Just got my Arms and Armor Furnovo sword 30 minutes ago! Swinging it around while watching new Easton vid! What a day. Girlfriend says I look like a kid watching Saturday morning cartoons.
When talking about the handle length, he treats the handle and pommel as two separate things when talking about the guard length so I would assume when he says the handle should be a span in length, he means not including the pommel. If he meant for the handle and pommel together to be a span in length he could have just said that the guard should also be a span in length rather than saying it had to be the length of the handle and guard together. That would make the total hilt size a bit less ridiculously small for the blade length. Also, I'm not certain that hand span and height correlate that well together. If you have small or large hands for your height to whatever Vardi thought a normal proportion you'll be quite a bit off.
I don’t think Vadi is describing the blade versus handle proportions - just the size of the components needed to fit your body. As a modern example: For shotguns, the “ideal / standard” length is described as a stock that’s as long / short as needed so the 1st pad of your finger reached the trigger when the butt of the stock is held in the crook of your bent elbow. And the ideal barrel length is described as 26-28” for skeet (fast movement / close distance ) and 30-32” for trap (slow movement / long distance) - and the range is for short versus taller people, with the caveat that is your super short or super tall (or have super wide shoulders, super close set eyes, etc) you may need to go up/down 2”. Note that the ideal length of stock is defined by your body size, and the ideal barrel length is defined by the use/tactics the shotgun must work well for. Handspan correlates with the length of handle you need for your handsize really well - regardless of the blade length. I think Vadi is saying you want the maximum length blade threat doesn’t impede certain tactics and is using the armpit as a “standard” easy reference point to help beginners buy the right sword. After all - you can’t tell a beginner that they need a sword the right length to execute technique XYZ “with proper form”...
And when he says "round pommel" Is a wheel pommel not round? Is there any indication that "round" means circular in three dimaneions rather than in one dimension?
Agreed, I read it before I watched Matt explain it, and it does appear that the "handle" is the area between the guard and the top of the pommel, which should be a span (~9", but could be individually sized) plus the size of the pommel, which should add 1.5-3". I'll note that my personal "span" is almost two widths of my hands, which would imply my back hand at least partly gripping the hilt. That works much better than Matt's interpretation.
When Vadi talking about “handle”, I think he means the handle along--excluding the pommel. Which means the windlass has the correct handle length for you!
Heh, I always see these two 40" total length "long swords" on lists of historical long swords. I always figured they were broken/bent in the past and reforged to give them a new tip. One thing I have read (IIRC, something Guy Windsor did, might have been youtube). He pointed out that the super long, armpit high swords made a number of the winding plays much more relevant because of the distance between the opponents. The shorter modern versions make the brawling/grappling plays more relevant because the opponents are much closer. I've not had the biggest chance to do lots of sparring, but for certain winding to thrust plays, it is actually easier to step in while blocking and toss an elbow into my opponent's head, mainly because it goes with the motion of my body.
No joke I have a playlist for "unintentional asmr" and I put this video in it. Matt's warm, deep, speaking voice and calm, even pattern of speech as he meticulously analyses the sword proportions, is very relaxing to listen to!
I think the treatise is clear: The handle needs to be a length of a handspan, and the guard needs to be the length of a handspan, plus the pommel. Ie: The hilt is made up of 2 pieces, the handle and the pommel - and I think this would have been non ambiguous language in Vadi’s time. As to overall length of the sword, another interpretation could be that when you hold the sword in your outstretched arm, but pointing back at yourself, that the point should be even with the armpit of your other arm. Ie: Short enough to pull the sword back and stab someone who is against your front shoulder, when your sword is in your rear hand and pulled all the way back.
First bit makes sense Second bit, hang on: That is the blade length to guard plus one hand up to the guard innit? .... Except - its to your outstretched fingers or maybe the heel of your outstretched hand. If someone's up at your shoulder its 'poke them firmly with the sharp guard time', not with the pointy bit of the long metal thing.
Farweasel Tactically, yes - I’d hit someone in grappling range with the crossguard or pommel to stop their attack momentarily and to create an opening. But I’d still want my sword to be short enough to stab them even if they were super close (like against my shoulder) and we were still standing. Ideally, half swording would be best - but I’d still like my sword to be useful even if I have to use my other hand to hold them at bay while I run them through :)
@@johng1097 Hamstringing's just not good enough for some folk these days. Picky I call it. You can always impale them once they've fallen over you know. Alright its all the effort of poking them twwice with sharp things (and you'll need more than just the tip sharp to do it) but if the opponent's worth mutilating its worth mutliating them properly is the traditional view ;-p.
@@Farweasel Depends if their in armor or not. If memory serves grappling someone and then stabbing like that is an armored fighting technique (although I forget which manuals its in). Ideally you'd half sword since you've got mail and gambeson to punch through once you get into a gap, but you probably still want to be able to use one hand if needed.
Most plausible to me is the span-length referring to the pommel-less construction, as others are noting. And indeed, taking a look at 21:14, it looks like the Windlass matches this nearly-exactly. Taking the other measurements into account, we could get a sword essentially-identical to Vadi's description (for your build) simply by replacing the pommel of the Windlass with a ball or disc pommel, of diameter about an inch less than the length of the fishtail pommel. Doing some measurement and algebra on the frame at 21:14 alongside your citation of the length of the hilt construction at 23:03, looks like the pommel is a bit over 7.8cm long, so we're looking at a 5.3cm disc or ball pommel instead. At that point, the pommel fits pretty much exactly under your armpit, the handle is a span long, and the guard's length is well-within half a centimeter of the length of the handle+pommel.
And yes, following Vadi’s suggestion you will usually end up with a relative short hilt, long blade and large crossguard sword. The Feder and blunt longsword I’m using right now have 133cm total length, 105cm blade length, 22cm handle length+6cm pommel length, and 28cm long crossguard.
The large crossguard obviously covers larger area, and the shorter handle length actually makes full circular rotations faster in one way--my hands need to move less distance to finish the rotation.
And the longer blade... Vadi really likes long blades. I remember in his advice of choosing swords for dueling he said something like “make two swords sisters and make sure your sword is not shorter than the other one’s”
I've always been interested in how much soldiers of different armies were allowed to choose their weapons, and how that changes across history or across different levels of training, funding, etc. The more mass produced your weapons are the cheaper and simpler it is to produce and the more uniform your formations can be, but the more individualized the weapons are the better they can be sized to each soldier's reach and style.
It depends on how standardized the military was and if soldiers bought their own gear. 19th century British army seemed to be pretty standardized for the lower ranks while the officers were given some leeway since the grunts were issued their gear while officers bought their own. Medieval armies seemed completely motley with everyone fighting with whatever they could afford. The Romans seemed like somewhere in between with the footmen being well equipped, but the cost of arms and armour coming out of legionarii's pay (apparently they could bring their own stuff if they had it)
@@fattiger6957 That's cos production lines really only began to take off (officially) with the start of the industrial revolution. And I think that began with mass producing pins from wire (I my have that wrong). I will now contradict myself and suppose its going to be a bit impractical to individually and painstakingly produce the hundreds of thousands of arrows need for something like the field events at Crecy and Agincourt.
I actually wrote about this very question to you a few months back, and here is the video that I was hoping for. I even have a custom longsword made by Regenyei on its way to my doorstep as we speak. My first non-wooden sword. I'm so excited. I struggled a bit with this one, since I come from a Japanese martial art background and am thereforce used to the tachi and the katana. The modern norm for a katana is around 110cm from tip to pommel, and it allows me, who is standing at 174cm, to comfortably make rising cuts with the right arm fully relaxed and extended. Regenyei's standard makes a longsword out to be around 120cm. All in all, his measurements have around the same length for the hilt and pommel, and around 10cm more blade. I can still do those cuts, as long as I adjust my stance a little. For a sword to be used in one to two hands, I have the following requirements: 1. I need to be able to make rising cuts (kiri age in kenjutsu, Unterhau in German) from a low stance comfortably. 2. The sword needs to have a guard that sufficiently covers my lead hand if gloved. This means a cross guard with an additional ring guard similar to that of a tsuba. 3. The pommel must be suited for gripping as well as striking. 4. The total length of the hilt and pommel needs to be three fists long, meaning I'm able to have a gap between my hands of one fist. 5. The sword must be able to be drawn from the hip. 6. The balance of the sword should be around 15-20cm from the guard. If all of the following are fulfilled, I consider it to be a good two-handed sword for my style of swordsmanship.
That seem to be pretty good criteria. It makes perfect sense that a perfect sword would be one specifically designed for the user to make up for any quirk of their proportions. Not everyone is the absolute average and even a person who is average height might have smaller or bigger hands.
I was taught you can get a surprise extension advantage by 'throwing' your longsword through your hands so the leading hand which was at the guard is now grabbing the pommel. Never seen Katana lads do anything similar. For sure it would be more difficult with no real pommel to naturally 'wedge' into your barely open leading hand, given you have to do it fast & hard or there's no point in doing it at all.
@@Farweasel The sliding of the hands is something that does exist, but it's more when using a polearm or a shortstaff in the Japanese arts. As you point out, Japanese swords have a kashira, or a butt cap, instead of a counterweight like those of European swords. Sliding along the tsuka (hilt) would therefore run you the risk of the sword going out of your hands. The one exception to this is the ken or tsurugi, which is a straight double-edged blade that originates from China. Basically a jian. That is a one-handed sword in its nature, however, and sliding along the hilt wouldn't do much. What *did* occur though was that they could attach string to the sword or a kunai, which allowed them to throw their weapon out and then pull it back in. Edit: Come to think of it, it might be doable with a nagamaki since the hilt is so long on that one. Question is whether a nagamaki is still a sword or a polearm :D
Personally, I interpret the part about the handle and the span of a hand to refer to the between the crossguard and the pommel ("the grip," for lack of a better term) rather than the grip and the pommel together. Under that interpretation, the Windlass fits Vadi's proportions pretty closely. I realize that the text is ambiguous, and I understand how and why you interpret the measurement differently.
I didn't interpret it as ambiguous at all. As others have stated, it seems quite clear that the handle (meaning specifically grip sans pommel) is a span. The guard is the length of the grip plus pommel together. Thet would make the Dynasty Forge sword ALMOST perfect for your proportions according to the text. The last bit I understand as meaning a sword for fighting specifically in armour against armoured opponents need only (but MUST) be sharpened at the tip. I.E. a different sword but otherwise of the same dimensions and hilt configuration as previously described. Think a blunt sharpened at the tip. That too makes sense since the sword for fighting armoured would remain slightly more robust being left in unsharpened state, almoat like an estoc. This would make it more capable of absorbing punishment from armoured combat. Hope my ramblings help. Cheers!
I found some similar guidelines when I was looking up this question to make a wooden longsword. The overall length the distance from armpit to heel, the grip a handspan long, and the pommel a hand width more, the guard equal to a span+hand. It ended up producing something just massive (I'm 6'3"/190cm tall) and I wasn't sure if I'd gotten it right. But this seems to be saying pretty much the same thing.
I just had a play with this using Peterson's Sacred Geometry method (I'm a big subscriber to this) and I think it checks out. Would need to use pictures/video to explain fully, but if you take your handspan, that is your grip length. Take a quarter of this and that is you pommel diameter (or pommel length if the pommel isn't round). The handspan plus 1/4 is the guard length. Half the pommel diameter and add that to your grip measurement (i.e. grip measurment plus 1/8). Now multiply that by 4 to get your blade length (4/1 ratio). Add that length, your grip and pommel to get OAL. For me: Handspan is 222mm: so pommel is 55.5mm; guard is 277.5; grip plus 1/8 is 249.75, which gives a blade length of 999mm. OAL is 1,276.5mm. I'm 5'10 (1680mm) and that OAL comes up to the lower third of my pec, which is under the arm without being jammed up into my armpit. This seems to come out as a normally proportioned sword. Regenyei's standard feder would be a decent analogue, although the grip would be too long.
