rare a historicians are pretty sure about that. Some swords from this era has even rounded tips because that was best for tip cuting and still good enough to stab someone without armor.
Another thought. The most common one-handed up-close weapon (When you don´t have your spear) was the battle axe. If you could afford it you had a sword but maybe you used the same fighting style as the with the axe that filled the same function. That's why you cut like with an axe.
blacksmith here, people who think they could not forge thin tapers are just silly. also wire is really hard to make, and riveted mail is a whole extra million steps, i would bet mail wasnt very frequent. it is expensive in labor and materials.
And as indicated by the 3 shields allowance in the hólmgang, shields could be and were cut away or broken by blows with the sword, eroding the opponent's defensive ability. For that purpose a stout cutting blade would have been more useful than an acutely pointed thrusting one.
Excellent conclusions. I was going to write a long post on the topic, especially on Viking weapons, but I will make just a few notes. 1. Good quality swords were very expensive weapons. Most warriors would have used axes/long axes, spears, bows and brute clubs. The few swords were mostly forged in Central Europe and traded to great expense. 2. Most opponents were, as you pointed out, unarmored. If they had armour it was probably not ring mail since ring mail was exclusive and expensive. Leather, thin metal plate or heavy cloth armour was a lot more common as protection. 3. Since swords were so expensive, they were often more of heavily decorated status symbols than an actual weapons made for battle. Scientific analysis of old Viking swords found in Denmark have showed that they usually were so heavily engraved and ornamented that they would have broken if used in battle. In some Viking graves, you can find these ornate swords, but next to the body there are always axes and spear heads, which would have been the actual weapons used in battle. 3. An axe, or as you pointed out - a spear, is very efficient when it comes to fighting shielded and lightly armoured opponent. An axe can reach over or around a shield to hit areas on the body where a sword can not easily reach. Axes are, as swords, of course also ideal for targeting the legs. A spear can hit from a greater distance than a sword and be used thrusting while covering any vital/unprotected body parts. I would dare to say that the sword is inferior to the axe and spear in many melee situations where the shield is used.
Interesting perspective but I believe in skirmishes, and in 1v1 fighting, the sword and shield was the most superior weapon. If a swordsman was fighting a spearman or axeman, he could use his sword to target the opponents wooden handle. Subsequently, the spearman would have to fight more defensively and potentially lose ground. If you spar with someone you will see. The sword was made to chop because it chopped limbs, shields, handles, etc. and it was also excellent for executing prisoners.
Might also want to add that piercing mail without half-swording using a long single handed sword, even a very pointy one, is very difficult. Not many people have tested this extensively, but half swording makes such a huge difference for armor penetration, even over normal two handed sword thrusts. This is because long european style swords are flexible, and need a hand directly on the blade to stiffen the blade enough to be practical armor piercing weapons (exception of gladius swords since they are short enough that it isn't necessary). But you can't half sword with a shield, especially a boss gripped shield, on the other arm. Since shields were totally ubiquitous in the viking era (due to lack of plate armor), half-swording was simply not possible in most combat situations, meaning they probably did not consider swords to anti-armor weapons in any capacity. It was only after shields were replaced by plate armor that people could start using swords to pierce armor with half-swording and develop specialized anti-armor swords, as strange as it sounds that the development of full plate lead to swords being able to defeat armor. I agree with all the other points in this video too.
A massgrave on Gotland, Sweden, from 1361 was found a while back. There was quite a few skeletons with visible damage, and damage to extremities was common. As he says here, lop someones leg off is very effective. One skeleton even had both legs cut off in what seemed one blow. You can read some about this find here. museum-of-artifacts.blogspot.se/2015/11/bloody-medieval-warfare.html
I imagine steel quality during the Viking era meant that a finer, more pointed tip would lead to a lot of breaking, bending and generally issues that you really don't want when someone is trying to kill you. Besides that, the best armor the Vikings would've seen was almost exclusively chainmail, and even then it was relatively uncommon, which negates any need for a sword able to penetrate plate armor. That said, they had spears for when they wanted to poke holes in things.
Hi from Canada Matt! This was fascinating. Not something one would normally find themselves considering on the surface of different swords of different eras. Thanks for your informative and educational videos!
He’s right, the reason for the blunt tip on these swords is a combination of factors. However, he forgot steel quality. The appearance of large plates to make plate harnesses and swords with long narrow needle points goes hand in hand with improvements in steel quality and improved knowledge of heat treatment during the 13th-15th centuries. You can make a pointy 15th century sword like he was handling out of slag ridden 9th century low carbon steel smelted in a small bloomery oven out of inferior ore but it will not perform as well as the actual 15th century examples made with much superior smelting equipment and techniques (read: it will bend and break). Swords (and steel) got a lot better once people were able to smelt it at higher temperatures than a bloomery oven can, realised the role of carbon and mastered heat treatment.
In the Roman era every soldier would wear armor, 500 years 10% would wear mail. The fall of the Roman Empire was quite a blow to military effectiveness
So your easiest source for Viking weapons/armor is to check illustrations for the Varangian Guard. As for tactics the Vikings who returned from the Varangian service had Roman-inspired tactics. Emperor Leo's Tactica is a good source for the 900-1000 era, as the number of opponents the Roman Empire faced at the time was very different from one another (Vikings, Arabs, Saxons, Normans, Rus, Persians, Saracens) and so on.
Another factor to take into consideration is the cost and time to make the equipment, and the cost of the materials. Good steel was very expensive, so a sword and mail were probably reserved to the wealthy, while spears are cheaper, easier to make and do not require top notch steel to be effective
Just found your channel and I enjoyed it very much. I'm a bit of a "why" guy so the fact you will wander a bit off subject to clarify or support what you are saying is fine by me. Going to binge watch you for a bit this morning. Thanks for the excellent video.
Perhaps the ability to create a tapered, pointed blade existed, but the resulting sword would have been to weak due to the quality of metal. A pointed blade might have been too likely to chip or break after a few stabs.
your answer to that parcticular question created a new question. why did Europeans stop using the big rectangular shields in the late Roman and early medieval eras? why did they prefer smaller round shields that offer less protection than the classical Roman Scutum that came before or the Kite shields that came after?
My guess, although I know nothing of the subject, is that Scutum was designed to fight in formation and also the Roman Empire used ot supply they soldiers while in the migration era soldiers began supplying themselves with equipment. So the Scutum is amazing for fighting side by side with another person with an scutum but it might be cumbersome to travel with it, so now that soldiers are supplying themselves with equipment they went for a less cumbersome shield, one that was easier to travel with.
I think it comes down to the lack of formal armies. Roman legionaries were professional soldiers. They trained constantly and lived together with their unit. Working in tight formation requires these things. And without tight formation big scutum like shields are more detrament than good. Also the previously mentioned lack of standardized supply and gear can play a part. Good quality equipment is expensive, so if you are not a professional.soldier you wont invest in it.
the late Roman legionaires also used round shields so apparently there is a practical reason for this. The idea it was because of some lack of organization is kind of countered by that very fact. The late imperial armies of particularly East Rome were still highly professional armies but they still changed their equipment from the high imperial age several centuries before. The most likely aspect is the shift to more mobile warfare due to the advent of cavalry as well as static borders with lots of skirmishing going on which meant infantry had to change their role. Even in the early imperial period we see legionaires pretty hapless against a well organized cavalry army, they ceased to be the main arm to facilitate victory on the field (still important in sieges etc. but elsewhere the heavy infantry were supreme in winning field battles for the Romans). There is imo a big misconception in the belief that the Romans somehow reached a pinnacle that was perfect. It was not, it ceased to be perfect as Germanic and other tribal societies became ever more organized themselves. If we look at the Wars of the Marcomanni under Marc Aurel we have a tribal federation the size of the Czech republic apparently survive a war against an ancient superpower. In essence it became ever harder for the Romans to keep an organizational edge on their neighbors and those neighbors became ever better at matching them.
Cogent, well thought out, and well presented! Another factor that he fails to mention, is that it's not just the type of armor your fighting against - it's also the type of men. In Greek phalanx warfare they fought as soldiers - disciplined ranks trained to keep formation and maneuver together. Breaking formation was an invitation to defeat - exposing weak spots - and breaking the enemy's phalanx was a primary goal of the battle. In the Hundred Year's War most battles were also between armies fighting as soldiers - not phalanxes, but still in disciplined formations. Breaking the line, or outflanking it, meant a force could be rolled up from the side, where it was weaker (or the back, weaker still. During the Viking Age the armies were different. The armies of King Alfred the Great, or King Brian Boru, weren't mainly composed of highly trained and disciplined soldiers. Besides a small percentage of nobles, who could be considered professionals, most of these armies were peasant levies, like the Anglo-Saxon fyrd. These were largely farmers and herdsmen, with some potters, blacksmiths, and other craftsmen mixed in, who had been summoned in a hurry to defend their land. They had minimal armor and minimal training, and most probably wielded spears (an iron head on a stick, easy to make) or axes and mattocks (peasant tools that happen to be quite capable of killing). The Vikings that faced them weren't soldiers, either. They didn't fight in disciplined formations. Instead they were warriors - experienced, battle-hardened and ruthless, but they largely approached battle as either a wild melee or a series of individual combats. Indeed, the whole concept of a berserkr fits well among warriors, but runs counter to the discipline of soldiers. How does this distinction apply? In an army of soldiers there is a degree of standardization. The Roman legions are a good example. Whether from Pannonia, Massilia, Iberia or Africa, every Roman legionnaire wore similar armor, used a similar scutum, and fought with similar pila and gladius. They would lock their shields to form a line or a testudo, and the formation wouldn't work if they weren't uniform. With rare exceptions like the ambush of the Teutoburger Wald (which was a fine piece of guerilla tactics) an army of soldiers will defeat an army of warriors - even if the individual warriors may be more skilled and courageous. In a pitched battle, it takes soldiers, not warriors, to defeat soldiers. Most of the forces the Vikings faced were, at their best, warriors themselves - when they weren't merchants, priests, and peasants. When the forces facing the Vikings began to fight as soldiers - as at Clontarf under Brian Boru - the Vikings could be defeated.
berserkr weren't as depicted in movies. They were, in fact, the champions of high ranking people. I agree re the behaviour of disciplined armies vs that of swarms of talented individuals. But are we certain that that was the behaviour of a group of vikings?
