In DEFENCE of the Shortsword and GLADIUS - Underappreciated historical weapons
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 05. 2022
- Thank you to Audible for sponsoring this video! New Audible members get a 30-day free trial. Visit audible.com/shadiversity or text "shadiversity" to 500 500 to try Audible today!
The Gladius and related short swords still have their place as great weapons amongst other historical weapons, even those used in later times.
Come check out my other channels!
THE SHADLANDS: / @theshadlands1142
KNIGHTS WATCH: / knightswatch
My novel, Shadow of the Conqueror Audio Book affiliate links:
US: www.audible.com/shadbrooks
UK: www.audible.co.uk/shadbrooks
CA: www.audible.ca/shadbrooks
AU: www.audible.com.au/shadbrooks
Ebook, Paperback and Hardcover available from most major book retailers, here are a few of the main ones:
Amazon affiliate link (be sure to navigate to your country's amazon site):
amzn.to/2XErUaR
Barnes and Noble:
www.barnesandnoble.com/w/shad...
Kobo:
www.kobo.com/au/en/ebook/shad...
If you like the content and want to support the channel, you're welcome to do so through patreon or subscribe star:
/ shadiversity
www.subscribestar.com/shadive...
Awesome Shirts and chainmail print clothing: teespring.com/en-GB/stores/sh...
Visit Calimacil for the best replica foam swords and LARP weapons: calimacil.com?aff=38
Buy my sword IMPERIOUS from Calimacil: calimacil.com/products/imperi...
Come check out my new channel KNIGHTS WATCH: / @knightswatch
Community run discord server: / discord
My official website: www.shadmbrooks.com/
I just wanted to say that I just finished your book on audible and it was extremely well done. Thanks for putting out the great content.
Meanwhile here I am watching his plug thinking “dude. You been singing the praises of audible for years. If I have not tried it by now. I’m not likely going to.”
The reason Gladius has a gaelic sound to it. Because it is Gaelic. The Gaels defeated rome. It was the hybridized cultures that brought about the gladius.
@bastiat The original "gladius" design comes orginally from the celti-iberians, which WERE a celtic tribe (as it's in the name). Another fact is that these peoples spread themselves to the british isles and became gaelic over time. So in a very distance way he is right. Just not in the way he thinks he is. The fact that Greece had many colonies in the area also speaks of greek influence on them as well. So you are both correct.
@bastiat The basque's origin are centerd in modern day southern france and northern Spain while the celtiberians lived in the south of modern Spain, far closer to Italy. So it's more like they were the ones the Romans took inspiration from. It is however very likely they were very closely linked indeed. Same with the phoenicians/ for that matter. except that they lived in the same region as the celtiberians in Spain.
Also go outside, you seem to have been cooped up inside too long to hold a proper conversation without insulting people.
@bastiat So? We were talking about the gladius. Wtf has steel weapons have to do with anything? They can be made from other metals. Even bronze with the right reinforcements here and there. Also I was talking about influence, not the actual weapon itself. You can get influence from someone to get inspired to make a new weapon you know.
The Gladius doesn't need defending, that's what the shield is for.
it often goes unstated or understated that the gladius was designed to be part of a holistic system with the scutum shield and pilum throwing javelin.
If the gladius needed more defense it would have a crossguard. Instead it has a big pummel. That was for doing more damage to someone who had a helm or a helmet. I usually say helmet, even when I mean helm, just to make sure the common folk know what I am talking about.
The gladius had great thrust, hefty chop, and was good for pummling, that's where we get that word, yes spell check it does exist, your wrong, but the real question. Is the gladius better for picking my teeth, than that spear behind him?
badoom tsss.
Best tool for the job that is needed to be done!
Bravo, Good Sir, Bravo 👏
"Sometimes a smaller package has everything that you need..." - Hopefully you don't need to use this quote too often
Lol
It's gonna be on the new merch. People will love wearing these shirts.
Yeah, wasteful packaging doesn't help anyone.
🤔🤔🤔Are you talking about someone's stick?