If his holding his sword in the pomel it make sence that the handle is smaler, because when hold a curved object you can exert force with a closer part of the hand. This increases the leverage betwen the hands and decreses the leveragre of your arms, making your moviment more nimble.
Although it is possible that buy under the arm that he did not mean the arm pit. I googled the meaning of under arm & found the following: What is the difference between underarm and armpit? The armpit is the place under the arm closest to the shoulder and it forms a "pit", while underarm can be further down the arm, it's the inside, soft part of the arm. Also on Merriam-Webster dictionary.com Definition of underarm Definition 2: placed under or on the underside of the arm. So if we assume underarm to be anywhere from just above the elbow to the armpit then the proportions become more like most longswords. Although this is only a possibility & not a definitive answer, and would still leave open the question of where along the underarm the sword should end.
I like that he mentioned pointed quillons. I really like the idea of them being used like a crow's beak during a morthau. So much so, I have one of my characters do that in my novel a few times.
@@stephena1196 I'm still putting the finishing touches on it, so it isn't publicly available. If you'd like to beta read it for me (which would be a great help!) you can send me an email through my YT user page.
I'm 5'7" and just figured out that according to this treatise I should have a 48" sword, with a 37-38" blade, and a 8" grip. That's pretty common proportions of historical longswords and the modern replicas - it's just tall people that are the problem.
You rest your forearm on the pommel when the points on the ground. The grip (the leather covered bit) is a hand length long, and then there is a pommel that fits the hand. So the handle (the grip + pommel) is a bit longer than a hand length. With a gaurd to match the handle length.
My question is, what does the archeological evidence tell us? how many swords with extremely short handles compared to blade length, with rounded pommels, and very wide guards have been found in Italy? If none, or very few, that would mean 1 of 2 things, either Vadi wasn't really all that influential a swordmaster, or we are interpreting what he wrote wrong. We can also not discount things like deliberate misinformation. Scenario: The common practice of getting a sword was simply getting one that the person specifically was comfortable with. A lot of young noblemen that Vadi trained kept asking what is the "right" size for a sword, to the point where it started to annoy him, so he deliberately put in a description of a sword that was hilariously misshapen in the eyes of people with better knowledge. Far fetched but not really out of the realm of possibility, and the lack of other descriptions in treatises could be explained by this.
I had always interpreted the handle and the pommel as separate, such that the handle is a span and the pommel is just large enough to fit comfortably in the hand. As for the guard length, I guess I hadn't read it properly, but I likewise thought that the guard length was the same as the handle length, with the pommel being extra, but this appears to imply that the guard should be the length of the handle + pommel. I find that in most modern reproductions, the guard is closer to the length of the handle, less the pommel, than the handle + the pommel. Another note, Vadi seems to refer to a "pointed guard" which I interpret as a straight guard. An upswept guard like on the Ringeck does not need to be as long to protect the hands, as the "cone of protection" offered is similar in size to that of a slightly longer straight guard.
Great video! I also agree that the sword you describe here seems to have an overly long blade in proportion to the handle. It seems like it would be a very blade heavy sword. I love digging into the details and ambiguities of historical sources. It is a good way to keep ourselves humble and realize how much we still don't understand about historical martial arts. It would be great to see more videos like this one in the future!
Regarding hand placement, i find that cutting is easier with the hands closer together on the grip, but winding/binding and guarding it is better for them to be further apart for more leverage.
There are images of swordsman resting their forearms on the pommels of longswords, or I guess you could say "under their arms." About the length of Matt's shorter sword here. Idk if that's the same era or same style or what.
If you look at the illustrations in Vadi - which he presumably saw and approved, even if he didn't do the initial sketches himself - the grip/pommel are very substantially more than a span long. My feeling is that in interpreting the text we need to do so in the context of these illustrations. If you take measurements from the illustrations, the overall length of the sword is very close to the floor-to-armpit distance, so the overall length is validated. But by my measurements from the illustrations, the proportion of blade to hilt is about 3 to 1, which is to say that on a 36"/920mm blade you'd have a 12"/304mm hilt. That's pretty close to the proportions of the Albion Talhofer and Fiore swords.
I think the handle and pommel are taken separately. That means the span is up to the pommel, and the pommel is a separate measurement. That is not a rare length. The guard being explicitly as big as the handle and pommel is quite rare though. Having it ready to stab and even cut while this big would be a massive pain to wear. Maybe have guard scabbards? In Vadi's manual, you have Cod.1324 18v that also gives you an idea of relative proportion (also grabbing and stabbing). We also see three hands on a grip, and then the pommel, meaning the grip cannot be very short. Ruler to the screen measurements seem to fit the swords fitting about under the armpit while standing on the ground, with the blade being 2/3 to 3/4 of the total length. The sharpening of the blade for the first four fingers could be to aid thrusting penetration, as that's where the convex bit is on my longswords. The rest is a more gradual taper. The armoured section is interesting by the way. There is no cutting, except a bonk on the head which is almost certainly past the first four fingers, and the pommels are shaped to disallow the wielder to grip them from the back.
So when looking at Vadi I've always read it (and your translation seems to support this) as the pommel and grip being measured separately, as he says the grip must be a hands span and the guard is the same length as the grip and pommel together. This reads to me like he is separating the two parts. By this measurement the big two-handed sword you have is almost perfect grip wise and the blade is just a little long for you by Vadi's reckoning
Or maybe from the stone sarcophagus of knights: one would then have both the size of the user and the size of the sword. Vadi gives the length of the sword by relating it to the length of the user.
I'd love you to do a video explicitly on how it feels to use a longsword to go against someone using sword and buckler or sword and dagger, and vice versa. What are the respective advantages and disadvantages, and how does each person try to exploit them? How does it feel in the bind?
Vadi's measurements for me line up perfectly with the typical HEMA swords (assuming the pommel is not counted with the handle length). I think the reason for this is my height, I'm 5'8'' which as I understand would have been about the average for medieval people. Perhaps the measurements he gave only work within a certain range that many modern people have grown beyond?
As the language describing the ideal length of he guard specifically referred to the handle and pommel as two different and distinct components of the grip, it would only seem reasonable to work from the assumption that his assertion as to the ideal length of the handle being equal to a span was indeed referring to the distance from the guard to the pommel. Of course, when there is any ambiguity of language, it can be most helpful to look towards practical considerations when attempting to divine the actual intent of the author, as to whether or not he was actually advocating an exaggeratedly short hilt. As armor improved the general trend was for a typical longsword's point of balance to migrate closer to the hilt, reflecting an ever increasing emphasis upon thrusting techniques; some trade-off of authority in the cut towards a more nimble point logically following this evolving prioritization. Moving the guard rearwards would indeed similarly move the PoB, and would tend to shift the harmonic balance from the cut friendly mid-hand towards the thumb or guard itself, advantaging the thrust. So far, so good, and if this were a one-handed thrusting sword we would seem close here to the author's intent. With a larger two-handed weapon, however, body mechanics come into play in a complex interaction with the performance characteristics dictated purely by balance, and the author's obvious emphasis upon the functional relationship of body and weapon proportions would indicate the high regard he afforded those ergonomic considerations, considerations quite disadvantaged, upon closer examination, by a shorter grip. Forcing the hands closer together would reduce leverage, arguably slowing the point as much or more than balance could lend it speed, as well as effectively shortening the strong of the blade, and thus incurring a not inconsiderable defensive disadvantage. Such a blade would feel more awkward and less responsive as well as being more fatiguing to employ. Body mechanics aside, lengthening the distance from thumb to point is going to make it more difficult to bring point in any of the myriad defensive longsword maneuvers which involve stepping in towards one's opponent, and most especially those one-handed grappling techniques you referenced, even more so than they are disadvantaged by overall weapon length' Vadi's language seems clear as to handle and pommel being separate entities, he clearly stressed ergonomic considerations in his techniques, and all ergonomic considerations seem to weigh in against his intent to advocate a longer blade on a shorter hilt.
The messurement I got from the ground to my armpit is about 140cm/55 inches, and my hand´s span is about 22-23cm / 9inches. My hands close together without gloves, have a width of 21cm , some more than 8 inches. If Vadi means , a hand´s span including the pommel, I definitly always has to grip the pommel than I use both hands. If Vadi means a hand´s span only the grip without the pommel, I would prefear to grip the pommel. If not thereis only a little space between my hands
I'm 5'4 (163cm) and his proportions match the Red Dragon nylon longsword perfectly. 38' (96.5cm) blade, 7.6' (19.5cm) grip (not including pommel), with a guard that's the size of the grip and pommel together (9.4' or 24cm). Reaches perfectly under my armpit, and my hand span fits perfectly inside the grip (excluding pommel). So basically his proportions work perfectly for a longsword if you're shorter. But if you're tall like Matt, you'd end up with greatsword rather than a longsword, which you can't even use in the same way. I think what we can basically assume here, in the end, is that sword size doesn't really scale with height, at least not to a big extent. Edit: Incidentally, I do prefer slightly shorter longswords, closer to the Ringeck size rather than the Red Dragon nylon sizes. Vadi's proportions give me a BIG longsword, not a hand-and-a-half. Edit 2: To expand on this, while we're only two people and it's a small sample size, Matt is tall and strong, I am short and weak, but I still tend to agree with him pretty much exactly on how each sword handles and feels. The Albion Mercenary (34' blade) feels perfect to handle in one hand, the Hanwei Bastard Sword (39' blade) feels like a nearly exclusively two-handed longsword, and the Albion Ringeck (36.5' blade) feels like the perfect in-between (just like Matt, I prefer to use it two-handed, but I can use it one-handed fine), and a 44' blade greatsword just feels like a very different weapon that neither of us can use very well as a longsword. Despite the large disparity in strength and height, (long)swords feel pretty much the same when it comes to handling. I do struggle when it comes to long one-handed swords tho, more than the usual person, due to my lack of strength (shoulders get tired quickly with Rapiers of 42'+ blades, and I prefer 37-39' blade rapiers for long sparring sessions. I don't have this issue with longswords tho).
Matt, interesting as always and having watched your videos for a year or more it was great to have one actually looking at the sources to which you refer so often. A thought: does the ratio between height and handspan remain constant throughout history? I have been reading quite a lot recently about the effect of disease of the human body - no guesses as to what that might be the case - and it's interesting to realise that until recently people living in urban or high density areas were shorter than those from more rural areas because they were less exposed to disease. Republican and Imperial era Romans were shorter than their pre-Republican or Italian forebears. Until recently Glaswegians were shorter than the Highlanders from whom many are descended. But those descendants were not necessarily ;less tough or pugnacious. Perhaps their hands were proportionately bigger. If so, would that explain the apparent difference blade length v hilt v. crossguard sizes.
I haven't found the full transcription of this treatise, so I'm not at all sure about the other bits, but reading the first passage in Italian, I've noticed that the pommel is described in such a way that it is quite clear it isn't a spherical one, but (I'd assume) probably a flat (wheel-shaped?) one that's "rounded" and "smooth" for ease of grip. I'm so sorry, but I haven't found that passage yet. Anyway, I've re-translated the (extremely short) first one in its entirety. Furthermore, I'd like to clarify that I've adjusted a couple of sentences, but only for the grammar to make sense, which means this is still a somewhat rough English rendition that aims to alter as little as possible. Finally, I think the confusion there was mainly due to the ambiguous use of the term "round" (circular/spherical) in the English language. Shape Of The Sword For Armoured Fighting The sword for fighting in armour will have the following shape, thus lengthwise its pommel will reach below the arm, cutting four fingers from the tip, and its handle will measure a span. The hilt will be as long as the handle of the sword and pointy in every direction; similarly, the pommel will be pointy, thus any of these can be used for wounding.
Could "under the arm" mean that it should be reaching the upper arm, so not an exact length of it fitting into the armpit, but somewhere between the ellbow and armpit? Or maybe even shorter: "under the arm" so like the first sword Matt showed -> not reaching the upper arm, but the lower arm -> under arm ?