Old norse (or as you say "vikings") very specifically used tactics like shield walls (phalanx) and fairly organised warfare according to treatises that I have read. Where are you getting the unorganised melee information?
Very interesting, I also suspect that armor may be ahead of the weapons of its day (when possible), because those who can buy armor what it to work. The weapon of the day basically deens to work against what you'll find the most.
the gladius was just a fantastic design, mare for stabbing and chopping, with excellent point of impact where the blade is broader, which also made it touch the scabbard in that single point...brilliant!
All you said is basically correct Matt, but I think you overlooked one important factor: The metalurgy of the period and the lack of crucible steel. This meant, that the swords of the era weren’t particularly springy and prone to bending. When you thrust a very long blade into metal armour or any other resistant material it will be at very high risk of bending (which in case of a sword makes it practically useless until it can be straightened out). A spear head is shorter and can be (and was) made much beefier and stiffer, since weight distribution and quality of the cutting edge is not such a big issue. Thus, swords were not made to thrust through armour simply because they couldn’t be made to do it and still function effectively as swords with the technology of the day.
What does crucible steel has to do with anything? In Europe that wasn't produced up until the industrial era and the one that was made in India still suffered from the same problems as pre-spring tempering blades.
High Master Johannes Liechtenauer maybe the terminology was wrong? What I meant was, that sword blades of the early middle ages were a lot less springy and more prone to bending than swords of the 13th - 16th centuries.
I don't think this is the reason - you can still make a Type X blade with a much more pointy tip. But they didn't. The Romans made very pointy spathae and of course the Roman gladii had reinforced pointy blades. Even Bronze Age swords often have very tapered and pointy tips, and bronze has the same bending issue as iron. So, as discussed in the video, I just do not think that metallurgical technology is a reason in this case.
scholagladiatoria I don’t think I’ve seen an original spatha that was significantly more pointed than early medieval swords were. The gladius on the other hand is significantly shorter with a broad, hefty blade that very much facilitates stabbing despite being made of inferior steel. Many European bronze swords often seem to have been thrust-centric, but they were also shorter and they existed in a World where metal armour was extremely rare. I stand by my assertion, that making a thrust oriented sword capable of defeating maille that was also well balanced and had a +25 inch blade would not be feasible in the 8th - 10th century.
XCodes Of course they were effective weapons (whether they were commonly used on the battlefield is more of an open question) but I don’t subscribe to the determinism of saying, that if a weapon needed a certain feature, it would have had it. Making a blade thicker/shorter/pointier to make it possible to stab through maille without bending the blade could well mean giving up on another important feature such as reach, balance, cutting capacity etc. The fact that they chose a longer, less thrust-oriented blade doesn’t mean, that the people at the time had no use for a sword that could stab through maille. It could just as well be, that they realized, that making such a blade was not possible without giving up one or more features they valued in their swords.
A cleaving sword could also do some blunt damage through mail and be somewhat useful in that way, which it couldn't do against the plate you see later.
Arkantos I dunno. Usually a metal mesh layer over cloth padding is really good at absorbing force, especially with a squishy body beneath. It means less on areas where the bone is near the surface, like the arms and legs, but they didn’t have mail to protect them there anyway.
Monkeysrock there were absolutely mail arms and leggings in the period. The Bayoux Tapestry is covered in people with mail covereing everything from the chin down. Limbs are able to be broken, as you mention, and so could collar bones, ribs, hips, etc. All of these could make someone pretty useless in a fight, and you could probably give someone a concussion with one of them even if they were wearing a helmet.
Great video Scholagladiatoria. By the way, I was wondering: why did forward-curved swords die out in Europe after Ancient times? Swords like the kopis/falcata, falx, and sica were used to great effect in the Iron Age, but forward-curved swords like these stopped being used by the Dark Ages. Why? If you want a chopping blade, as those in the Viking Era did, why not a forward-curved sword?
That and if you impale a ribcage with the tip it is slower and more difficult to remove compared to a straight blade. with a Viking sword you just draw it out but with the forward curved blades you have to wiggle it out... that extra time leaves you vulnerable.
It's a misconception that mail will protect you from something like a larger 'viking' sword or a great sword. Even though you won't actually get 'cut,' the impact will still go right through the mail and most likely break your arm or ribs etc. Something like a viking sword could even be fatal through a metal helmet.
@@federicoponchiroli3762 A broken bone is very serious. Can you hold your weapon or shield with a broken arm? No, you fukin can't. As opposed to a cut wound...when you have that much adrenaline a sharp cut wound isn't going to stop you for a while. There's a lot more damage caused by heavy sword strikes vs armor than you think. Watch this video on a great sword tested against chain mail and plate armor. ua-cam.com/video/O9eCzG8AAoQ/v-deo.html
Matt, this is an example of the type of video that us medieval-loving members of your audience love! You've thrown us some true "red meat"! Thank you! Just some personal things- I would love to see more of your other arming swords again(your Poitier and "Henry V"), and perhaps it would've been nice to include one of your spears as a "prop" in this video, since you talked about them, and I know you have them. 😉😃 By the way, I call swords that were contemporaneous with the Vikings "Frankish swords", since the Vikings generally couldn't/wouldn't make their own. They obtained them chiefly from various parts of the Frankish Kingdom, especially the Rhine Valley region.
So here's an idea: There is a lot of talk about the battlefield effectiveness of different weapons, but how often would vikings/other germanic tribes, be fighting in pitched battles? (ok, i know of the late viking era wars) I always imagined warfare in the (early) north european dark ages to be small scale conflicts, raiding, running in to bad neighbours or fighting off invaders. Carrying a sidearm at all times would be a natural thing for higher members of a warrior society, but it doesn't seem likely that you would be armoured and carry a spear unless you intend to go into battle. Viking chieftains were, for most of their time, heads of a household, farmers, traders etc. Raiding and warfare was a lucrative side-buisness, or a necessity due to invasion or pledges of alegience. Hence, the dark age sword is an awesome weapon for most of the time. Highly effective against most opponents you are likely to run into and easy enough to carry with you. Just showing the sword at your waist (ability to lop off someones arm) would probably stave off many conflicts. If you are going to war on the other hand, and expect to face armoured opponents, well then you would armour yourself as best you could and carry an armour piercing weapon. Also, the type of steel they had (or chose) could be honed very sharp but wasn't very springy. Anything longer than a speartip would probably bend or break too easily if it was forged into a narrow point. There is a lot more work and materials that go in to making a sword than go into making a spearhead. You dont want to break the tip of your sword every time you use it, but the spearhead or arrowhead is more of a disposable item that can be reforged if you are able to retrieve them. Also, ifyou break the tip of a knife or sword and resharpen it, guess what shape it takes...
Seems to me it's a natural progression from the Celt & Iberian weapons, to the Roman Gladius and Spatha after they adopted and adapted them over the centuries. Then again from Spatha, having been introduced across Europe by Rome, to the various early Oakshott types of the Viking Era. Again changing as time passed into the more common Arming Swords, and on. Ya know, I'd love to hear Maciej Kopciuch's (artofswordmaking.com/) opinion on this progression, as I believe his experience and delving into the history of swords and swordmaking would provide an excellent topic of conversation.
Could this be related to the resurgence of short, broad blades such as the Katzbalger in the 16th-17th centuries? To my understanding, the common kit of a line soldier at that time would have consisted of a breastplate/cuirass, a helmet, faulds for the upper legs, and possibly a gorget or mail aventail to protect the neck. So once again you'd have opponents whose torso and head would be incredibly well-protected, but whose extremeties would be relatively quite vulnerable. Seems like two quite similar contexts, which ended up producing somewhat similar weaponry in some cases.
I think that in this kind of discussion, there is always one thing that is not addressed at all; armored judicial duels. Swords were never meant to be used directly against armors, the only exception is the longsword. The majorities of halfswording/mordhau/ longsword vs armor techniques are made within this context. I think that style of pointy long swords emerged in that field rather than on a battlefield scenario. If we add a bit of cross cultural comparison, there were cultures where heavy armor were present: Japan, China, India, Middle east... if we take for example the Middle east, we have warriors covered head to toe with mail and plates, and afaik the mainstream type of sword were extremely curved swords not optimized for the thrust. But in the same culture's battlefield we see armoe piercing daggers, maces and warhammers as developed as the one used in the West. Same for the other countries I've mentioned; there might be some examples of extremely pointy katana but that's pretty much an exception to the rule. Imho the super pointy longsword was optimized to fight armored men in a duel rather than in a battle.
A lot of Turkish sabres in the 15th ~17th centuries that I've seen seemed to have been more optimized for thrusts, with either highly tapered asymmetrical tips or spear-point like yelmens. Similar things go for many Chinese/Korean sabres and Japanese swords, except that their thrusting ability is mostly attributed to cross-section & thickness. Many of them can possess striking similarities with some XVIII swords in this regard. (Svante Nilsson's sword). But then again, they weren't as extreme as Oakeshott XV or XVII, for instance. Still focused a lot on cutting. P.S.: Matt's Longsword in this video isn't a XVIII. It's the Albion Mercenary, which is a XV - more thrust centric than a XVIII. XVIII longswords tend to be much better cutters due to having curved edges.
The sword being a side arm I feel like the heavier sword was better to bash and chop after the spears were spent and the chaos of battle became hand to hand close combat. It seems to me these heavy choppers were for limbs and necks more than a stab. When I hold mine during a swing it really feels like it was a bone breaker that would cut more than a stabbing blade. I am typing this while you are coming to the same point in the video😁 you sir are my favorite 👍
Charlemagne had a pointy sword before the Migration period. As a very amateur sword maker, honestly.... making Fuller's is harder work than flat diamond / central ribs.