If you instead assume that the measurement of the handle does not include the pommel then the Windless sword almost perfectly matches the description except for being slightly too long to fit under your arm. But it has quite a long pommel and not a very round one. If you swapped its pommel with the disc from the Dynasty Forge sword I think you would have a sword that perfectly matches. It would fit under your arm, the handle without pommel would be a span, and by shortening the pommel now the cross guard would match as well.
I have to agree with others, the "handle should be a span" seems pretty clear to mean just the grip without the pommel, so the proportions of your blade are ideal for you in Vadi's system. Both for the way he describes the guard later, but also due to word he is using for "handle" which seems to be a verb (mantenere), which comes from Latin for "to hold with the hand". Mantenere and its counterparts don't mean the same today in any Romance language I am aware, today it means maintain (which also derives from the same Latin root), but if any Romance language would have hold onto the older literal meaning for longer it would be Italian. Also, the word he uses that got translated as "together" is "inseme" (I guess a variation of vulgar latin insemel, modern Italian being insieme) can also less literally (but sorta literally too) be read as "in conjunction with", implying "mantenere" and "pomo" are distinct things that are being joined together, rather than "the handle including the pommel part of the handle". It comes from the same term the world "ensemble" comes from. Finally, by comparing with modern Italian and other romance languages, all systems I have seen in Italian, Portuguese and Spanish use a word for the whole hilt (guard, grip and pommel) and one word for each of the 3 parts, all those words derive more or less from the same Latin words for the exact same things, even though the grip in particular has multiple names in some of them. I've never seen a system referring to just the handle and the pommel but not the guard in any of these languages, except by laymen. These languages were even closer than they are today in the 15th century (and today their mutual intelligibility is ridiculously high in written and spoken form), on top of the noble classes all learning Latin which did connect them further, so it feels like a stretch that 15th century Italian in particular was unique like that, then re-aligned itself again to be exactly like the others today. Seems more likely that the idea of a large hilt section divided into 3 distinct main parts was developed before the languages diverged even further into the modern Romance languages of today. The pommel 99.9% means round not in a modern mathematical sense of a sphere, but just smooth and approximating (ish) what mathematicians today call a sphere. Tondo is short for ritondo, which has the same Latin roots as "rotate" (and also round), and their counter parts in other Romance languages even today are more concerned with it being "circle like" and smooth than strictly spherical (spherical is a sub type of it). Judging from how the word behave in Romance languages, it seems to be talking more about it having smooth curves and no sharp corners or edges, rather than being ball shaped (this is where the adjective "well rounded", though English seems to have kept "round" itself to be a bit more strict than its Latin origins). Pretty much any shape without sharp corners or edges that you can comfortably fit in your hand is fair game, anything "eh round enough" goes, I'd say.
I dont have a sword collection or any HEMA experience but 30 inch blade length seems very nice. Short enough to wear and use in close quarters if needed and long enough to have a good reach
Buon video. Grazie. Come dici verso tu verso la fine del video, nella scherma corazzata è inutile avere il filo su tutta la lama, in quanto indebolisce la struttura stessa quando colpisci le piastre di acciaio dell'armatura. Durante un combattimento in armatura viene spesso usata al pari di una arma contundente e non da taglio. La punta affilata invece serviva per recidere eventuali lacci o soprattutto con punte a sezione di diamante per scardinare le maglie della cotta. Inoltre se fosse stata affilata per l'intera lunghezza causerebbe problemi durante l'esecuzione di tecniche di armeggio o leve.
The basic way I differentiate between a bastard sword, a long sword and a great sword is this. A bastard sword is designed to be used primarily in one hand but can be easily used in two hands. A long sword is designed to be primarily used in two hands but can be used well enough in one hand. A great sword is designed to be only used in two hands and can not be used effectively in one hand for any length of time. So it goes by design first and weight second.
I interpreted it as just the grip should be a span and the grip and pommel should be the same as the guard. As read, he only grouped them when referring to the guard. Great video's Matt, love your channel and all your content. Still waiting for the review of that Windlass 2 handed sword!
with my height, Vadi's recommendations suggest a sensible 4" total length with a 8" "handle", which seems to be right in the middle of wikipedia's ranges for typical longswords: "a grip for primarily two-handed use (around 15 to 30 cm or 6 to 12 in), a straight double-edged blade of around 80 to 110 cm (31 to 43 in)"
Extremely interesting and I think I need to get some Vadi sources and read them myself. Original language and translated. The advantage of an education in music. No chance I could talk you into a few more of these?
Is it possible that, when he talks about cutting 4 fingers from the tip, that it simply refers to the location of the centre of percussion and that more of the blade would be sharp?
Matt, why does the blade on the 2 hander have to be longer? Why not shorten the handle to get it down to proper length? Keep that blade, knock an inch off the hilt/pommel and overall length will be good without an over length blade.
The whole "span of your hand" measure is pretty funny with a small guy such as myself; my "span" is 19.5 cm, but the length of the custom Regeneyi longsword I have is 123 cm, for it to reach under my armpit. The proportions of the guard and handle would've been horrible had I gone with Vadi's style, so I went with the basic 30 cm handle + scent stopper pommel and 24 cm wide guard that follows the geometric guidelines better. Seemed a bit more useful for German and Swedish styles as well that I never got around to practicing due to horrible sleep patterns.
The sword's lenght could make sense, if it was measured with you crouching in a fighting position (and not standing upright). Then you could perform an Oberhau and draw it back into a near vertical Wechselhut without having to worry about hitting the ground. The ability to bring the sword further back will make it easier to keep your (Oberhau) cut in a straight line (since there is no need for throwing it off towards the end) and it will enable you to perform a more powerful Wechselhau. Up until two days ago my own Wechselhut actually loocked very similar to the Alber because the idea of folding my arms in to pull the pommel into the armpit had never come to me. Initially the new position does feel awkward but I can already tell, that my sword moves in a quite natural way.
My son is a little taller than me. His federshwert reaches to my arm pit, but when I use it, I have trouble bringing the point to bear on the face when in close play.. My sword is a regenyei custom, and total length brings it to just about my elbow, and most of the other proportions would be as Vadi describes and I have no trouble thrusting for the face while I have the opponents hands or elbow covered. I think for length, if he meant armpit, he would have said so. I think arm means just to the arm itself. Maybe between elbow and armpit? The other point is he mentions that it should be sharp 4 fingers from the tip, but he says this after talking about the cross guard needing to be pointy, and the last section says "the hilt as described above", so I don't think he means the blade need only be sharp four fingers from the point, but the guard.
And in an interesting twist... I own a longsword that's actually a near-perfect match for Vadi's proportions against my body if making some reasonable assumptions about the meaning, as noted by your comment. But it's a LARP weapon from Calimacil, not one of my metal swords. -I'm about 5'11" or 180cm tall and the "Geralt's Steel Sword" reproduction from Calimacil sits almost exactly under my armpit when I sit one end on the ground and check how high up the other end of the weapon reaches. -The pommel is a somewhat rounded scent stopper pommel much like the one you mentioned in the background, not a sphere, but is very easily gripped and held. On this note, I'm actually curious about some things I'll note below this list... -the hilt (not counting the pommel, but counting the ridge below the wrap which leads into it), is almost exactly my hand span width. -the guard is wider than just the hilt, but is slightly short of the length of the pommel. If I had a spherical pommel of equal volume (and thus mass), it would probably match up more closely to the description provided. And on that note from earlier... do you think the text could mean "round" as in "circular" rather than "spherical" - meaning the wheel pommel would fit the description accurately? Or even circular from the perspective of looking at the base of the hilt? This latter interpretation would rule out both the pommels you're holding, but the scent stopper or a spherical pommel would be circular on that angle, matching the description. In all possible interpretations, the spherical pommel fits, and in most reasonable interpretations, all of them fit as comfortable pommels to hold the sword with. But it's interesting to wonder at the specific meaning here. EDIT: Also worth noting - a frequently-seen comment about the sword is that the hilt feels "small" for the size of the blade. Which matches with you noting that these proportions seem like they would produce a weapon with a larger blade compared with the hilt.
Counter Interpretation: What if Vadi means about "under the arm" not the sword standing on the group but rather handing from the belt? This can be reafirmed by "the handle must be a spam length" as its a normal bastard sword hanging from the belt and it would also fix the Peter Johnson calculations.
Fantastic video, I wonder maybe if the people who wrote these treatises weren't intentionally vague? They might have wanted to protect some information, since swordplay was state of the art warfare of the time. Also, people in the 15th century were probably much smaller, so that would affect the measurements you were talking about. Thanks for posting this, I really enjoyed it!
Actually they weren't much smaller during this period, average height in the 15th through to the mid 17th century was similar to the late 19th early 20th century. Post 1650 average height declined steadily and didn't start to rise again until the first half of the 19th century. We didn't reach the same average height as the late 15th century again until the mid 20th century. The other point to consider is that the longsword was mainly a weapon of the upper classes who due to better nutrition and environment in childhood tended to be taller than the average, the same effect persists to this day in that average height and health varies across socio-economic classes.
The Shorter hilt and longer blade makes sense -- the blade is the working function to spend more coin on. And the pommel is as good as a handle so use it. That Bastard sword may actually fit closer to the shorter stature of more sword fighters that were typically 5.5ft (through the 1000s-1400s).
I know nothing about fencing or medieval sword proportions, but the writers choice of words seems to indicate that the "span" should be the handle excluding pommel. This would shorten the blade by as much as 3.5" depending on your pommel type, as well as giving you more leverage by lengthening the hilt. Limiting the total sword length to be able to stand below your outstretched arm, is most likely to prevent a person from hitting the ground while swinging their blade. Is it possible that "under arm" length is an upper limit rather than a suggested ideal length? "The sword should reach under the arm." It seems to me that a fencing instructor would be more concerned with an upper bound rather than an exact ideal length. Since typically reach is an advantage, only so long as you're able to maintain control. Could be an interesting colab vid to make longsword mock ups with various proportions based on possible interpretations of this text, and muck about with them to see if there is a noticeable superiority of one over the other. I think it is interesting that he suggests that the guard be pointed and able to cut properly. I imagine having hardened short bodkin looking tips on the end of the cross guard for dealing a murder stroke vs an armored opponent. Those are designed to "cut" metal as they pass through, I can't imagine having a sharpened blade on your cross guard being particularly safe for the user. What's your take on this? Maybe ask Tod to make one and test it? Could be great!
What would be good size buckets for different type of 2h swords? Bastard sword 100-120 cm, true longsword (but also "claymore" and most great swords of war) 120-140, great sword (larger great swords of war, montane, earlier Landsknecht swords) 140-160 cm, fully developed Schlachtschwert 160-200 cm?
I think that the short handle he describes matches nicely with pommelgrip. Using pommel grip gives you up to probably 5cm to "play with". If you change the dimension of the large sword to be the length of the hand, then making the pommel round the handle+pommel would probably be about 28cm. If you assume that your large sword is made to accommodate a "2 hands on the handle" person, even though he is recommending a shorter handle the leverage would be almost identical. (it's also possible he is talking about up to the elbow, but that would be a bit on the small side for true 2 handed swords)
And 4 fingers sharp, can't it mean 4 finger lengths (25-30 cm)? It should be the part of the sword that is likely to come into contact with the opponent.
Greetings, if I may be so very bold to ask you to be so very kind to consider answering me question which is completely irrelevant to the topic of the video, in pictures of the civil wars generals for example Tom fairfax they are wearing a black suit of armour with golden rivets on the pauldron, are there any written sources regarding them? Do they have a species name and are there anything in general notable about them. Thanks, and I consider using that John Cleese reference was a good job
Great video as usual! I went through the manuscript on Wiktenauer, as Matt suggested, and noticed that the referred section is titled "Forma de spada in arme" - and "in arme" is quite a specific combination of words which translates to "while wearing armour". So I checked the previous parts and, if you focus on the art, there is a CLEAR difference in lenght between the swords represented in the "unarmored" part and the ones represented in the "in arme" part. You will see what I mean by CLEAR if you check that out yourself: "in arme" swords look hugely oversized, while the others are really close to those represented in Fiore. So, could it be that swords like the windlass two-hander were meant specifically for armored combat?