I've been religiously following the channel for... 4 years? maybe 5? Just wanted to say that this is one of the very best videos you've ever done, Matt :)
Pretty much nailed it as far as my logic is concerned. I would also like to point out, that if you are stuck using your sword during a battle at this point in time, a chopping weapon is far more likely to be effective against multiple enemies in armour(concussion and tip cutting), or against their spears/axes shafts or against their shields (which everyone had).
If you're up against multiple enemies in armor and you're down to a sidearm, it hardly matters what kind of sword you're using - you're borked. Also, weapon hafts were not made of balsa wood - you can't chop through a spear with a falchion while somebody's holding it and trying to kill you. Spears are quick, they move a lot.
If it can chop through a torso, and through all those bones, it can chop through a one-handed spear haft. If you look at late falchion designs, it seems pretty apparent from the odd shapes that they were used to fight against polearms. Swords are quick as well. It's not like people don't parry quick raper thrusts - they can hit spears. Frankly, the thrusting momentum they have might only help you in chopping through their weapon, depending upon how you strike.
Ama Yad You can absolutely cut through a spear shaft in two strikes with such a sword. A lighter spear might only even need one. Source - actually cut through roughly 3 cm diameter "free floating" (not fixed) oak shovel shaft in two strikes with a blunt machete.
Can it be done? Yes, a sharp piece of steel can chop hardwood, with some effort. Can it be done reliably, in combat, while people are trying to stab you in the face? I'm gonna go with "unlikely", "The best one-handed sword for fighting multiple armored people with spears" is a bit like "the best pistol for fighting three soldiers with rifles". Some options are clearly better, but there aren't any *good* options.
Ama Yad I mean... yes. The divide isn't *that* big, but indeed, you will be at a disadvantage. "Can it be done reliably, in combat, while people are trying to stab you in the face? I'm gonna go with "unlikely", " As I said, I tried it. It works. Is it a useful tactics? Not by any means. But again, this is a multi-variable equiation, and we can't rule out the possible usefullness of being able to destroy the enemy's weapons.
Ok, so I'll say what I expected to hear. I THINK (I am no expert, I'm not even a journeyman) that if a viking wanted more of an anti-armour side arm. He would have likely chosen an axe or hammer/mace/club. As the former focuses more force on a single point and clubs would have been known to be unimpeded by mail. Also better for bashing prospective slaves with too.
A really good point you made in the axe video was a heavy chopping weapon can directly attack a spear and destroy it, this could also be a good argument for a heavier, more front balanced chopping sword.
I think the point you made about "what we (don't) know" is quite an essential one that tends to be overlooked pretty much, especially in the so-called "Viking era". Both a time and culture of which we actually only have an extremely thin and heavily biased layer of written sources (excluding the late Norman period). So most is down to archaeology and ... well ... bold deduction. Aside from that, the "Viking" tag for swords has a catch, since many findings of "Viking" swords actually had been manufactured by the Frankish, and exported. Oh and well done pointing out that mail was actually a luxury article of the time (as were swords; again, not including the late Norman period and partly even the Danish training camps).
Maybe cause the majority of opponents weren't wearing any armour & if they came up against someone who was they just aimed for an area that wasn't. Lots of medieval skeletons with legs chopped off from sword blows.
I think the problem with the steel they had at the time wasn't that they couldn't manufacture a pointy tapered sword, but that the sword would bend much easier.
In the 900’s when the Vikings were just getting started they were primarily raiders. They attacked towns and villages to loot and plunder and would leave before they met any real military forces. An extra pointy sword is was not needed and was in fact a liability because the thin tip is more likely to break. If you were a wealthy enough Viking to own a sword and most were not wealthy, having a sword break on you meant your sword is now short and you would most likely file the tip to be broad like a sword you should of had in the first place.
I agree about the spear being the best weapon but I'm not so unconditionally in love with swords for use in shield walls which is how the Norse/Slavs/Franks/Anglo-Saxons did most of their fighting. I have tried shield-wall fighting and in a shield wall please give me a spear, when the spear breaks an axe, if that axe is lost the backup axe I carry in my shield hand. A sword would be my last choice in a shield wall. About steel quality, it is actually **part** of the reason for viking age swords being beefy cleavers there are also other reasons mentioned in the video. Archeologists and sword smiths who have studied Viking age swords seem to agree there are some Viking age swords who are made of pretty good metal but the steel of many Norwegian sword blades for example ranged from rather bad to pretty horrible. It is not just that the steel many of these swords were made of had frightening levels of slag inclusions, the craftsmen of the time also had poor control of steel carbon content and therefore hardness. There is a reason why Norse people preferred imported Frankish swords and that reason was the better and more consistent quality of Frankish steel. Roman steel had been quite good. During Roman rule, Norican steel for example was of very good quality. After the end of Roman rule in the West the good quality steel became significantly less widely available during the period from ~450-750 and more expensive. From ~750 i.e. during the Carolingian period in the Frankish empire there occurred an improvement in smelting technology that led to the Franks making stronger and better steel and the subsequent abandonment of pattern welding in favour of all steel blades. Pattern welding was sometimes still done during and after the Carolingian period, but increasingly for aesthetic rather than structural reasons. This and a general economic recovery from the chaos of the post Roman period led to the manufacture of larger quantities of good quality iron and steel taking off and better steel becoming widely available again at lower prices. One can actually track this process in the archeological record in mining and smelting centres like the Swabian Alb.
A Claidmohr is a two hander so hardly comparable and cost doesn't change the fact that the fact that the spear and the axe are both a better weapon in a shield wall than a sword. Also swords were expensive but they weren't quite so expensive that they were as rare as Ferraris or something. The Salme ships contained 40 skeletons but more swords than men so some of the crew had two swords and finds from the Viking age suggest a sword to axe ratio of around 1/3 to 2/3 or even more depending on the region. I can only judge by my own 'Viking' swords (which weigh in at 1.3-1,6 kg) against my 14th century swords which are much more nimble due to the rearward balance point (and weigh around 0.9-1 kg). Some of the 'Viking' swords I saw at Vordingborg castle Copenhagen, Stockholm and in Oslo were heavy duty machetes that I would have a hard time doing any meaningful fencing with and I'm about a foot taller than the guys who originally used them. He's not exaggerating one little bit when he calls these 'Viking' swords cleavers. Try taking a 'Viking' sword sometime and do some sword and buckler exercises and you'll soon find out what he means. You really feel that extra 0.5-1 kg of the 'Viking' cleaver and the advanced balance point after about 30 minutes.
The handgun assessment I think is correct, for me it's spear, axe, backup axe, sword as I said before. So in modern terms it would be rifle, pistol, backup pistol, tactical tomahawk. The 'Viking' swords weighed in at as little as 1,1 kg for a premium example (or a bad one that broke/bent easily) the median seems to have been around 1,5-1,6 kg for something that compensated for poor steel quality with mass and the upper end of the weight scale was pushing 2kg for something that over compensated for poor steel with even more mass. Generally, the better the steel the lower the weight but there were of course other factors influencing weight so it's more complicated than that. Some people who had enough muscle may just have preferred a 2 kg one handed cleaver even if the steel was good enough to make the sword half that weight. Still, for comparisons the two handed Claidmohr you talked about weighed between 2.2 and 2.8 kg according to the Wikipedia article, a 14th-15th century arming swords or a 'Langes Messer' had a median weight in the vicinity of 1,1 kg according to Wikipedia while the 1796 pattern British Heavy Cavalry Officer's Saber weighed in at around 0,8 kg. so the preferred one handed sword weight seems to have been at around 1,1 kg +/- 300 grams from circa the 13th century into the 20th (the M1913 Patton Saber weighed 1,1 kg). Anyway, for me all this makes a one handed sword in the 1,5 kg, never mind 2 kg range beefy. Other people's mileage may vary. Also what gives you tennis elbow is not just the weight it is the placement of the balance point as well which on 'Viking' swords is far quite forward as it should be on any good cleaver.
Great video, it is so interesting how weaponry and armor developed over the centuries. Your videos have kept me entertained during quarenteen so thank you for that!! I did have a question however. Do you know if and how often were Medieval and Renaissance weapons were customized? I have modified a few of my own pole arms and swords to my preference. in fact I indexed a spear after your video about cutting with Spears and it works really well. However I'm not sure how often it happened historically. so I thought I would ask an expert on the subject!
Dima Skliarenko There are historical sources of gambesons existing in 10th century. There are even foundings of scynthian padded armors in europe 4th century bc.
Dima Skliarenko Beyaux tapestry shows mail suits with lining in mid 1000s. There is little material evidence for padded armour even in 12th century. That doesent mean it didnt exist. As ive said, cultures like scythians used padded armour i europe well before medieval period. Just the fact that mail doesent function as a stand alone armour proves that padded armour had to exist or else mail does not serve any purpose at all.
Dima Skliarenko Mail is not useful without padding because it does not protect from medieval trauma. Scythians are predicessors of some european nations. They have much to do with medieval europe. By fighting in europe and preceeding medieval era and using padded armour they are good credibility that early medieval people used padded armor. I told you. Go look at beyaux tapestry where mail hauberks have padding.
Dima Skliarenko Lining inside is padding. Ive seen lots of unlined mail armours too. That doesent change fact that padded armour most likelly existed in early medieval period. Instead of saying "there is a chance that medieval people didnt have mail" you said that they didnt have mail. If you were a historian with years of research id believe your theory, but now i choose to believe in other theory with more common sense. That being said, i dont say that padded armour did exist in early medieval period. Im saying that it had a great chance to exist because earlier evidence and common sense supports that theory.