Very nice interpretation. I'm wondering if he meant "span" and from the hilt to the pummel. If you assume that, it looks like the proportions fit better.
I also presume , that the hand´s span handle is without the pommel. Because later in the text about the guard, it should be the length of the handle and the pommel.
A ball or rounded pommel would be excellent with the hand to form a ball joint and lever, mechanically. You don't want it to get in the way, because you want to be able to swivel and rotate the sword in whatever fashion you need at any given time.
Matt did Vadi make any recommendations for longsword on horseback ? Also what is the typical longsword blade size for someone fighting from horseback in your opinion ?
Longsword on horseback: the recommendation is, Don't. Bastard sword at most, arming sword is better. If you own a horse and a longsword, you don't carry your longsword -- when your arming sword isn't getting the job done, and you want to engage in single combat, you dismount and say, "Squire, hand me my longsword!"
Edit: Does the treatise specify armpit, or does it just say "under the arm". It could mean just under the elbow with the arm relaxed and standing up straight. It would seem strange not to say "under the elbow" in that case, but language is tricky. Maybe it was common, at that time and in that context, to have the "arm" mean the upper arm specifically. You have never been this relaxing to listen to. Not that it isn't interesting, quite the opposite, but I imagine I could fall asleep and dream about sword fighting when listening to this.
By my measure - and I am just over 6 ft, that makes the overall length from pommel to tip of 56 inches. I assumed a pommel of 2.5 inches cause it made things easier, thus the hilt would be 8.5 inches, the guard total 11 inches, and the blade 45 inches. Not dissimilar to some of the longer rapiers in blade length. That hilt of 8.5 inches is doable for my two hands.
The blade and hilt lengths sound to me like Vadi's main focus is to have the comfort of the "hand-and-a-half-sword" hilt but with a weapon that's designed to keep the opponent an entire body length away from the sword user (the under the arm length plus arm reach). I don't know the style but I would imagine just from this that there would be lots of long/lunging style attacks followed by/mixed with the close grappling that is possible from this distance (due to leg step lengths).
In middle ages average European reach a 167cm, now about 172,5 according to article in National Geographic Poland Magazine. That changes a little bit ratio, proportions and size of the sword.
Having looked through Vadi's and Marozzo's treatises in detail to see if the illustrations give any clue to the size of the sword; in the case of the former the sword is shown as approx. twice the length of the arm (in illustration [18] In this way I hold you with my left hand) (approx. 40 in), whereas Marozzo's illustration wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:Marozzo_3.png shows a greatsword with the pommel above the guy's shoulder (???), and the hilt (not including pommel) in several illustrations is 3 fists or a span and a half long, so there is considerable variation in size!
Yes, probably even more so - OE is almost entirely unintelligible to native English speakers without training in linguistics or a Germanic language. The jump from OE to Middle English was *drastic*. Shakespeare and the KJV Bible (Early Modern English, both) are difficult for the uninitiated; Middle English (Chaucer!) is extremely challenging (majors shifts in meaning, spelling, and grammar); Old English (Beowulf) is just an unapproachable wall.
It's actually worse for us because English loves to borrow words from other languages, meaning that it changes a huge amount over time. Modern English has taken about half of its vocabulary from Latin, French, and Italian where as Old English is purely Germanic in character. Also, the grammar has changed quite a bit in the last 1,000 years so while Modern English has no grammatical genders and two noun cases, Old English has three grammatical genders and five noun cases. To illustrate how totally incomprehensible Old English is, here is a sample text from Wikipedia of an Old English form of the Our Father and a modern translation: [1] Fæder ūre þū þe eart on heofonum, Father of ours, thou who art in heavens, [2] Sī þīn nama ġehālgod. Be thy name hallowed. [3] Tōbecume þīn rīċe, Come thy riche (kingdom), [4] ġewurþe þīn willa, on eorðan swā swā on heofonum. Worth (manifest) thy will, on earth as also in heaven. [5] Ūre ġedæġhwāmlīcan hlāf syle ūs tō dæġ, Our daily loaf do sell (give) to us today, [6] and forġyf ūs ūre gyltas, swā swā wē forġyfað ūrum gyltendum. And forgive us our guilts as also we forgive our guilters[47] [7] And ne ġelǣd þū ūs on costnunge, ac ālȳs ūs of yfele. And do not lead thou us into temptation, but alese (release/deliver) us of (from)evil. [8] Sōþlīċe. Soothly (Truly; the meaning of Hebrew Amen).
Do you think he might mean that the point of percussion should be four fingers from the tip rather than just the tip being sharp? I would think a point of percussion closer to the tip would be important for blunt force trauma when fighting armored.
I think the handle alone is a span while the crossguard is the length of the handle plus the pommel. That Windlass sword was a bit too long to fit in your armpit and the handle was a bit longer than your handspan but if the handle was shortened 3 cm it would more closely match your handspan, bring the length of the handle plus the pommel to 30 cm to match the crossguard, and it would bring it closer to fitting in your armpit when the tip is on the ground. So it seems the Windlass is pretty close to your ideal longsword size, just a handle 3 cm too long and it should all match up, right?
That's a big sword... I have an Albion for Fiore, but the hilt is a bit short for my taste wearing 1480-1500 period gauntlets causing me to choke up too much and get periodic hand hits, but the blade length is ok for its intended purpose. I am a fan of the armor at least in the 1480-1500 period, so I probably should get a sparring sword to match (that's a bit longer for Vadi). The hilts on the Vadi pictures are clearly quite a bit longer that what I have. I agree with Vadi that the pommel should be round or round-ish; The wheel, fish tail et. al are really uncomfortable to me. Also, I think the left had should be on the pommel, not on the hilt proper imo - in fact in gauntlets with a hand and a half, you pretty much have to. I think the left on the pommel gives much better flexibility and control. the "hand span" thing doesn't match the pictures. The pictures show room for 3 hands... it MUST be that the span doesn't include the pommel in order to match the pictures. Also interesting that he's saying only one span for sharp, given that the point of percussion is typically much further down that a span....
I always assumed that Vadi meant the grip alone should be the span of the hand, excluding the pommel, since specifies to include the pommel later on. Additionally, if we assume this, the measurements line up with historical examples much more frequently. I for instance am similar in stature to you, at about 6'0". According to Vadi's measurements with these assumptions, my sword should be 55" overall. At a 9" grip (the span of my hand, and a length we see on surviving swords), assuming a 3 inch pommel, that leaves us with a 43" blade, well within historical limits and still on the larger side of longswords.
This is a tricky one. He says under the arm, not "reach the armpit". So, I don't know the terms he could use, but maybe if he differentiates arm from forearm that could means that it should be anywhere from your elbow to your armpit...
I wonder if the under the arm is more flexible than we are interpreting. Under the arm could be a poetic way of saying elbow or upper arm. I don’t know much period Italian poetry practice, but form the old Norse kenning tradition it would make sense. Fitting words into verse make for some interesting words, that make more sense in context.
I like the focus on proper dimensions/proportions. When a weapon is properly sized it should handle wonderfully for a wide size range of people. It's interesting to see Matt handle Indian weapons that are clearly too short, at least in the grip, for him, but still he manages to wield them well.
Not necessarily too short, the short grip and the disc pommel of the Talwar encourage cutting from the elbow and shoulder rather than from the wrist which results in more body weight being involved. 19th Century British sources show that Indian swordsmen were renowned for the power of their cuts, Talwar styles are much more slice than chop in comparison to European sabre styles.
Matt, what if it is beneath your underarm? Underarm being the armpit to elbow, meaning the sword comes to your elbow. I have a few practice swords that are hand and half swords, 44" long. Handle is a span for me, 10", crossguard is nearly a span, and the sword comes to my elbow. Maybe do research in medieval medical books to see about body part classifications or something like to see what they called the underarm. Are sure our modern understanding of word is the same as the medieval understanding?
Note the humanist focus on the golden mean and the ideal measurements of man as should fit a sword. I think you are right about his words and it should be long blade with a shorter handle and longer guard.
One has to remember that Italian men in the 15:th century was on average abt 170 cm tall (5'5"-5'6"). So deduct a few inches from Matt's length/sword length.
Matt, can you give us a review of Jogo do Pau - the portuguese staff fighting that is based on longsword techniques? There are any portuguese techniques applied to HEMA?
Hallo Matt, very interesting Video. But you can´t do the "under the arm"-thing with your body. The average Italien man around 1500 was max. 160-165 cm, more than 20 cm less than you are and with a person 160-.165 cm tall, the bastard-sword will aproximately fit Vadi´s recommendation.
I think another point of reference to length of blades and hilts according to Vadi should be the drawings of men with swords in the original version of his book. Since those drawings were essential to relate the nuances of the specific technigues, I imagine Vadi supervised that they were depicted accurately with great diligence. So he must have made sure the artist depict the length and proportions of the swords in relation to human figures accurately to his specific measures mentioned in the book. There is, in fact, actually even a drawing of an ideal sword for armour fighting according to Vadi in the Sword in Armour section of the treatise. That drawing is a great source that can be used to interpret the mesurement and the proportion in the treatise, in my opinion. wiktenauer.com/images/d/d5/Cod.1324_27v.png
How tall was the average italian in Vadi's time? If the answer is about 5'6" then a longsword with a 37" blade should be about right. If you consider the handle separate from the pommel, as Vadi did when discussing guard length, the handle on the windlass 2 hander is just a bit too long for Matt. Take an inch or so out of the handle so it fits and sword would then fit under his armpit, and even more interestingly the handle plus pommel length would then be approximately the same as the guard length too.
Is there a chance he meant the sword should be “no longer” than to reach under the arm? Seems a little strange with this translation, but makes more sense when considering the measure itself. Was it perhaps a tendency to use very long swords at the time? Idk, I don’t really have the time to research this, but I’d be interested to know.
Interesting that I'm pretty short by modern standards, 5'7", and by this treatise's reckoning, the very common longsword proportions of 48" overall length, 38" blade, and 8" grip (wrapped portion) would be the perfect size. Makes me think that us being on average a bit taller than medieval people is the main thing that throws this off.
Just got my Arms and Armor Furnovo sword 30 minutes ago! Swinging it around while watching new Easton vid! What a day. Girlfriend says I look like a kid watching Saturday morning cartoons.
bless
Jealous! That sounds like the life :D
When talking about the handle length, he treats the handle and pommel as two separate things when talking about the guard length so I would assume when he says the handle should be a span in length, he means not including the pommel.
If he meant for the handle and pommel together to be a span in length he could have just said that the guard should also be a span in length rather than saying it had to be the length of the handle and guard together. That would make the total hilt size a bit less ridiculously small for the blade length.
Also, I'm not certain that hand span and height correlate that well together. If you have small or large hands for your height to whatever Vardi thought a normal proportion you'll be quite a bit off.
Yeah, different people have different hand sizes. I'm slightly over the average in height, but I have stupid tiny hands.
I don’t think Vadi is describing the blade versus handle proportions - just the size of the components needed to fit your body.
As a modern example: For shotguns, the “ideal / standard” length is described as a stock that’s as long / short as needed so the 1st pad of your finger reached the trigger when the butt of the stock is held in the crook of your bent elbow. And the ideal barrel length is described as 26-28” for skeet (fast movement / close distance ) and 30-32” for trap (slow movement / long distance) - and the range is for short versus taller people, with the caveat that is your super short or super tall (or have super wide shoulders, super close set eyes, etc) you may need to go up/down 2”.
Note that the ideal length of stock is defined by your body size, and the ideal barrel length is defined by the use/tactics the shotgun must work well for.
Handspan correlates with the length of handle you need for your handsize really well - regardless of the blade length.
I think Vadi is saying you want the maximum length blade threat doesn’t impede certain tactics and is using the armpit as a “standard” easy reference point to help beginners buy the right sword. After all - you can’t tell a beginner that they need a sword the right length to execute technique XYZ “with proper form”...
And when he says "round pommel" Is a wheel pommel not round? Is there any indication that "round" means circular in three dimaneions rather than in one dimension?
Agreed, I read it before I watched Matt explain it, and it does appear that the "handle" is the area between the guard and the top of the pommel, which should be a span (~9", but could be individually sized) plus the size of the pommel, which should add 1.5-3".
I'll note that my personal "span" is almost two widths of my hands, which would imply my back hand at least partly gripping the hilt.
That works much better than Matt's interpretation.
@@jeffprice6421 Best we can do is look at the illustrations in the manuals. To my eye they look spherical, not wheel shaped.
When Vadi talking about “handle”, I think he means the handle along--excluding the pommel. Which means the windlass has the correct handle length for you!
Must agree! Especially since in the next line he refers to the handle and pommel as separate units.
I think your right but it could also be worded that way to fit in verse looking at the verse in its native language should reveal if that is the case
unintentional ASMR?
love the topic as always. i always wondered how varied longsword proportions were, seeing so many different sizes and shapes.
lol
Heh, I always see these two 40" total length "long swords" on lists of historical long swords. I always figured they were broken/bent in the past and reforged to give them a new tip.
One thing I have read (IIRC, something Guy Windsor did, might have been youtube). He pointed out that the super long, armpit high swords made a number of the winding plays much more relevant because of the distance between the opponents. The shorter modern versions make the brawling/grappling plays more relevant because the opponents are much closer.
I've not had the biggest chance to do lots of sparring, but for certain winding to thrust plays, it is actually easier to step in while blocking and toss an elbow into my opponent's head, mainly because it goes with the motion of my body.
No joke I have a playlist for "unintentional asmr" and I put this video in it. Matt's warm, deep, speaking voice and calm, even pattern of speech as he meticulously analyses the sword proportions, is very relaxing to listen to!
I will asume a sleeping baby near.
I think the treatise is clear: The handle needs to be a length of a handspan, and the guard needs to be the length of a handspan, plus the pommel. Ie: The hilt is made up of 2 pieces, the handle and the pommel - and I think this would have been non ambiguous language in Vadi’s time.
As to overall length of the sword, another interpretation could be that when you hold the sword in your outstretched arm, but pointing back at yourself, that the point should be even with the armpit of your other arm. Ie: Short enough to pull the sword back and stab someone who is against your front shoulder, when your sword is in your rear hand and pulled all the way back.
First bit makes sense
Second bit, hang on: That is the blade length to guard plus one hand up to the guard innit? ....
Except - its to your outstretched fingers or maybe the heel of your outstretched hand.
If someone's up at your shoulder its 'poke them firmly with the sharp guard time', not with the pointy bit of the long metal thing.
That's neat! I'll have to check mine at home.
Farweasel
Tactically, yes - I’d hit someone in grappling range with the crossguard or pommel to stop their attack momentarily and to create an opening. But I’d still want my sword to be short enough to stab them even if they were super close (like against my shoulder) and we were still standing.
Ideally, half swording would be best - but I’d still like my sword to be useful even if I have to use my other hand to hold them at bay while I run them through :)
@@johng1097 Hamstringing's just not good enough for some folk these days.
Picky I call it.
You can always impale them once they've fallen over you know.
Alright its all the effort of poking them twwice with sharp things (and you'll need more than just the tip sharp to do it) but if the opponent's worth mutilating its worth mutliating them properly is the traditional view ;-p.
@@Farweasel Depends if their in armor or not. If memory serves grappling someone and then stabbing like that is an armored fighting technique (although I forget which manuals its in). Ideally you'd half sword since you've got mail and gambeson to punch through once you get into a gap, but you probably still want to be able to use one hand if needed.
Most plausible to me is the span-length referring to the pommel-less construction, as others are noting. And indeed, taking a look at 21:14, it looks like the Windlass matches this nearly-exactly. Taking the other measurements into account, we could get a sword essentially-identical to Vadi's description (for your build) simply by replacing the pommel of the Windlass with a ball or disc pommel, of diameter about an inch less than the length of the fishtail pommel. Doing some measurement and algebra on the frame at 21:14 alongside your citation of the length of the hilt construction at 23:03, looks like the pommel is a bit over 7.8cm long, so we're looking at a 5.3cm disc or ball pommel instead. At that point, the pommel fits pretty much exactly under your armpit, the handle is a span long, and the guard's length is well-within half a centimeter of the length of the handle+pommel.
And yes, following Vadi’s suggestion you will usually end up with a relative short hilt, long blade and large crossguard sword. The Feder and blunt longsword I’m using right now have 133cm total length, 105cm blade length, 22cm handle length+6cm pommel length, and 28cm long crossguard.
The large crossguard obviously covers larger area, and the shorter handle length actually makes full circular rotations faster in one way--my hands need to move less distance to finish the rotation.
And the longer blade... Vadi really likes long blades. I remember in his advice of choosing swords for dueling he said something like “make two swords sisters and make sure your sword is not shorter than the other one’s”
"We're going to look at context, because *it's me"* - never was a truer word spoken...
I've always been interested in how much soldiers of different armies were allowed to choose their weapons, and how that changes across history or across different levels of training, funding, etc.
The more mass produced your weapons are the cheaper and simpler it is to produce and the more uniform your formations can be, but the more individualized the weapons are the better they can be sized to each soldier's reach and style.
It depends on how standardized the military was and if soldiers bought their own gear. 19th century British army seemed to be pretty standardized for the lower ranks while the officers were given some leeway since the grunts were issued their gear while officers bought their own. Medieval armies seemed completely motley with everyone fighting with whatever they could afford. The Romans seemed like somewhere in between with the footmen being well equipped, but the cost of arms and armour coming out of legionarii's pay (apparently they could bring their own stuff if they had it)
@@fattiger6957 That's cos production lines really only began to take off (officially) with the start of the industrial revolution. And I think that began with mass producing pins from wire (I my have that wrong).
I will now contradict myself and suppose its going to be a bit impractical to individually and painstakingly produce the hundreds of thousands of arrows need for something like the field events at Crecy and Agincourt.
I actually wrote about this very question to you a few months back, and here is the video that I was hoping for. I even have a custom longsword made by Regenyei on its way to my doorstep as we speak. My first non-wooden sword. I'm so excited.
I struggled a bit with this one, since I come from a Japanese martial art background and am thereforce used to the tachi and the katana. The modern norm for a katana is around 110cm from tip to pommel, and it allows me, who is standing at 174cm, to comfortably make rising cuts with the right arm fully relaxed and extended. Regenyei's standard makes a longsword out to be around 120cm. All in all, his measurements have around the same length for the hilt and pommel, and around 10cm more blade. I can still do those cuts, as long as I adjust my stance a little.
For a sword to be used in one to two hands, I have the following requirements:
1. I need to be able to make rising cuts (kiri age in kenjutsu, Unterhau in German) from a low stance comfortably.
2. The sword needs to have a guard that sufficiently covers my lead hand if gloved. This means a cross guard with an additional ring guard similar to that of a tsuba.
3. The pommel must be suited for gripping as well as striking.
4. The total length of the hilt and pommel needs to be three fists long, meaning I'm able to have a gap between my hands of one fist.
5. The sword must be able to be drawn from the hip.
6. The balance of the sword should be around 15-20cm from the guard.
If all of the following are fulfilled, I consider it to be a good two-handed sword for my style of swordsmanship.
That seem to be pretty good criteria. It makes perfect sense that a perfect sword would be one specifically designed for the user to make up for any quirk of their proportions. Not everyone is the absolute average and even a person who is average height might have smaller or bigger hands.
I was taught you can get a surprise extension advantage by 'throwing' your longsword through your hands so the leading hand which was at the guard is now grabbing the pommel.
Never seen Katana lads do anything similar.
For sure it would be more difficult with no real pommel to naturally 'wedge' into your barely open leading hand, given you have to do it fast & hard or there's no point in doing it at all.
@@Farweasel The sliding of the hands is something that does exist, but it's more when using a polearm or a shortstaff in the Japanese arts. As you point out, Japanese swords have a kashira, or a butt cap, instead of a counterweight like those of European swords. Sliding along the tsuka (hilt) would therefore run you the risk of the sword going out of your hands. The one exception to this is the ken or tsurugi, which is a straight double-edged blade that originates from China. Basically a jian. That is a one-handed sword in its nature, however, and sliding along the hilt wouldn't do much.
What *did* occur though was that they could attach string to the sword or a kunai, which allowed them to throw their weapon out and then pull it back in.
Edit: Come to think of it, it might be doable with a nagamaki since the hilt is so long on that one. Question is whether a nagamaki is still a sword or a polearm :D
Personally, I interpret the part about the handle and the span of a hand to refer to the between the crossguard and the pommel ("the grip," for lack of a better term) rather than the grip and the pommel together. Under that interpretation, the Windlass fits Vadi's proportions pretty closely. I realize that the text is ambiguous, and I understand how and why you interpret the measurement differently.
I didn't interpret it as ambiguous at all. As others have stated, it seems quite clear that the handle (meaning specifically grip sans pommel) is a span. The guard is the length of the grip plus pommel together. Thet would make the Dynasty Forge sword ALMOST perfect for your proportions according to the text.
The last bit I understand as meaning a sword for fighting specifically in armour against armoured opponents need only (but MUST) be sharpened at the tip. I.E. a different sword but otherwise of the same dimensions and hilt configuration as previously described. Think a blunt sharpened at the tip. That too makes sense since the sword for fighting armoured would remain slightly more robust being left in unsharpened state, almoat like an estoc. This would make it more capable of absorbing punishment from armoured combat.
Hope my ramblings help. Cheers!
To me it definitely seems like Vadi meant that the grip section should be a span without the pommel.
I found some similar guidelines when I was looking up this question to make a wooden longsword. The overall length the distance from armpit to heel, the grip a handspan long, and the pommel a hand width more, the guard equal to a span+hand. It ended up producing something just massive (I'm 6'3"/190cm tall) and I wasn't sure if I'd gotten it right. But this seems to be saying pretty much the same thing.
nice video. Thank you so much. I'm turning in to a real fan of your work.
I just had a play with this using Peterson's Sacred Geometry method (I'm a big subscriber to this) and I think it checks out. Would need to use pictures/video to explain fully, but if you take your handspan, that is your grip length. Take a quarter of this and that is you pommel diameter (or pommel length if the pommel isn't round). The handspan plus 1/4 is the guard length. Half the pommel diameter and add that to your grip measurement (i.e. grip measurment plus 1/8). Now multiply that by 4 to get your blade length (4/1 ratio). Add that length, your grip and pommel to get OAL.
For me:
Handspan is 222mm: so pommel is 55.5mm; guard is 277.5; grip plus 1/8 is 249.75, which gives a blade length of 999mm. OAL is 1,276.5mm.
I'm 5'10 (1680mm) and that OAL comes up to the lower third of my pec, which is under the arm without being jammed up into my armpit.
This seems to come out as a normally proportioned sword. Regenyei's standard feder would be a decent analogue, although the grip would be too long.
13:14 is where the measurement begins. The beginning if good info, but if you want to get to it there you go.
If his holding his sword in the pomel it make sence that the handle is smaler, because when hold a curved object you can exert force with a closer part of the hand. This increases the leverage betwen the hands and decreses the leveragre of your arms, making your moviment more nimble.
Although it is possible that buy under the arm that he did not mean the arm pit.
I googled the meaning of under arm & found the following:
What is the difference between underarm and armpit?
The armpit is the place under the arm closest to the shoulder and it forms a "pit", while underarm can be further down the arm, it's the inside, soft part of the arm.
Also on Merriam-Webster dictionary.com
Definition of underarm
Definition 2: placed under or on the underside of the arm.
So if we assume underarm to be anywhere from just above the elbow to the armpit then the proportions become more like most longswords.