Legs are famously vulnerable to chopping weapons. So much that it has entered parlance: 1."Hamstring: To severely restrict the efficiency or effectiveness of." 2. Achilles tendon Strong argument for your hypothesis, Matt. A follow up test could look for a correspondence between advent of better leg protection and decrease in chopping type swords.
I know i'm very late to this presentation. However, something that should be addressed is civilians. Untold numbers of villages, towns, cities & churches etc. were defended by lightly armed citizens. People's armed with not much more than farm implements and eating knives would have made short work for men armed with swords and shields.
Was cost the reason greaves and vambraces went away in this period? Seems like even the Greek clamp-on styles in iron would offer some protection without too much weight.
I think the spear route is the most plausible, I mean the falchion existed in the era of heavy armour so a cutting sword in an era of lighter armour isn't that surprising. I like that every video spawns ideas for another 5, not sure it's sustainable xD.
@13:30 also to reinforce your point here in the few sources we do have it shows the front ranks in armor and the back ranks reserved for "lesser" troops who we assume weren't as heavily armored. This would support my original post that once past your "main" opponents it's time for the slaughter and a hewing weapon would be great against the rear ranks. (I also assume that axes would be discarded at this time too.)
Housecarls are shown with mail down to the knee in the bayeux tapestry. Given that the shield wall a Hastings survived a sustained arrow attack until the Normans ran out of arrows I'd suggest that they also had either pretty thick boots or grieves on their lower legs, unless they used a kite shield to protect their legs.
The fact that in Norse duels you were allowed three shields probably indicates they could be hacked to pieces fairly quickly by dark age swords. I doubt a thrusting sword would have the same effect. Given the importance and prevalence of shields as a primary form of defense, the ability to hack through that defense may be an additional reason for the shape of the sword. In contrast, as I understand it, the very pointed medieval swords came about after shields had become much rarer on the battlefield (as they did not add that much extra protection to plate, or where too bulky for specialized troops like long bowman, who would have carried a buckler, but not a full shield).
I think most troops in the Anglo-Saxon fyrd actually *would* at least have helmets. Lacking primary source material about the Anglo-Saxons, I can't be sure, but compared to other early and high medieval sources (in this case from my homeland) that concern the _heervaart_ (mobilisation for offensive purposes) and _landweer_ (mobilisation for defensive purposes), it seems that even the poorer "conscripts" were expected to bring at least a _hersniere, staf, knyf, ende dat dair toe behoert_ (helmet, spear, knife, and all else that comes with it).
Well, given that the Anglo Saxon legistation was for one fyrdman per five hides of land, and that later period Norman knight's fee were about the same size, and that the pay rate for fyrdmen on active service was the same as later Norman knights, I think we could say with good certainty that the Anglo Saxon fyrd should be nearly as well equipped as the Norman knights. So a helmet, a mail byrnie, several spears and shields and a sword, plus at least one horse for riding to and from battles, and a pack horse.
"To cut a long story short." "One final point..." Lol.
Great monologue. So interesting!
The real fun is in the context! :P
I wouldn't want to be in that room during a tornado.
Ehh, probably not a bad way to go though... kind of a 'frog in a blender' thing.
He's in England, as I understand it, they don't have many.
I would
They get tornadoes once in a while: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tornadoes_in_the_United_Kingdom
@@WastelandSeven Any.
Someone give the guy a drink. He s so parched, even his cloths decry how dry he is.
I love offending legs, "thou knees are knobby, and your thighs have the continence of a sickly chicken!"
I'm sorry, I can't leave this alone. "THY knees are knobby, and THY thighs have the continence of a sickly chicken".
Thou=you (subject - "why shouldst thou grieve me?")
Thee=you (object - "I will never leave thee")
Thy/thine=your (thy before consonant sound, thine before vowel sound - eg. thy legs, thine eyes)
See how easy it is?
of course,
it depends on their offense
@@Gilmaris Very well, I as an Austrian (so as a native German speaker) thought the same. We have plenty of articles, personal pronouns etc. and that's why I have a feeling for that. The German word for "thou" is "du", and these are its declension flexions:
du (nominative)
dein (genitive m.)
deine (genitive f.)
dein (genitive n.)
deiner (poss. nominative m.)
deine (poss. nominative f.)
deines (poss. nominative n.)
deines (poss. genitive m.)
deiner (poss. genitive f.)
deines (poss. genitive n.)
deinem (poss. dative m.)
deiner (poss. dative f.)
deinem (poss. dative n.)
deinen (poss. accusative m.)
deine (poss. accusative f.)
dein (poss. accusative n.)
deine (poss. nominative pl.)
deiner (poss. genitive pl..)
deinen (poss. dative pl.)
deine (poss. accusative pl.)
dir (dative),
dich (accusative).
:-)
Thoust looks like a drunk toddler in tight leggings. Legs of a stork and arse of an elephant!
@@Gilmaris It's easy once you know it. Most people haven't had enough exposure to that kind of grammar to figure it out, at least not a properly written form of that kind of grammar.
A lot of skeletons excavated from 8-9 century battles do actually have missing limbs and trauma to the face.
I recall a viking sword named "leg biter". In the Sagas legs were often the target for swords and axes.
Dwarves hit kneecaps with hammers, and hamstrings with axes.
The sword of Magnus Bare-foot, King of Norway 1093-1103.
Also necks were generally unprotected in the period.
Also, the wide point does not mean the sword was a bad stabbing weapon - just not good at penetrating armor. A wide stab wound to the neck or limb is a lot more debilitating than a narrow one.
It's still much easier to stick a thin one in the meat or between the ribs.
And it's much more about penetration then about wound wideness.
if someone stuck a wide blade in you it would equally cause as much damage.
@NatarisX We're not talking about blunt broad blades. A sharp broad head will always do more damage to unarmored flesh than an armor piercing one.
Exactly, a broad tip will penetrate just as easily through flesh. Even with clothing and padding, what matters most for penetration is the sharpness of the edges, rather than acuteness of the tip.
myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131
As per this test, where the katana was far better at thrusting through jacks than the acutely pointed longswords. And the rondell dagger fared very poorly against the jack.
Gilmaris the katana has a 0 degree edge (flat) on the back side, so the tip is actually more pointed when comparing to a longsword with a diamond cross section tip (most in that article have round cross section tips, #4 being the most narrow non-round tip). For example, say the tip of the katana edge is 20 degrees on the blade side the back is 0 degrees for a total of 20 degrees, where as a pointed longsword (such as #4) would be 12-15 degrees front and back for a total of 24-30 degrees.
And yes, a sharpened angled tip penetrates cloth better than a round cross section tip, as round cross section tips were made for piercing thru and forcing apart mail rings, and being rigid and durable while doing so.
I dimly recall a medical anthropology class that covered papers on wounds during "Viking era" battles. Sure enough, there were lots and lots of left legs and feet severed and heads sliced open as well as wounds from spear thrusts.
Todd Ellner in Jorvik Viking museum in York, UK, there is a real Viking warrior that was dug up, albeit only his bones, obviously, but you can see half of the skull is missing due to a sword wound. You can walk around the body, it's in a glass coffin in the centre of the room.
if you imagine yourself in a shield wall, surrounded by your mates, protected by a shield and trading spear blows with the enemy then I imagine that hits to the legs would be very very common.. probably more so than upper body hits as the shield would defend that area
Why didn’t the Vikings have leg Armour?? Didn’t the vandal period have leg Armour?!
Also I have seen images of the Varangian guard wearing some sort of leg Armour!
@@DT-di8ct If memory serves chain or ring mail was the most common armor. It's hard to make chain mail greaves
Matt : "Context, my favorite C-word"
Me: You're a bad Brit
Another good reason is the point (heh) you made in the comparison of the longsword and the katana. That is, because the 'viking' sword has a wide spatulate tip, it allows for longer effective reach and debilitating blows even if it's just the tip that manages to go around the opponent's shield and hit them where they don't have armour; In the same situation, a very pointy tip would most likely do little more than a scratch.
The most common killing wounds (based on for example the battle of Visby) are deep cuts to the legs or hits to the head.
In shield and sword combat the easiest places to strike at are the wrist and the left leg (or right if that's his stance). Especially against inexperienced fighters who don't know how to balance their weight (which means that they're almost helpless against such an attack)
That little pause after "My favorite C-word." lol
Clit
It's 'Chocolate' you gutter-minded troglodytes.
Cucumber
Cash
Come is my favorite c-word. I can't help but snicker when someone says it at the end of a sentence.
If I ever get thrusted back in time to the viking era I'm reinventing greaves.
Why not just reinvent a musket??
Cheater!
Later period Viking swords often had a quite decently shaped tip for thrusting. So it may have been a matter of personal taste as often as any technical problems.
I'm not sure there were so few people in mail by the end of the Viking era, at least in Anglo-Saxon England. Ryan Lavelle's _Alfred's Wars_ includes some interesting calculations based on the provision that 5 hides of land were to provide one fyrdman, and of an entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 1008 that has 8 hides of land provide one helmet and one byrnie for a fleet that was being raised, noting that this alone would yield 6,000-9,000 byrnies and helmets for use in the army (using Domesday Book data for the hides). Thietmar of Merseburg claimed that Æthelred kept quite a stock of byrnies in London in 1016 (some 24,000 byrnies, he said). Many fyrdmen would have been thegns; England's petty nobility was very numerous, after all. So maybe not all or even most fyrdmen would have worn mail, but I think 10% is probably too low a figure for the 11th century.
When pondering issues like these, I often find it useful to rephrase the question. Not “why didn’t the ABC people do XYZ?”, but rather “why DID the ABC people do DEF?” I think it helps to try to remember that contemporary people weren’t stupid-the design of whatever they used, be it tools, weapons, buildings or what have you had an intended purpose. Asking the latter question better illuminates that purpose, in my opinion.
Yea people tend to look at ancient and older civilizations as if they were stupid, they weren’t, I mean they literally knew the earth was round because some dude stared at the sun going up and down every day from different regions of the known world
lol no@@Xintheproducer
This makes sense. The spear points demonstrate that they could make a point, they just chose a chopper instead. One thing I'll note is that for a lot of migration era applications (self defense against robbers, sailing, horseback riding) cutting swords are often the preferred choice. The gladius was pointy but it was a primary weapon and usually paired with javelins instead of a spear. Excellent analysis.
Also the gladius was meant to be used very close up in mass formations of men. Big pitched battles like that were fairly rare in the Viking era, raids and skirmishes were much more common.
Thank you for this. I was one of the people asking about it. Rounded tips are seen on some early iron swords, and certainly more of a squared off tip would bite better than a narrow tip when hacking at an ankle, but also (please correct me if I am wrong) a bronze sword will bend but a longer sword made out of bloomery iron will 1) bend more easily (leverage), and 2) crack and fail due to slag inclusions, so getting a point stuck in your opponents wooden shield would be bad. Not everyone had top of the line Ulfberhts or pattern welded blades that could take the stress of a bound up thrust, they often had high phosphorus (cold short) bloomery iron made from bog ore.
Another thing to reinforce your theory is that like you said most soldiers if they had armour would most likely had a helmet, to hit someone on the head you don’t need a pointy sword but a heavy large weapon to cause blunt force trauma
Clearly it's not about length but *Girth.* Can't blame them:)
Alfatazer _ That is a very true statement.
Alfatazer _ It's how you use it.
Girth matters. It turns a little nick into a fatal wound in five minutes flat.
I would like, but you have 69 likes right now.
Nice profile picture
Yes please talk more about viking era stuff. Would love to hear more about seaxes. Perhaps talk about how the very different shapes affect their funtion. Thanks for the context as always, in V.E. combat, your not relying on your sword for armour piercing. You have other options, be it other weapons or other target areas, thats if they are even wearing armour.
Seaxes and the related single egded "swords" are really a bit more common but all to often forgotten.
A sword was an upgrade but some thing like the Seax of Beagnoth/Thames scramasax, a long knife of some kind would be in every ones belt from the iron age on.
Mat, relating to the issue of shields. It can not be stressed enough that you never ever want to stab a pointy very expensive sword into a cheap wall of wooden shields as it will get stuck and you will lose it. A spear head is a relatively disposable item, a sword on the other hand is for prestige. Some vandal era swords had no point at all and were completely rounded.
If you are fighting at a time when the primary defensive formation is a shield wall you would be at a disadvantage using a later period pointy blade both in your ability to chop at exposed body parts and your ability to reduce the shield wall itself by chopping those shields to pieces which was the standard tactic of the day with sword and primarily axes.
The point construction on later blades does not indicate a superiority in stabbing through mail but rather a reduction in the utility of the cut when facing plate. When facing full plate thrusting is what is left to you as a fighter in that contex, not what is best overall.
The Gladius is an exception in several ways, first it was a standard issue mass produced blade not a prestige item. Second it often faced enemies using shields of construction that would not bind a sword. It had a very specific method of use and it's short wide blade and great grip should give it the leverage to recover stuck tips most of the time.
Kyphe Reigh For bashing shields - that makes sense to me.
You would not deliberately cut into a shield with either sword or axe, as that would mean you had effectively disarmed yourself. As Hank Reinhardt explains:
ua-cam.com/video/VqdpKHNQqqs/v-deo.html
Yes, the video quality sucks, but what do you expect from a viking era clip? :p
That aside, I agree with just about everything you said.
@@Gilmaris Thanks for that link, very interesting and I like the shield twisting move. However, those Viking potato cameras :D
Arming doublet, coming soon to the scholagladiatoria spring/autumn collection!
I sincerely think that you couldn't explain this topic in a more clear and effective way. And that's why I love your videos.
Cutting into legs: Visby flashbacks
Oh god, that cut in the inside of the VERY upper thigh. Eeesh!
Also a missing heel I think...
🤮
Well here in Czech Republic, in case of old Slavs 8-10th century (Great Morava and so on..) mail was really rare a historicians are pretty sure about that. Some swords from this era has even rounded tips because that was best for tip cuting and still good enough to stab someone without armor.
Another thought. The most common one-handed up-close weapon (When you don´t have your spear) was the battle axe. If you could afford it you had a sword but maybe you used the same fighting style as the with the axe that filled the same function. That's why you cut like with an axe.
My thoughts exactly
blacksmith here, people who think they could not forge thin tapers are just silly. also wire is really hard to make, and riveted mail is a whole extra million steps, i would bet mail wasnt very frequent. it is expensive in labor and materials.
I asked this question a few days ago in the comment section, happy there is now a video about it (whether it is accidental or not)!
And as indicated by the 3 shields allowance in the hólmgang, shields could be and were cut away or broken by blows with the sword, eroding the opponent's defensive ability. For that purpose a stout cutting blade would have been more useful than an acutely pointed thrusting one.
I just love those late medieval pointy swords, they look so stiff and penetrative
. _.
Excellent conclusions. I was going to write a long post on the topic, especially on Viking weapons, but I will make just a few notes.
1. Good quality swords were very expensive weapons. Most warriors would have used axes/long axes, spears, bows and brute clubs. The few swords were mostly forged in Central Europe and traded to great expense.
2. Most opponents were, as you pointed out, unarmored. If they had armour it was probably not ring mail since ring mail was exclusive and expensive. Leather, thin metal plate or heavy cloth armour was a lot more common as protection.
3. Since swords were so expensive, they were often more of heavily decorated status symbols than an actual weapons made for battle. Scientific analysis of old Viking swords found in Denmark have showed that they usually were so heavily engraved and ornamented that they would have broken if used in battle. In some Viking graves, you can find these ornate swords, but next to the body there are always axes and spear heads, which would have been the actual weapons used in battle.
3. An axe, or as you pointed out - a spear, is very efficient when it comes to fighting shielded and lightly armoured opponent. An axe can reach over or around a shield to hit areas on the body where a sword can not easily reach. Axes are, as swords, of course also ideal for targeting the legs. A spear can hit from a greater distance than a sword and be used thrusting while covering any vital/unprotected body parts. I would dare to say that the sword is inferior to the axe and spear in many melee situations where the shield is used.
Interesting perspective but I believe in skirmishes, and in 1v1 fighting, the sword and shield was the most superior weapon.
If a swordsman was fighting a spearman or axeman, he could use his sword to target the opponents wooden handle. Subsequently, the spearman would have to fight more defensively and potentially lose ground. If you spar with someone you will see. The sword was made to chop because it chopped limbs, shields, handles, etc. and it was also excellent for executing prisoners.
I love Viking Era swords..... Just awesome!
Viking, Viking... No, its a spatha. It was not even allowed to sell them to the vikings. They couldnt make the good ones.
Might also want to add that piercing mail without half-swording using a long single handed sword, even a very pointy one, is very difficult. Not many people have tested this extensively, but half swording makes such a huge difference for armor penetration, even over normal two handed sword thrusts. This is because long european style swords are flexible, and need a hand directly on the blade to stiffen the blade enough to be practical armor piercing weapons (exception of gladius swords since they are short enough that it isn't necessary).
But you can't half sword with a shield, especially a boss gripped shield, on the other arm. Since shields were totally ubiquitous in the viking era (due to lack of plate armor), half-swording was simply not possible in most combat situations, meaning they probably did not consider swords to anti-armor weapons in any capacity. It was only after shields were replaced by plate armor that people could start using swords to pierce armor with half-swording and develop specialized anti-armor swords, as strange as it sounds that the development of full plate lead to swords being able to defeat armor.
I agree with all the other points in this video too.
I appreciate your cutting to reference images while you talk in this video!
This is a new Scholagladiatoria classic. It's great as an educational video!
A massgrave on Gotland, Sweden, from 1361 was found a while back. There was quite a few skeletons with visible damage, and damage to extremities was common. As he says here, lop someones leg off is very effective. One skeleton even had both legs cut off in what seemed one blow.
You can read some about this find here.
museum-of-artifacts.blogspot.se/2015/11/bloody-medieval-warfare.html
One of the best examples of the idea of context coming full circle. Awesome video Matt.
Matt, in all seriousness, I never thought of the arrow in that context. You always have some food for thought.
I'm learning so much! Thanks for another fantastic video.
I imagine steel quality during the Viking era meant that a finer, more pointed tip would lead to a lot of breaking, bending and generally issues that you really don't want when someone is trying to kill you.
Besides that, the best armor the Vikings would've seen was almost exclusively chainmail, and even then it was relatively uncommon, which negates any need for a sword able to penetrate plate armor.
That said, they had spears for when they wanted to poke holes in things.
Hi from Canada Matt! This was fascinating. Not something one would normally find themselves considering on the surface of different swords of different eras. Thanks for your informative and educational videos!
He’s right, the reason for the blunt tip on these swords is a combination of factors. However, he forgot steel quality. The appearance of large plates to make plate harnesses and swords with long narrow needle points goes hand in hand with improvements in steel quality and improved knowledge of heat treatment during the 13th-15th centuries. You can make a pointy 15th century sword like he was handling out of slag ridden 9th century low carbon steel smelted in a small bloomery oven out of inferior ore but it will not perform as well as the actual 15th century examples made with much superior smelting equipment and techniques (read: it will bend and break). Swords (and steel) got a lot better once people were able to smelt it at higher temperatures than a bloomery oven can, realised the role of carbon and mastered heat treatment.
In the Roman era every soldier would wear armor, 500 years 10% would wear mail. The fall of the Roman Empire was quite a blow to military effectiveness
More videos on viking warfare, armor, and weaponry!
Odin Hove High middle ages, for me. 1100-1300? Pre-plate armor.
Look up William Short/Hurstwic.
So your easiest source for Viking weapons/armor is to check illustrations for the Varangian Guard.