Although this is only a possibility & not a definitive answer, and would still leave open the question of where along the underarm the sword should end.
More of this please really enjoyed it
I like that he mentioned pointed quillons. I really like the idea of them being used like a crow's beak during a morthau. So much so, I have one of my characters do that in my novel a few times.
What's the title of your novel? It sounds like something I would like to read.
@@stephena1196 I'm still putting the finishing touches on it, so it isn't publicly available. If you'd like to beta read it for me (which would be a great help!) you can send me an email through my YT user page.
It'd be interesting to see if someone 5'6"-5'9" ends up with a more "normal" sized sword for the period.
are you Italian?
@@maximilianolimamoreira5002 no, why?
I'm 5'7" and just figured out that according to this treatise I should have a 48" sword, with a 37-38" blade, and a 8" grip. That's pretty common proportions of historical longswords and the modern replicas - it's just tall people that are the problem.
You rest your forearm on the pommel when the points on the ground. The grip (the leather covered bit) is a hand length long, and then there is a pommel that fits the hand. So the handle (the grip + pommel) is a bit longer than a hand length. With a gaurd to match the handle length.
My question is, what does the archeological evidence tell us?
how many swords with extremely short handles compared to blade length, with rounded pommels, and very wide guards have been found in Italy?
If none, or very few, that would mean 1 of 2 things, either Vadi wasn't really all that influential a swordmaster, or we are interpreting what he wrote wrong.
We can also not discount things like deliberate misinformation. Scenario: The common practice of getting a sword was simply getting one that the person specifically was comfortable with. A lot of young noblemen that Vadi trained kept asking what is the "right" size for a sword, to the point where it started to annoy him, so he deliberately put in a description of a sword that was hilariously misshapen in the eyes of people with better knowledge. Far fetched but not really out of the realm of possibility, and the lack of other descriptions in treatises could be explained by this.
I had always interpreted the handle and the pommel as separate, such that the handle is a span and the pommel is just large enough to fit comfortably in the hand.
As for the guard length, I guess I hadn't read it properly, but I likewise thought that the guard length was the same as the handle length, with the pommel being extra, but this appears to imply that the guard should be the length of the handle + pommel. I find that in most modern reproductions, the guard is closer to the length of the handle, less the pommel, than the handle + the pommel.
Another note, Vadi seems to refer to a "pointed guard" which I interpret as a straight guard. An upswept guard like on the Ringeck does not need to be as long to protect the hands, as the "cone of protection" offered is similar in size to that of a slightly longer straight guard.
Maybe a hand was a set measurement of some guy who had huge hands. Like how stone masons came up with the word inch. Was set to the area.
Great video! I also agree that the sword you describe here seems to have an overly long blade in proportion to the handle. It seems like it would be a very blade heavy sword. I love digging into the details and ambiguities of historical sources. It is a good way to keep ourselves humble and realize how much we still don't understand about historical martial arts. It would be great to see more videos like this one in the future!
Regarding hand placement, i find that cutting is easier with the hands closer together on the grip, but winding/binding and guarding it is better for them to be further apart for more leverage.
You beat me to the punch on this video Matt! I'll be putting out my own video on this soon enough!
I think he means that, when you're wearing your sword, the pommel should reach to about the middle of your arm (your elbow)
That actually makes more sense to me than the "snugly in the armpit" measurement.
There are images of swordsman resting their forearms on the pommels of longswords, or I guess you could say "under their arms." About the length of Matt's shorter sword here. Idk if that's the same era or same style or what.
@@brotherandythesage I think he's giving that as the maximum length of the sword, I don't think he's saying it can't be shorter.
That doesn't work either according to Tod's (of Tod's Workshop) explanation of historical scabbard-hanging systems.
@@markfergerson2145 doubt scabbards where used for these large battlefield swords
If you look at the illustrations in Vadi - which he presumably saw and approved, even if he didn't do the initial sketches himself - the grip/pommel are very substantially more than a span long. My feeling is that in interpreting the text we need to do so in the context of these illustrations. If you take measurements from the illustrations, the overall length of the sword is very close to the floor-to-armpit distance, so the overall length is validated. But by my measurements from the illustrations, the proportion of blade to hilt is about 3 to 1, which is to say that on a 36"/920mm blade you'd have a 12"/304mm hilt. That's pretty close to the proportions of the Albion Talhofer and Fiore swords.
I love this kind of more in depth content!
I think the handle and pommel are taken separately. That means the span is up to the pommel, and the pommel is a separate measurement. That is not a rare length. The guard being explicitly as big as the handle and pommel is quite rare though. Having it ready to stab and even cut while this big would be a massive pain to wear. Maybe have guard scabbards?
In Vadi's manual, you have Cod.1324 18v that also gives you an idea of relative proportion (also grabbing and stabbing). We also see three hands on a grip, and then the pommel, meaning the grip cannot be very short. Ruler to the screen measurements seem to fit the swords fitting about under the armpit while standing on the ground, with the blade being 2/3 to 3/4 of the total length.
The sharpening of the blade for the first four fingers could be to aid thrusting penetration, as that's where the convex bit is on my longswords. The rest is a more gradual taper. The armoured section is interesting by the way. There is no cutting, except a bonk on the head which is almost certainly past the first four fingers, and the pommels are shaped to disallow the wielder to grip them from the back.
So when looking at Vadi I've always read it (and your translation seems to support this) as the pommel and grip being measured separately, as he says the grip must be a hands span and the guard is the same length as the grip and pommel together. This reads to me like he is separating the two parts. By this measurement the big two-handed sword you have is almost perfect grip wise and the blade is just a little long for you by Vadi's reckoning
how does the advice from Vadi relate to the sizes of actual (long)sword from that era as can be seen in musea, e.g. in the Wallace collection?
Or maybe from the stone sarcophagus of knights: one would then have both the size of the user and the size of the sword. Vadi gives the length of the sword by relating it to the length of the user.
I'd love you to do a video explicitly on how it feels to use a longsword to go against someone using sword and buckler or sword and dagger, and vice versa. What are the respective advantages and disadvantages, and how does each person try to exploit them? How does it feel in the bind?
Vadi's measurements for me line up perfectly with the typical HEMA swords (assuming the pommel is not counted with the handle length). I think the reason for this is my height, I'm 5'8'' which as I understand would have been about the average for medieval people. Perhaps the measurements he gave only work within a certain range that many modern people have grown beyond?
As the language describing the ideal length of he guard specifically referred to the handle and pommel as two different and distinct components of the grip, it would only seem reasonable to work from the assumption that his assertion as to the ideal length of the handle being equal to a span was indeed referring to the distance from the guard to the pommel. Of course, when there is any ambiguity of language, it can be most helpful to look towards practical considerations when attempting to divine the actual intent of the author, as to whether or not he was actually advocating an exaggeratedly short hilt.
As armor improved the general trend was for a typical longsword's point of balance to migrate closer to the hilt, reflecting an ever increasing emphasis upon thrusting techniques; some trade-off of authority in the cut towards a more nimble point logically following this evolving prioritization. Moving the guard rearwards would indeed similarly move the PoB, and would tend to shift the harmonic balance from the cut friendly mid-hand towards the thumb or guard itself, advantaging the thrust. So far, so good, and if this were a one-handed thrusting sword we would seem close here to the author's intent. With a larger two-handed weapon, however, body mechanics come into play in a complex interaction with the performance characteristics dictated purely by balance, and the author's obvious emphasis upon the functional relationship of body and weapon proportions would indicate the high regard he afforded those ergonomic considerations, considerations quite disadvantaged, upon closer examination, by a shorter grip.
Forcing the hands closer together would reduce leverage, arguably slowing the point as much or more than balance could lend it speed, as well as effectively shortening the strong of the blade, and thus incurring a not inconsiderable defensive disadvantage. Such a blade would feel more awkward and less responsive as well as being more fatiguing to employ. Body mechanics aside, lengthening the distance from thumb to point is going to make it more difficult to bring point in any of the myriad defensive longsword maneuvers which involve stepping in towards one's opponent, and most especially those one-handed grappling techniques you referenced, even more so than they are disadvantaged by overall weapon length'
Vadi's language seems clear as to handle and pommel being separate entities, he clearly stressed ergonomic considerations in his techniques, and all ergonomic considerations seem to weigh in against his intent to advocate a longer blade on a shorter hilt.
The messurement I got from the ground to my armpit is about 140cm/55 inches, and my hand´s span is about 22-23cm / 9inches.
My hands close together without gloves, have a width of 21cm , some more than 8 inches.
If Vadi means , a hand´s span including the pommel, I definitly always has to grip the pommel than I use both hands.
If Vadi means a hand´s span only the grip without the pommel, I would prefear to grip the pommel. If not thereis only a little space between my hands
I'm 5'4 (163cm) and his proportions match the Red Dragon nylon longsword perfectly.
38' (96.5cm) blade, 7.6' (19.5cm) grip (not including pommel), with a guard that's the size of the grip and pommel together (9.4' or 24cm). Reaches perfectly under my armpit, and my hand span fits perfectly inside the grip (excluding pommel).
So basically his proportions work perfectly for a longsword if you're shorter. But if you're tall like Matt, you'd end up with greatsword rather than a longsword, which you can't even use in the same way. I think what we can basically assume here, in the end, is that sword size doesn't really scale with height, at least not to a big extent.
Edit: Incidentally, I do prefer slightly shorter longswords, closer to the Ringeck size rather than the Red Dragon nylon sizes. Vadi's proportions give me a BIG longsword, not a hand-and-a-half.
Edit 2: To expand on this, while we're only two people and it's a small sample size, Matt is tall and strong, I am short and weak, but I still tend to agree with him pretty much exactly on how each sword handles and feels. The Albion Mercenary (34' blade) feels perfect to handle in one hand, the Hanwei Bastard Sword (39' blade) feels like a nearly exclusively two-handed longsword, and the Albion Ringeck (36.5' blade) feels like the perfect in-between (just like Matt, I prefer to use it two-handed, but I can use it one-handed fine), and a 44' blade greatsword just feels like a very different weapon that neither of us can use very well as a longsword. Despite the large disparity in strength and height, (long)swords feel pretty much the same when it comes to handling. I do struggle when it comes to long one-handed swords tho, more than the usual person, due to my lack of strength (shoulders get tired quickly with Rapiers of 42'+ blades, and I prefer 37-39' blade rapiers for long sparring sessions. I don't have this issue with longswords tho).
Matt, interesting as always and having watched your videos for a year or more it was great to have one actually looking at the sources to which you refer so often. A thought: does the ratio between height and handspan remain constant throughout history? I have been reading quite a lot recently about the effect of disease of the human body - no guesses as to what that might be the case - and it's interesting to realise that until recently people living in urban or high density areas were shorter than those from more rural areas because they were less exposed to disease. Republican and Imperial era Romans were shorter than their pre-Republican or Italian forebears. Until recently Glaswegians were shorter than the Highlanders from whom many are descended. But those descendants were not necessarily ;less tough or pugnacious. Perhaps their hands were proportionately bigger. If so, would that explain the apparent difference blade length v hilt v. crossguard sizes.
I haven't found the full transcription of this treatise, so I'm not at all sure about the other bits, but reading the first passage in Italian, I've noticed that the pommel is described in such a way that it is quite clear it isn't a spherical one, but (I'd assume) probably a flat (wheel-shaped?) one that's "rounded" and "smooth" for ease of grip. I'm so sorry, but I haven't found that passage yet. Anyway, I've re-translated the (extremely short) first one in its entirety. Furthermore, I'd like to clarify that I've adjusted a couple of sentences, but only for the grammar to make sense, which means this is still a somewhat rough English rendition that aims to alter as little as possible. Finally, I think the confusion there was mainly due to the ambiguous use of the term "round" (circular/spherical) in the English language.