As for tactics the Vikings who returned from the Varangian service had Roman-inspired tactics. Emperor Leo's Tactica is a good source for the 900-1000 era, as the number of opponents the Roman Empire faced at the time was very different from one another (Vikings, Arabs, Saxons, Normans, Rus, Persians, Saracens) and so on.
Another factor to take into consideration is the cost and time to make the equipment, and the cost of the materials. Good steel was very expensive, so a sword and mail were probably reserved to the wealthy, while spears are cheaper, easier to make and do not require top notch steel to be effective
Just found your channel and I enjoyed it very much. I'm a bit of a "why" guy so the fact you will wander a bit off subject to clarify or support what you are saying is fine by me. Going to binge watch you for a bit this morning. Thanks for the excellent video.
A fan of the last reason. That would also explain Dane axes being so thin
Perhaps the ability to create a tapered, pointed blade existed, but the resulting sword would have been to weak due to the quality of metal. A pointed blade might have been too likely to chip or break after a few stabs.
your answer to that parcticular question created a new question.
why did Europeans stop using the big rectangular shields in the late Roman and early medieval eras? why did they prefer smaller round shields that offer less protection than the classical Roman Scutum that came before or the Kite shields that came after?
My guess, although I know nothing of the subject, is that Scutum was designed to fight in formation and also the Roman Empire used ot supply they soldiers while in the migration era soldiers began supplying themselves with equipment. So the Scutum is amazing for fighting side by side with another person with an scutum but it might be cumbersome to travel with it, so now that soldiers are supplying themselves with equipment they went for a less cumbersome shield, one that was easier to travel with.
I think it comes down to the lack of formal armies. Roman legionaries were professional soldiers. They trained constantly and lived together with their unit.
Working in tight formation requires these things. And without tight formation big scutum like shields are more detrament than good.
Also the previously mentioned lack of standardized supply and gear can play a part. Good quality equipment is expensive, so if you are not a professional.soldier you wont invest in it.
the late Roman legionaires also used round shields so apparently there is a practical reason for this.
The idea it was because of some lack of organization is kind of countered by that very fact. The late imperial armies of particularly East Rome were still highly professional armies but they still changed their equipment from the high imperial age several centuries before.
The most likely aspect is the shift to more mobile warfare due to the advent of cavalry as well as static borders with lots of skirmishing going on which meant infantry had to change their role. Even in the early imperial period we see legionaires pretty hapless against a well organized cavalry army, they ceased to be the main arm to facilitate victory on the field (still important in sieges etc. but elsewhere the heavy infantry were supreme in winning field battles for the Romans).
There is imo a big misconception in the belief that the Romans somehow reached a pinnacle that was perfect. It was not, it ceased to be perfect as Germanic and other tribal societies became ever more organized themselves. If we look at the Wars of the Marcomanni under Marc Aurel we have a tribal federation the size of the Czech republic apparently survive a war against an ancient superpower.
In essence it became ever harder for the Romans to keep an organizational edge on their neighbors and those neighbors became ever better at matching them.
Cogent, well thought out, and well presented!
Another factor that he fails to mention, is that it's not just the type of armor your fighting against - it's also the type of men.
In Greek phalanx warfare they fought as soldiers - disciplined ranks trained to keep formation and maneuver together. Breaking formation was an invitation to defeat - exposing weak spots - and breaking the enemy's phalanx was a primary goal of the battle.
In the Hundred Year's War most battles were also between armies fighting as soldiers - not phalanxes, but still in disciplined formations. Breaking the line, or outflanking it, meant a force could be rolled up from the side, where it was weaker (or the back, weaker still.
During the Viking Age the armies were different. The armies of King Alfred the Great, or King Brian Boru, weren't mainly composed of highly trained and disciplined soldiers. Besides a small percentage of nobles, who could be considered professionals, most of these armies were peasant levies, like the Anglo-Saxon fyrd. These were largely farmers and herdsmen, with some potters, blacksmiths, and other craftsmen mixed in, who had been summoned in a hurry to defend their land. They had minimal armor and minimal training, and most probably wielded spears (an iron head on a stick, easy to make) or axes and mattocks (peasant tools that happen to be quite capable of killing).
The Vikings that faced them weren't soldiers, either. They didn't fight in disciplined formations. Instead they were warriors - experienced, battle-hardened and ruthless, but they largely approached battle as either a wild melee or a series of individual combats. Indeed, the whole concept of a berserkr fits well among warriors, but runs counter to the discipline of soldiers.
How does this distinction apply? In an army of soldiers there is a degree of standardization. The Roman legions are a good example. Whether from Pannonia, Massilia, Iberia or Africa, every Roman legionnaire wore similar armor, used a similar scutum, and fought with similar pila and gladius. They would lock their shields to form a line or a testudo, and the formation wouldn't work if they weren't uniform. With rare exceptions like the ambush of the Teutoburger Wald (which was a fine piece of guerilla tactics) an army of soldiers will defeat an army of warriors - even if the individual warriors may be more skilled and courageous.
In a pitched battle, it takes soldiers, not warriors, to defeat soldiers. Most of the forces the Vikings faced were, at their best, warriors themselves - when they weren't merchants, priests, and peasants.
When the forces facing the Vikings began to fight as soldiers - as at Clontarf under Brian Boru - the Vikings could be defeated.
berserkr weren't as depicted in movies. They were, in fact, the champions of high ranking people. I agree re the behaviour of disciplined armies vs that of swarms of talented individuals. But are we certain that that was the behaviour of a group of vikings?
Old norse (or as you say "vikings") very specifically used tactics like shield walls (phalanx) and fairly organised warfare according to treatises that I have read. Where are you getting the unorganised melee information?
@@eloryosnak4100 correct me if Im wrong but as far as a I know, the Franks were also some sort of disciplined army by those days, right?
Very interesting, I also suspect that armor may be ahead of the weapons of its day (when possible), because those who can buy armor what it to work. The weapon of the day basically deens to work against what you'll find the most.
Matt Easton is actually a stealth Superdry influencer
"Stealthy".
I'm pretty sure superdry makes up a good 90% of Matt's wardrobe.
the gladius was just a fantastic design, mare for stabbing and chopping, with excellent point of impact where the blade is broader, which also made it touch the scabbard in that single point...brilliant!
All you said is basically correct Matt, but I think you overlooked one important factor: The metalurgy of the period and the lack of crucible steel. This meant, that the swords of the era weren’t particularly springy and prone to bending.
When you thrust a very long blade into metal armour or any other resistant material it will be at very high risk of bending (which in case of a sword makes it practically useless until it can be straightened out). A spear head is shorter and can be (and was) made much beefier and stiffer, since weight distribution and quality of the cutting edge is not such a big issue.
Thus, swords were not made to thrust through armour simply because they couldn’t be made to do it and still function effectively as swords with the technology of the day.
What does crucible steel has to do with anything?
In Europe that wasn't produced up until the industrial era and the one that was made in India still suffered from the same problems as pre-spring tempering blades.
High Master Johannes Liechtenauer maybe the terminology was wrong? What I meant was, that sword blades of the early middle ages were a lot less springy and more prone to bending than swords of the 13th - 16th centuries.
I don't think this is the reason - you can still make a Type X blade with a much more pointy tip. But they didn't. The Romans made very pointy spathae and of course the Roman gladii had reinforced pointy blades. Even Bronze Age swords often have very tapered and pointy tips, and bronze has the same bending issue as iron. So, as discussed in the video, I just do not think that metallurgical technology is a reason in this case.
scholagladiatoria I don’t think I’ve seen an original spatha that was significantly more pointed than early medieval swords were.
The gladius on the other hand is significantly shorter with a broad, hefty blade that very much facilitates stabbing despite being made of inferior steel.
Many European bronze swords often seem to have been thrust-centric, but they were also shorter and they existed in a World where metal armour was extremely rare.
I stand by my assertion, that making a thrust oriented sword capable of defeating maille that was also well balanced and had a +25 inch blade would not be feasible in the 8th - 10th century.
XCodes Of course they were effective weapons (whether they were commonly used on the battlefield is more of an open question) but I don’t subscribe to the determinism of saying, that if a weapon needed a certain feature, it would have had it. Making a blade thicker/shorter/pointier to make it possible to stab through maille without bending the blade could well mean giving up on another important feature such as reach, balance, cutting capacity etc. The fact that they chose a longer, less thrust-oriented blade doesn’t mean, that the people at the time had no use for a sword that could stab through maille. It could just as well be, that they realized, that making such a blade was not possible without giving up one or more features they valued in their swords.
A cleaving sword could also do some blunt damage through mail and be somewhat useful in that way, which it couldn't do against the plate you see later.
Arkantos
I dunno. Usually a metal mesh layer over cloth padding is really good at absorbing force, especially with a squishy body beneath. It means less on areas where the bone is near the surface, like the arms and legs, but they didn’t have mail to protect them there anyway.
Monkeysrock there were absolutely mail arms and leggings in the period. The Bayoux Tapestry is covered in people with mail covereing everything from the chin down.
Limbs are able to be broken, as you mention, and so could collar bones, ribs, hips, etc. All of these could make someone pretty useless in a fight, and you could probably give someone a concussion with one of them even if they were wearing a helmet.
A cast blown tip shot goes right through riveted mail. That’s why the tip is blunter, it was widely utilized.
Whatever the case, man has a clear tendency towards increasing the instances of penetration as time goes on, given favorable conditions.
"Nudge, nudge, wink, wink"
Great video Scholagladiatoria. By the way, I was wondering: why did forward-curved swords die out in Europe after Ancient times? Swords like the kopis/falcata, falx, and sica were used to great effect in the Iron Age, but forward-curved swords like these stopped being used by the Dark Ages. Why? If you want a chopping blade, as those in the Viking Era did, why not a forward-curved sword?
That and if you impale a ribcage with the tip it is slower and more difficult to remove compared to a straight blade. with a Viking sword you just draw it out but with the forward curved blades you have to wiggle it out... that extra time leaves you vulnerable.