Shape Of The Sword For Armoured Fighting
The sword for fighting in armour will have the following shape, thus lengthwise its pommel will reach below the arm, cutting four fingers from the tip, and its handle will measure a span. The hilt will be as long as the handle of the sword and pointy in every direction; similarly, the pommel will be pointy, thus any of these can be used for wounding.
Could "under the arm" mean that it should be reaching the upper arm, so not an exact length of it fitting into the armpit, but somewhere between the ellbow and armpit? Or maybe even shorter: "under the arm" so like the first sword Matt showed -> not reaching the upper arm, but the lower arm -> under arm ?
If you instead assume that the measurement of the handle does not include the pommel then the Windless sword almost perfectly matches the description except for being slightly too long to fit under your arm. But it has quite a long pommel and not a very round one. If you swapped its pommel with the disc from the Dynasty Forge sword I think you would have a sword that perfectly matches. It would fit under your arm, the handle without pommel would be a span, and by shortening the pommel now the cross guard would match as well.
I have to agree with others, the "handle should be a span" seems pretty clear to mean just the grip without the pommel, so the proportions of your blade are ideal for you in Vadi's system. Both for the way he describes the guard later, but also due to word he is using for "handle" which seems to be a verb (mantenere), which comes from Latin for "to hold with the hand". Mantenere and its counterparts don't mean the same today in any Romance language I am aware, today it means maintain (which also derives from the same Latin root), but if any Romance language would have hold onto the older literal meaning for longer it would be Italian. Also, the word he uses that got translated as "together" is "inseme" (I guess a variation of vulgar latin insemel, modern Italian being insieme) can also less literally (but sorta literally too) be read as "in conjunction with", implying "mantenere" and "pomo" are distinct things that are being joined together, rather than "the handle including the pommel part of the handle". It comes from the same term the world "ensemble" comes from. Finally, by comparing with modern Italian and other romance languages, all systems I have seen in Italian, Portuguese and Spanish use a word for the whole hilt (guard, grip and pommel) and one word for each of the 3 parts, all those words derive more or less from the same Latin words for the exact same things, even though the grip in particular has multiple names in some of them. I've never seen a system referring to just the handle and the pommel but not the guard in any of these languages, except by laymen. These languages were even closer than they are today in the 15th century (and today their mutual intelligibility is ridiculously high in written and spoken form), on top of the noble classes all learning Latin which did connect them further, so it feels like a stretch that 15th century Italian in particular was unique like that, then re-aligned itself again to be exactly like the others today. Seems more likely that the idea of a large hilt section divided into 3 distinct main parts was developed before the languages diverged even further into the modern Romance languages of today.
The pommel 99.9% means round not in a modern mathematical sense of a sphere, but just smooth and approximating (ish) what mathematicians today call a sphere. Tondo is short for ritondo, which has the same Latin roots as "rotate" (and also round), and their counter parts in other Romance languages even today are more concerned with it being "circle like" and smooth than strictly spherical (spherical is a sub type of it). Judging from how the word behave in Romance languages, it seems to be talking more about it having smooth curves and no sharp corners or edges, rather than being ball shaped (this is where the adjective "well rounded", though English seems to have kept "round" itself to be a bit more strict than its Latin origins). Pretty much any shape without sharp corners or edges that you can comfortably fit in your hand is fair game, anything "eh round enough" goes, I'd say.
I'm 5'10.5" and my feder is an Ensifer C'rona with the 95cm blade. It's a little short but I prefer the way it handles vs the longer one's.
I dont have a sword collection or any HEMA experience but 30 inch blade length seems very nice. Short enough to wear and use in close quarters if needed and long enough to have a good reach
this was super interesting. will you be doing a german version of this?
Buon video. Grazie. Come dici verso tu verso la fine del video, nella scherma corazzata è inutile avere il filo su tutta la lama, in quanto indebolisce la struttura stessa quando colpisci le piastre di acciaio dell'armatura. Durante un combattimento in armatura viene spesso usata al pari di una arma contundente e non da taglio. La punta affilata invece serviva per recidere eventuali lacci o soprattutto con punte a sezione di diamante per scardinare le maglie della cotta. Inoltre se fosse stata affilata per l'intera lunghezza causerebbe problemi durante l'esecuzione di tecniche di armeggio o leve.
The basic way I differentiate between a bastard sword, a long sword and a great sword is this. A bastard sword is designed to be used primarily in one hand but can be easily used in two hands. A long sword is designed to be primarily used in two hands but can be used well enough in one hand. A great sword is designed to be only used in two hands and can not be used effectively in one hand for any length of time. So it goes by design first and weight second.
I interpreted it as just the grip should be a span and the grip and pommel should be the same as the guard. As read, he only grouped them when referring to the guard. Great video's Matt, love your channel and all your content.
Still waiting for the review of that Windlass 2 handed sword!
with my height, Vadi's recommendations suggest a sensible 4" total length with a 8" "handle", which seems to be right in the middle of wikipedia's ranges for typical longswords: "a grip for primarily two-handed use (around 15 to 30 cm or 6 to 12 in), a straight double-edged blade of around 80 to 110 cm (31 to 43 in)"
Extremely interesting and I think I need to get some Vadi sources and read them myself. Original language and translated.
The advantage of an education in music.
No chance I could talk you into a few more of these?
Is it possible that, when he talks about cutting 4 fingers from the tip, that it simply refers to the location of the centre of percussion and that more of the blade would be sharp?
Matt, why does the blade on the 2 hander have to be longer? Why not shorten the handle to get it down to proper length? Keep that blade, knock an inch off the hilt/pommel and overall length will be good without an over length blade.
The whole "span of your hand" measure is pretty funny with a small guy such as myself; my "span" is 19.5 cm, but the length of the custom Regeneyi longsword I have is 123 cm, for it to reach under my armpit. The proportions of the guard and handle would've been horrible had I gone with Vadi's style, so I went with the basic 30 cm handle + scent stopper pommel and 24 cm wide guard that follows the geometric guidelines better. Seemed a bit more useful for German and Swedish styles as well that I never got around to practicing due to horrible sleep patterns.
Swedish styles? I thought there weren't any Swedish treatises before the late 17th century?
The sword's lenght could make sense, if it was measured with you crouching in a fighting position (and not standing upright). Then you could perform an Oberhau and draw it back into a near vertical Wechselhut without having to worry about hitting the ground.
The ability to bring the sword further back will make it easier to keep your (Oberhau) cut in a straight line (since there is no need for throwing it off towards the end) and it will enable you to perform a more powerful Wechselhau.
Up until two days ago my own Wechselhut actually loocked very similar to the Alber because the idea of folding my arms in to pull the pommel into the armpit had never come to me. Initially the new position does feel awkward but I can already tell, that my sword moves in a quite natural way.
My son is a little taller than me. His federshwert reaches to my arm pit, but when I use it, I have trouble bringing the point to bear on the face when in close play.. My sword is a regenyei custom, and total length brings it to just about my elbow, and most of the other proportions would be as Vadi describes and I have no trouble thrusting for the face while I have the opponents hands or elbow covered. I think for length, if he meant armpit, he would have said so. I think arm means just to the arm itself. Maybe between elbow and armpit? The other point is he mentions that it should be sharp 4 fingers from the tip, but he says this after talking about the cross guard needing to be pointy, and the last section says "the hilt as described above", so I don't think he means the blade need only be sharp four fingers from the point, but the guard.
And in an interesting twist... I own a longsword that's actually a near-perfect match for Vadi's proportions against my body if making some reasonable assumptions about the meaning, as noted by your comment. But it's a LARP weapon from Calimacil, not one of my metal swords.
-I'm about 5'11" or 180cm tall and the "Geralt's Steel Sword" reproduction from Calimacil sits almost exactly under my armpit when I sit one end on the ground and check how high up the other end of the weapon reaches.
-The pommel is a somewhat rounded scent stopper pommel much like the one you mentioned in the background, not a sphere, but is very easily gripped and held. On this note, I'm actually curious about some things I'll note below this list...
-the hilt (not counting the pommel, but counting the ridge below the wrap which leads into it), is almost exactly my hand span width.
-the guard is wider than just the hilt, but is slightly short of the length of the pommel. If I had a spherical pommel of equal volume (and thus mass), it would probably match up more closely to the description provided.
And on that note from earlier... do you think the text could mean "round" as in "circular" rather than "spherical" - meaning the wheel pommel would fit the description accurately? Or even circular from the perspective of looking at the base of the hilt? This latter interpretation would rule out both the pommels you're holding, but the scent stopper or a spherical pommel would be circular on that angle, matching the description. In all possible interpretations, the spherical pommel fits, and in most reasonable interpretations, all of them fit as comfortable pommels to hold the sword with. But it's interesting to wonder at the specific meaning here.
EDIT: Also worth noting - a frequently-seen comment about the sword is that the hilt feels "small" for the size of the blade. Which matches with you noting that these proportions seem like they would produce a weapon with a larger blade compared with the hilt.
Counter Interpretation:
What if Vadi means about "under the arm" not the sword standing on the group but rather handing from the belt? This can be reafirmed by "the handle must be a spam length" as its a normal bastard sword hanging from the belt and it would also fix the Peter Johnson calculations.
Fantastic video, I wonder maybe if the people who wrote these treatises weren't intentionally vague? They might have wanted to protect some information, since swordplay was state of the art warfare of the time.
Also, people in the 15th century were probably much smaller, so that would affect the measurements you were talking about.
Thanks for posting this, I really enjoyed it!
Actually they weren't much smaller during this period, average height in the 15th through to the mid 17th century was similar to the late 19th early 20th century. Post 1650 average height declined steadily and didn't start to rise again until the first half of the 19th century. We didn't reach the same average height as the late 15th century again until the mid 20th century. The other point to consider is that the longsword was mainly a weapon of the upper classes who due to better nutrition and environment in childhood tended to be taller than the average, the same effect persists to this day in that average height and health varies across socio-economic classes.
The Shorter hilt and longer blade makes sense -- the blade is the working function to spend more coin on. And the pommel is as good as a handle so use it.
That Bastard sword may actually fit closer to the shorter stature of more sword fighters that were typically 5.5ft (through the 1000s-1400s).
I know nothing about fencing or medieval sword proportions, but the writers choice of words seems to indicate that the "span" should be the handle excluding pommel. This would shorten the blade by as much as 3.5" depending on your pommel type, as well as giving you more leverage by lengthening the hilt.
Limiting the total sword length to be able to stand below your outstretched arm, is most likely to prevent a person from hitting the ground while swinging their blade. Is it possible that "under arm" length is an upper limit rather than a suggested ideal length? "The sword should reach under the arm." It seems to me that a fencing instructor would be more concerned with an upper bound rather than an exact ideal length. Since typically reach is an advantage, only so long as you're able to maintain control. Could be an interesting colab vid to make longsword mock ups with various proportions based on possible interpretations of this text, and muck about with them to see if there is a noticeable superiority of one over the other.
I think it is interesting that he suggests that the guard be pointed and able to cut properly. I imagine having hardened short bodkin looking tips on the end of the cross guard for dealing a murder stroke vs an armored opponent. Those are designed to "cut" metal as they pass through, I can't imagine having a sharpened blade on your cross guard being particularly safe for the user. What's your take on this? Maybe ask Tod to make one and test it? Could be great!
What would be good size buckets for different type of 2h swords? Bastard sword 100-120 cm, true longsword (but also "claymore" and most great swords of war) 120-140, great sword (larger great swords of war, montane, earlier Landsknecht swords) 140-160 cm, fully developed Schlachtschwert 160-200 cm?
I think that the short handle he describes matches nicely with pommelgrip. Using pommel grip gives you up to probably 5cm to "play with".
If you change the dimension of the large sword to be the length of the hand, then making the pommel round the handle+pommel would probably be about 28cm.
If you assume that your large sword is made to accommodate a "2 hands on the handle" person, even though he is recommending a shorter handle the leverage would be almost identical.
(it's also possible he is talking about up to the elbow, but that would be a bit on the small side for true 2 handed swords)
And 4 fingers sharp, can't it mean 4 finger lengths (25-30 cm)? It should be the part of the sword that is likely to come into contact with the opponent.