It's a misconception that mail will protect you from something like a larger 'viking' sword or a great sword. Even though you won't actually get 'cut,' the impact will still go right through the mail and most likely break your arm or ribs etc. Something like a viking sword could even be fatal through a metal helmet.
@@federicoponchiroli3762 A broken bone is very serious. Can you hold your weapon or shield with a broken arm?
No, you fukin can't. As opposed to a cut wound...when you have that much adrenaline a sharp cut wound isn't going to stop you for a while.
There's a lot more damage caused by heavy sword strikes vs armor than you think. Watch this video on a great sword tested against chain mail and plate armor. ua-cam.com/video/O9eCzG8AAoQ/v-deo.html
Matt, this is an example of the type of video that us medieval-loving members of your audience love! You've thrown us some true "red meat"! Thank you! Just some personal things- I would love to see more of your other arming swords again(your Poitier and "Henry V"), and perhaps it would've been nice to include one of your spears as a "prop" in this video, since you talked about them, and I know you have them. 😉😃 By the way, I call swords that were contemporaneous with the Vikings "Frankish swords", since the Vikings generally couldn't/wouldn't make their own. They obtained them chiefly from various parts of the Frankish Kingdom, especially the Rhine Valley region.
Want to break the internet @scholagladiatoria? "Cutting test, katana vs. viking sword" That would be one for the books! ;)
I think you have a good point there...
Videoes about weapons, techniques and history. Thats your most interesting ones Matt :)
excellent treatise on this subject; well researched and presented. Good work!
So here's an idea:
There is a lot of talk about the battlefield effectiveness of different weapons, but how often would vikings/other germanic tribes, be fighting in pitched battles? (ok, i know of the late viking era wars) I always imagined warfare in the (early) north european dark ages to be small scale conflicts, raiding, running in to bad neighbours or fighting off invaders. Carrying a sidearm at all times would be a natural thing for higher members of a warrior society, but it doesn't seem likely that you would be armoured and carry a spear unless you intend to go into battle.
Viking chieftains were, for most of their time, heads of a household, farmers, traders etc. Raiding and warfare was a lucrative side-buisness, or a necessity due to invasion or pledges of alegience.
Hence, the dark age sword is an awesome weapon for most of the time. Highly effective against most opponents you are likely to run into and easy enough to carry with you. Just showing the sword at your waist (ability to lop off someones arm) would probably stave off many conflicts.
If you are going to war on the other hand, and expect to face armoured opponents, well then you would armour yourself as best you could and carry an armour piercing weapon.
Also, the type of steel they had (or chose) could be honed very sharp but wasn't very springy. Anything longer than a speartip would probably bend or break too easily if it was forged into a narrow point. There is a lot more work and materials that go in to making a sword than go into making a spearhead. You dont want to break the tip of your sword every time you use it, but the spearhead or arrowhead is more of a disposable item that can be reforged if you are able to retrieve them.
Also, ifyou break the tip of a knife or sword and resharpen it, guess what shape it takes...
you forget that the vikungs could cut rocks with their sword because they were stronker than rocks because of rune magick
David Baltzersen
I thought they could cut rocks with their farts...
yeah, but that is kids stuff.
Aw shit nigga
David Baltzersen big true
Seems to me it's a natural progression from the Celt & Iberian weapons, to the Roman Gladius and Spatha after they adopted and adapted them over the centuries. Then again from Spatha, having been introduced across Europe by Rome, to the various early Oakshott types of the Viking Era. Again changing as time passed into the more common Arming Swords, and on.
Ya know, I'd love to hear Maciej Kopciuch's (artofswordmaking.com/) opinion on this progression, as I believe his experience and delving into the history of swords and swordmaking would provide an excellent topic of conversation.
Could this be related to the resurgence of short, broad blades such as the Katzbalger in the 16th-17th centuries? To my understanding, the common kit of a line soldier at that time would have consisted of a breastplate/cuirass, a helmet, faulds for the upper legs, and possibly a gorget or mail aventail to protect the neck. So once again you'd have opponents whose torso and head would be incredibly well-protected, but whose extremeties would be relatively quite vulnerable. Seems like two quite similar contexts, which ended up producing somewhat similar weaponry in some cases.
Is it just me, or is that brushing sound when mr.Easton brushes his Viking Era sword at 8:40 oddly satisfying?
I think that in this kind of discussion, there is always one thing that is not addressed at all; armored judicial duels.
Swords were never meant to be used directly against armors, the only exception is the longsword.
The majorities of halfswording/mordhau/ longsword vs armor techniques are made within this context. I think that style of pointy long swords emerged in that field rather than on a battlefield scenario.
If we add a bit of cross cultural comparison, there were cultures where heavy armor were present: Japan, China, India, Middle east... if we take for example the Middle east, we have warriors covered head to toe with mail and plates, and afaik the mainstream type of sword were extremely curved swords not optimized for the thrust.
But in the same culture's battlefield we see armoe piercing daggers, maces and warhammers as developed as the one used in the West.
Same for the other countries I've mentioned; there might be some examples of extremely pointy katana but that's pretty much an exception to the rule.
Imho the super pointy longsword was optimized to fight armored men in a duel rather than in a battle.
A lot of Turkish sabres in the 15th ~17th centuries that I've seen seemed to have been more optimized for thrusts, with either highly tapered asymmetrical tips or spear-point like yelmens. Similar things go for many Chinese/Korean sabres and Japanese swords, except that their thrusting ability is mostly attributed to cross-section & thickness. Many of them can possess striking similarities with some XVIII swords in this regard. (Svante Nilsson's sword).
But then again, they weren't as extreme as Oakeshott XV or XVII, for instance. Still focused a lot on cutting.
P.S.: Matt's Longsword in this video isn't a XVIII. It's the Albion Mercenary, which is a XV - more thrust centric than a XVIII. XVIII longswords tend to be much better cutters due to having curved edges.
The sword being a side arm I feel like the heavier sword was better to bash and chop after the spears were spent and the chaos of battle became hand to hand close combat. It seems to me these heavy choppers were for limbs and necks more than a stab. When I hold mine during a swing it really feels like it was a bone breaker that would cut more than a stabbing blade. I am typing this while you are coming to the same point in the video😁 you sir are my favorite 👍
Charlemagne had a pointy sword before the Migration period.
As a very amateur sword maker, honestly.... making Fuller's is harder work than flat diamond / central ribs.
A video on how viking era swords/seaxes were worn/attached on the body.
I've been religiously following the channel for... 4 years? maybe 5? Just wanted to say that this is one of the very best videos you've ever done, Matt :)
Thanks!
Pretty much nailed it as far as my logic is concerned. I would also like to point out, that if you are stuck using your sword during a battle at this point in time, a chopping weapon is far more likely to be effective against multiple enemies in armour(concussion and tip cutting), or against their spears/axes shafts or against their shields (which everyone had).
If you're up against multiple enemies in armor and you're down to a sidearm, it hardly matters what kind of sword you're using - you're borked.
Also, weapon hafts were not made of balsa wood - you can't chop through a spear with a falchion while somebody's holding it and trying to kill you. Spears are quick, they move a lot.
If it can chop through a torso, and through all those bones, it can chop through a one-handed spear haft. If you look at late falchion designs, it seems pretty apparent from the odd shapes that they were used to fight against polearms.
Swords are quick as well. It's not like people don't parry quick raper thrusts - they can hit spears. Frankly, the thrusting momentum they have might only help you in chopping through their weapon, depending upon how you strike.
Ama Yad You can absolutely cut through a spear shaft in two strikes with such a sword. A lighter spear might only even need one. Source - actually cut through roughly 3 cm diameter "free floating" (not fixed) oak shovel shaft in two strikes with a blunt machete.
Can it be done? Yes, a sharp piece of steel can chop hardwood, with some effort. Can it be done reliably, in combat, while people are trying to stab you in the face? I'm gonna go with "unlikely",
"The best one-handed sword for fighting multiple armored people with spears" is a bit like "the best pistol for fighting three soldiers with rifles". Some options are clearly better, but there aren't any *good* options.
Ama Yad
I mean... yes. The divide isn't *that* big, but indeed, you will be at a disadvantage.
"Can it be done reliably, in combat, while people are trying to stab you in the face? I'm gonna go with "unlikely", "
As I said, I tried it. It works. Is it a useful tactics? Not by any means.
But again, this is a multi-variable equiation, and we can't rule out the possible usefullness of being able to destroy the enemy's weapons.
"'tis but a flesh wound", "I've had worse"...
Beware the Rabbit!
Ok, so I'll say what I expected to hear.
I THINK (I am no expert, I'm not even a journeyman) that if a viking wanted more of an anti-armour side arm. He would have likely chosen an axe or hammer/mace/club.
As the former focuses more force on a single point and clubs would have been known to be unimpeded by mail.
Also better for bashing prospective slaves with too.
thanks Matt, it was really interesting. Every video of yours makes me so glad that you are doing such precious informativve content on yt :)
A really good point you made in the axe video was a heavy chopping weapon can directly attack a spear and destroy it, this could also be a good argument for a heavier, more front balanced chopping sword.
“Whacking somebody in plate armor won’t do anything.”
*ROBERT BARATHEON WANTS TO KNOW YOUR LOCATION*
I think the point you made about "what we (don't) know" is quite an essential one that tends to be overlooked pretty much, especially in the so-called "Viking era". Both a time and culture of which we actually only have an extremely thin and heavily biased layer of written sources (excluding the late Norman period). So most is down to archaeology and ... well ... bold deduction.
Aside from that, the "Viking" tag for swords has a catch, since many findings of "Viking" swords actually had been manufactured by the Frankish, and exported.
Oh and well done pointing out that mail was actually a luxury article of the time (as were swords; again, not including the late Norman period and partly even the Danish training camps).
Maybe cause the majority of opponents weren't wearing any armour & if they came up against someone who was they just aimed for an area that wasn't. Lots of medieval skeletons with legs chopped off from sword blows.