Matt, how does the Vadi expert you mention interpret these dimensions?
Greetings, if I may be so very bold to ask you to be so very kind to consider answering me question which is completely irrelevant to the topic of the video, in pictures of the civil wars generals for example Tom fairfax they are wearing a black suit of armour with golden rivets on the pauldron, are there any written sources regarding them? Do they have a species name and are there anything in general notable about them.
Thanks, and I consider using that John Cleese reference was a good job
more of this plz
Great video as usual!
I went through the manuscript on Wiktenauer, as Matt suggested, and noticed that the referred section is titled "Forma de spada in arme" - and "in arme" is quite a specific combination of words which translates to "while wearing armour". So I checked the previous parts and, if you focus on the art, there is a CLEAR difference in lenght between the swords represented in the "unarmored" part and the ones represented in the "in arme" part. You will see what I mean by CLEAR if you check that out yourself: "in arme" swords look hugely oversized, while the others are really close to those represented in Fiore.
So, could it be that swords like the windlass two-hander were meant specifically for armored combat?
Fiore"s armored sword also gave us something resembling the Vadi's description
and I can't post the image dangit
Bless this baby, finally his dad has to stop screaming at the camera! :D What a relaxing video.
Very nice interpretation. I'm wondering if he meant "span" and from the hilt to the pummel. If you assume that, it looks like the proportions fit better.
I also presume , that the hand´s span handle is without the pommel.
Because later in the text about the guard, it should be the length of the handle and the pommel.
A ball or rounded pommel would be excellent with the hand to form a ball joint and lever, mechanically. You don't want it to get in the way, because you want to be able to swivel and rotate the sword in whatever fashion you need at any given time.
Matt did Vadi make any recommendations for longsword on horseback ? Also what is the typical longsword blade size for someone fighting from horseback in your opinion ?
Longsword on horseback: the recommendation is, Don't. Bastard sword at most, arming sword is better. If you own a horse and a longsword, you don't carry your longsword -- when your arming sword isn't getting the job done, and you want to engage in single combat, you dismount and say, "Squire, hand me my longsword!"
Edit: Does the treatise specify armpit, or does it just say "under the arm". It could mean just under the elbow with the arm relaxed and standing up straight. It would seem strange not to say "under the elbow" in that case, but language is tricky. Maybe it was common, at that time and in that context, to have the "arm" mean the upper arm specifically.
You have never been this relaxing to listen to. Not that it isn't interesting, quite the opposite, but I imagine I could fall asleep and dream about sword fighting when listening to this.
By my measure - and I am just over 6 ft, that makes the overall length from pommel to tip of 56 inches. I assumed a pommel of 2.5 inches cause it made things easier, thus the hilt would be 8.5 inches, the guard total 11 inches, and the blade 45 inches. Not dissimilar to some of the longer rapiers in blade length. That hilt of 8.5 inches is doable for my two hands.
The blade and hilt lengths sound to me like Vadi's main focus is to have the comfort of the "hand-and-a-half-sword" hilt but with a weapon that's designed to keep the opponent an entire body length away from the sword user (the under the arm length plus arm reach). I don't know the style but I would imagine just from this that there would be lots of long/lunging style attacks followed by/mixed with the close grappling that is possible from this distance (due to leg step lengths).
In middle ages average European reach a 167cm, now about 172,5 according to article in National Geographic Poland Magazine. That changes a little bit ratio, proportions and size of the sword.
Having looked through Vadi's and Marozzo's treatises in detail to see if the illustrations give any clue to the size of the sword; in the case of the former the sword is shown as approx. twice the length of the arm (in illustration [18] In this way I hold you with my left hand) (approx. 40 in), whereas Marozzo's illustration wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:Marozzo_3.png shows a greatsword with the pommel above the guy's shoulder (???), and the hilt (not including pommel) in several illustrations is 3 fists or a span and a half long, so there is considerable variation in size!
I'm an Italian and the Old Italian language is, sometimes, like gibberish to me.
Do you guys have the same experience with Old English?
Yea and verily
Yes! :-)
Yes, probably even more so - OE is almost entirely unintelligible to native English speakers without training in linguistics or a Germanic language. The jump from OE to Middle English was *drastic*. Shakespeare and the KJV Bible (Early Modern English, both) are difficult for the uninitiated; Middle English (Chaucer!) is extremely challenging (majors shifts in meaning, spelling, and grammar); Old English (Beowulf) is just an unapproachable wall.
It's actually worse for us because English loves to borrow words from other languages, meaning that it changes a huge amount over time. Modern English has taken about half of its vocabulary from Latin, French, and Italian where as Old English is purely Germanic in character. Also, the grammar has changed quite a bit in the last 1,000 years so while Modern English has no grammatical genders and two noun cases, Old English has three grammatical genders and five noun cases. To illustrate how totally incomprehensible Old English is, here is a sample text from Wikipedia of an Old English form of the Our Father and a modern translation:
[1] Fæder ūre þū þe eart on heofonum,
Father of ours, thou who art in heavens,
[2] Sī þīn nama ġehālgod.
Be thy name hallowed.
[3] Tōbecume þīn rīċe,
Come thy riche (kingdom),
[4] ġewurþe þīn willa, on eorðan swā swā on heofonum.
Worth (manifest) thy will, on earth as also in heaven.
[5] Ūre ġedæġhwāmlīcan hlāf syle ūs tō dæġ,
Our daily loaf do sell (give) to us today,
[6] and forġyf ūs ūre gyltas, swā swā wē forġyfað ūrum gyltendum.
And forgive us our guilts as also we forgive our guilters[47]
[7] And ne ġelǣd þū ūs on costnunge, ac ālȳs ūs of yfele.
And do not lead thou us into temptation, but alese (release/deliver) us of (from)evil.
[8] Sōþlīċe.
Soothly (Truly; the meaning of Hebrew Amen).
@@ibalrog interesting, thanks.
Can't believe I had to sit through 2 minutes and 52 seconds of video to record my new ringtone: Matt saying "Context"
There could be issues translating the units of measurement.
There was large differences in how units were defined between states over time.
Do you think he might mean that the point of percussion should be four fingers from the tip rather than just the tip being sharp? I would think a point of percussion closer to the tip would be important for blunt force trauma when fighting armored.
I think the handle alone is a span while the crossguard is the length of the handle plus the pommel. That Windlass sword was a bit too long to fit in your armpit and the handle was a bit longer than your handspan but if the handle was shortened 3 cm it would more closely match your handspan, bring the length of the handle plus the pommel to 30 cm to match the crossguard, and it would bring it closer to fitting in your armpit when the tip is on the ground. So it seems the Windlass is pretty close to your ideal longsword size, just a handle 3 cm too long and it should all match up, right?
That's a big sword... I have an Albion for Fiore, but the hilt is a bit short for my taste wearing 1480-1500 period gauntlets causing me to choke up too much and get periodic hand hits, but the blade length is ok for its intended purpose. I am a fan of the armor at least in the 1480-1500 period, so I probably should get a sparring sword to match (that's a bit longer for Vadi). The hilts on the Vadi pictures are clearly quite a bit longer that what I have. I agree with Vadi that the pommel should be round or round-ish; The wheel, fish tail et. al are really uncomfortable to me. Also, I think the left had should be on the pommel, not on the hilt proper imo - in fact in gauntlets with a hand and a half, you pretty much have to. I think the left on the pommel gives much better flexibility and control. the "hand span" thing doesn't match the pictures. The pictures show room for 3 hands... it MUST be that the span doesn't include the pommel in order to match the pictures. Also interesting that he's saying only one span for sharp, given that the point of percussion is typically much further down that a span....
I always assumed that Vadi meant the grip alone should be the span of the hand, excluding the pommel, since specifies to include the pommel later on. Additionally, if we assume this, the measurements line up with historical examples much more frequently. I for instance am similar in stature to you, at about 6'0". According to Vadi's measurements with these assumptions, my sword should be 55" overall. At a 9" grip (the span of my hand, and a length we see on surviving swords), assuming a 3 inch pommel, that leaves us with a 43" blade, well within historical limits and still on the larger side of longswords.
This is a tricky one. He says under the arm, not "reach the armpit". So, I don't know the terms he could use, but maybe if he differentiates arm from forearm that could means that it should be anywhere from your elbow to your armpit...
nice video! I strongly suspect the precise proportion are stated because they where not the common/standard ones of the time.
I wonder if the under the arm is more flexible than we are interpreting. Under the arm could be a poetic way of saying elbow or upper arm. I don’t know much period Italian poetry practice, but form the old Norse kenning tradition it would make sense. Fitting words into verse make for some interesting words, that make more sense in context.
I like the focus on proper dimensions/proportions. When a weapon is properly sized it should handle wonderfully for a wide size range of people. It's interesting to see Matt handle Indian weapons that are clearly too short, at least in the grip, for him, but still he manages to wield them well.
Not necessarily too short, the short grip and the disc pommel of the Talwar encourage cutting from the elbow and shoulder rather than from the wrist which results in more body weight being involved. 19th Century British sources show that Indian swordsmen were renowned for the power of their cuts, Talwar styles are much more slice than chop in comparison to European sabre styles.
Matt, what if it is beneath your underarm? Underarm being the armpit to elbow, meaning the sword comes to your elbow. I have a few practice swords that are hand and half swords, 44" long. Handle is a span for me, 10", crossguard is nearly a span, and the sword comes to my elbow. Maybe do research in medieval medical books to see about body part classifications or something like to see what they called the underarm. Are sure our modern understanding of word is the same as the medieval understanding?
Note the humanist focus on the golden mean and the ideal measurements of man as should fit a sword. I think you are right about his words and it should be long blade with a shorter handle and longer guard.
One has to remember that Italian men in the 15:th century was on average abt 170 cm tall (5'5"-5'6"). So deduct a few inches from Matt's length/sword length.
Maybe “under the arm” means under the elbow line, so before the arm starts and the forearm ends
Matt, can you give us a review of Jogo do Pau - the portuguese staff fighting that is based on longsword techniques? There are any portuguese techniques applied to HEMA?
Hallo Matt, very interesting Video. But you can´t do the "under the arm"-thing with your body. The average Italien man around 1500 was max. 160-165 cm, more than 20 cm less than you are and with a person 160-.165 cm tall, the bastard-sword will aproximately fit Vadi´s recommendation.
I think another point of reference to length of blades and hilts according to Vadi should be the drawings of men with swords in the original version of his book. Since those drawings were essential to relate the nuances of the specific technigues, I imagine Vadi supervised that they were depicted accurately with great diligence. So he must have made sure the artist depict the length and proportions of the swords in relation to human figures accurately to his specific measures mentioned in the book. There is, in fact, actually even a drawing of an ideal sword for armour fighting according to Vadi in the Sword in Armour section of the treatise. That drawing is a great source that can be used to interpret the mesurement and the proportion in the treatise, in my opinion. wiktenauer.com/images/d/d5/Cod.1324_27v.png
What was the relation between stature and hand span in medieval times?
How tall was the average italian in Vadi's time? If the answer is about 5'6" then a longsword with a 37" blade should be about right.
If you consider the handle separate from the pommel, as Vadi did when discussing guard length, the handle on the windlass 2 hander is just a bit too long for Matt. Take an inch or so out of the handle so it fits and sword would then fit under his armpit, and even more interestingly the handle plus pommel length would then be approximately the same as the guard length too.
Is there a chance he meant the sword should be “no longer” than to reach under the arm? Seems a little strange with this translation, but makes more sense when considering the measure itself. Was it perhaps a tendency to use very long swords at the time? Idk, I don’t really have the time to research this, but I’d be interested to know.
Interesting that I'm pretty short by modern standards, 5'7", and by this treatise's reckoning, the very common longsword proportions of 48" overall length, 38" blade, and 8" grip (wrapped portion) would be the perfect size. Makes me think that us being on average a bit taller than medieval people is the main thing that throws this off.