I think the problem with the steel they had at the time wasn't that they couldn't manufacture a pointy tapered sword, but that the sword would bend much easier.
In the 900’s when the Vikings were just getting started they were primarily raiders. They attacked towns and villages to loot and plunder and would leave before they met any real military forces. An extra pointy sword is was not needed and was in fact a liability because the thin tip is more likely to break. If you were a wealthy enough Viking to own a sword and most were not wealthy, having a sword break on you meant your sword is now short and you would most likely file the tip to be broad like a sword you should of had in the first place.
I agree about the spear being the best weapon but I'm not so unconditionally in love with swords for use in shield walls which is how the Norse/Slavs/Franks/Anglo-Saxons did most of their fighting. I have tried shield-wall fighting and in a shield wall please give me a spear, when the spear breaks an axe, if that axe is lost the backup axe I carry in my shield hand. A sword would be my last choice in a shield wall. About steel quality, it is actually **part** of the reason for viking age swords being beefy cleavers there are also other reasons mentioned in the video. Archeologists and sword smiths who have studied Viking age swords seem to agree there are some Viking age swords who are made of pretty good metal but the steel of many Norwegian sword blades for example ranged from rather bad to pretty horrible. It is not just that the steel many of these swords were made of had frightening levels of slag inclusions, the craftsmen of the time also had poor control of steel carbon content and therefore hardness. There is a reason why Norse people preferred imported Frankish swords and that reason was the better and more consistent quality of Frankish steel. Roman steel had been quite good. During Roman rule, Norican steel for example was of very good quality. After the end of Roman rule in the West the good quality steel became significantly less widely available during the period from ~450-750 and more expensive. From ~750 i.e. during the Carolingian period in the Frankish empire there occurred an improvement in smelting technology that led to the Franks making stronger and better steel and the subsequent abandonment of pattern welding in favour of all steel blades. Pattern welding was sometimes still done during and after the Carolingian period, but increasingly for aesthetic rather than structural reasons. This and a general economic recovery from the chaos of the post Roman period led to the manufacture of larger quantities of good quality iron and steel taking off and better steel becoming widely available again at lower prices. One can actually track this process in the archeological record in mining and smelting centres like the Swabian Alb.
A Claidmohr is a two hander so hardly comparable and cost doesn't change the fact that the fact that the spear and the axe are both a better weapon in a shield wall than a sword. Also swords were expensive but they weren't quite so expensive that they were as rare as Ferraris or something. The Salme ships contained 40 skeletons but more swords than men so some of the crew had two swords and finds from the Viking age suggest a sword to axe ratio of around 1/3 to 2/3 or even more depending on the region. I can only judge by my own 'Viking' swords (which weigh in at 1.3-1,6 kg) against my 14th century swords which are much more nimble due to the rearward balance point (and weigh around 0.9-1 kg). Some of the 'Viking' swords I saw at Vordingborg castle Copenhagen, Stockholm and in Oslo were heavy duty machetes that I would have a hard time doing any meaningful fencing with and I'm about a foot taller than the guys who originally used them. He's not exaggerating one little bit when he calls these 'Viking' swords cleavers. Try taking a 'Viking' sword sometime and do some sword and buckler exercises and you'll soon find out what he means. You really feel that extra 0.5-1 kg of the 'Viking' cleaver and the advanced balance point after about 30 minutes.
The handgun assessment I think is correct, for me it's spear, axe, backup axe, sword as I said before. So in modern terms it would be rifle, pistol, backup pistol, tactical tomahawk. The 'Viking' swords weighed in at as little as 1,1 kg for a premium example (or a bad one that broke/bent easily) the median seems to have been around 1,5-1,6 kg for something that compensated for poor steel quality with mass and the upper end of the weight scale was pushing 2kg for something that over compensated for poor steel with even more mass. Generally, the better the steel the lower the weight but there were of course other factors influencing weight so it's more complicated than that. Some people who had enough muscle may just have preferred a 2 kg one handed cleaver even if the steel was good enough to make the sword half that weight. Still, for comparisons the two handed Claidmohr you talked about weighed between 2.2 and 2.8 kg according to the Wikipedia article, a 14th-15th century arming swords or a 'Langes Messer' had a median weight in the vicinity of 1,1 kg according to Wikipedia while the 1796 pattern British Heavy Cavalry Officer's Saber weighed in at around 0,8 kg. so the preferred one handed sword weight seems to have been at around 1,1 kg +/- 300 grams from circa the 13th century into the 20th (the M1913 Patton Saber weighed 1,1 kg). Anyway, for me all this makes a one handed sword in the 1,5 kg, never mind 2 kg range beefy. Other people's mileage may vary. Also what gives you tennis elbow is not just the weight it is the placement of the balance point as well which on 'Viking' swords is far quite forward as it should be on any good cleaver.
Great video, it is so interesting how weaponry and armor developed over the centuries. Your videos have kept me entertained during quarenteen so thank you for that!! I did have a question however. Do you know if and how often were Medieval and Renaissance weapons were customized? I have modified a few of my own pole arms and swords to my preference. in fact I indexed a spear after your video about cutting with Spears and it works really well. However I'm not sure how often it happened historically. so I thought I would ask an expert on the subject!
Thanks, Matt Superdry!
When he was going through all the things you could cut it reminded me of an infomercial
I'd buy it.
I was actually wildly curious about that.
I figured it was technological advancement.
But Matt's explanation makes more sense.
i would like to see a video about formation fighting
easy answer is that mail was hella expensive, and swords too, most warriors had a padded clothing, a helmet and shield and armed with axes and spears.
"padded" armor is just thick clothes.. it has been known to humanity for thousands of years
Dima Skliarenko There are historical sources of gambesons existing in 10th century. There are even foundings of scynthian padded armors in europe 4th century bc.
Dima Skliarenko Beyaux tapestry shows mail suits with lining in mid 1000s.
There is little material evidence for padded armour even in 12th century. That doesent mean it didnt exist. As ive said, cultures like scythians used padded armour i europe well before medieval period. Just the fact that mail doesent function as a stand alone armour proves that padded armour had to exist or else mail does not serve any purpose at all.
Dima Skliarenko Mail is not useful without padding because it does not protect from medieval trauma.
Scythians are predicessors of some european nations. They have much to do with medieval europe. By fighting in europe and preceeding medieval era and using padded armour they are good credibility that early medieval people used padded armor.
I told you. Go look at beyaux tapestry where mail hauberks have padding.
Dima Skliarenko Lining inside is padding.
Ive seen lots of unlined mail armours too. That doesent change fact that padded armour most likelly existed in early medieval period.
Instead of saying "there is a chance that medieval people didnt have mail" you said that they didnt have mail. If you were a historian with years of research id believe your theory, but now i choose to believe in other theory with more common sense.
That being said, i dont say that padded armour did exist in early medieval period. Im saying that it had a great chance to exist because earlier evidence and common sense supports that theory.
Legs are famously vulnerable to chopping weapons. So much that it has entered parlance:
1."Hamstring: To severely restrict the efficiency or effectiveness of."
2. Achilles tendon
Strong argument for your hypothesis, Matt. A follow up test could look for a correspondence between advent of better leg protection and decrease in chopping type swords.
I know i'm very late to this presentation. However, something that should be addressed is civilians. Untold numbers of villages, towns, cities & churches etc. were defended by lightly armed citizens. People's armed with not much more than farm implements and eating knives would have made short work for men armed with swords and shields.
Was cost the reason greaves and vambraces went away in this period? Seems like even the Greek clamp-on styles in iron would offer some protection without too much weight.
I think the spear route is the most plausible, I mean the falchion existed in the era of heavy armour so a cutting sword in an era of lighter armour isn't that surprising.
I like that every video spawns ideas for another 5, not sure it's sustainable xD.
@13:30 also to reinforce your point here in the few sources we do have it shows the front ranks in armor and the back ranks reserved for "lesser" troops who we assume weren't as heavily armored. This would support my original post that once past your "main" opponents it's time for the slaughter and a hewing weapon would be great against the rear ranks. (I also assume that axes would be discarded at this time too.)
Housecarls are shown with mail down to the knee in the bayeux tapestry. Given that the shield wall a Hastings survived a sustained arrow attack until the Normans ran out of arrows I'd suggest that they also had either pretty thick boots or grieves on their lower legs, unless they used a kite shield to protect their legs.
The fact that in Norse duels you were allowed three shields probably indicates they could be hacked to pieces fairly quickly by dark age swords. I doubt a thrusting sword would have the same effect. Given the importance and prevalence of shields as a primary form of defense, the ability to hack through that defense may be an additional reason for the shape of the sword. In contrast, as I understand it, the very pointed medieval swords came about after shields had become much rarer on the battlefield (as they did not add that much extra protection to plate, or where too bulky for specialized troops like long bowman, who would have carried a buckler, but not a full shield).
I think most troops in the Anglo-Saxon fyrd actually *would* at least have helmets. Lacking primary source material about the Anglo-Saxons, I can't be sure, but compared to other early and high medieval sources (in this case from my homeland) that concern the _heervaart_ (mobilisation for offensive purposes) and _landweer_ (mobilisation for defensive purposes), it seems that even the poorer "conscripts" were expected to bring at least a _hersniere, staf, knyf, ende dat dair toe behoert_ (helmet, spear, knife, and all else that comes with it).
Glenn de Moor considering the proximity of England and the Lowlands, linguistically and historically, would not be surprised at all.
Well, given that the Anglo Saxon legistation was for one fyrdman per five hides of land, and that later period Norman knight's fee were about the same size, and that the pay rate for fyrdmen on active service was the same as later Norman knights, I think we could say with good certainty that the Anglo Saxon fyrd should be nearly as well equipped as the Norman knights.
So a helmet, a mail byrnie, several spears and shields and a sword, plus at least one horse for riding to and from battles, and a pack horse.