Boom boom
i actually believe the reason we see a bigger emphasis on thrusts and stabs with the gladius is more akin to the roman combat methodology rather than what the weapon was good for. the romans believed that thrusts and stab wounds were deadlier than slashing and cuts. and it's not entirely false in some respects.
Seems obvious to me that in a melee you'd normally have numerous opportunities to thrust whereas the appropriate opportunity for a cut would be pretty rare, especially when fighting in close formation.
When thrusting they were trained to the rapidly twist, so the wound you got from a thrust was IMMENSE.
For a short sword, the gladius is excellent for close combat engagements, where you also used a shield to protect yourself
Also you had a big fuckoff shield to your left and right. Don't really have all that much space for wide swings in a formation.
I think the two are not mutually exclusive. The stabs and thrusts were better for Roman combat and so they designed their swords specifically for that
@@rikers_libido The story I got told was basically that the two things fed into each other until the height of the Empire when the gladius and the techniques to use it and the roman formations were more or less perfected.
"Sometimes a smaller package gives you everything you need."...... thanks Shad
My ex used to say that before she left me for a long sword! Jokes on her I later developed gunpowder.
@@connordickerson6815 Very clever, good sir. It's nice to see a good history joke lol
@@connordickerson6815 and struck a female adventurer in the knee.
@@jacktheomnithere2127 "I understood that reference" - Hawkeye
Some of us needed to hear this! :D haha
The Gladius was specifically designed to be used with a shield. In that regard, it's very close to perfect.
And armor and pilum. One complete kit for specific battle tactics!
@@j.v.7451 Not even armor per se, the iberians prefered to go lighter and mainly used fabric armors with the same quite as the Romans, a short sword ( Gladius Hispanensis being the most known, but there is an incredible variation in shape,size etc), Javelins (the wealthy ones used saunions/soliferras, 2m all iron javelins) and either a circular shield called caetra or a scutum, normally oval instead of the square one asociated with romans.
It was mostly used early on and replaced with longsword, it was influenced by Greece at the time like many other cultural phenomenon in Rome. The reason was that like said they were made to cut but they also had a limit against riders and heavy armor and don't forget that pilums were shield piercing. Once the battle started nobody would stand behind a shield as it was used to fill the gap and hold formation. This resulted to bloodbaths with people cutting people around them and stabbing each other that the elite soldiers were waiting for the pawns to die so that they could finish the survivors. People who were important weren't given the disadvantages of a short sword that you're also surrounded by opponents and it's just as easy to stab you. That's why numbers have been the main factor for almost every fair battle and Rome had early age many people who became slaves that at climax half the population were slaves or citizens considered second class. At one moment it was suggested that all slaves should be marked by clothes which became contradictive since even administration had slave workers. That's why there were elite soldiers with spears who used the man in front as a body shield. Whoever going to hold the shield is first to fall.
Also a suicide setup against opponents with battle axes, maces, and war hammer
Yeah nah, most of these definite statements depend much on period in time. I wouldn't underestimate a shield and axe in the hands of a berserker. While he won't adhere to the order and strategy of a roman, he might ruin your victory party. An axe can shield grapple and have a bad influence on your health.
Also, swords and shields will generally lose from a spear and shield, even in the hands of poorly trained troops. A sword is a cooler weapon, that much is true
The Gladius literally carved an empire for centuries. It's a great weapon.
It's not literally just the weapon, as it's the Roman's formation that made it work perfectly.
@@koreancowboy42 Plus the Scutum and Pilum, plus the road system.
but interestingly enough the idea was most likely stolen from the iberian celts
Actually ,and very ironically, the idea of the gladius was copied from Hannibal troops that had, them self copied from celtiberic tribes
literally made for centurions
i feel like the gladius is the 1911 of the ancient world lol "if it aint broke don't fix it."
That or the Garand. Get the job done, but not the best as time went on. Rome/America did great things with the Garand&1911/Gladius, arguably the best in their day. They’re all still versatile but not the best in every situation. But still icons of two great cultures
1895 Nangant revolver has entered the chat
@@mikolashweiss1990 and everyone who's ever had to use one in combat laughs it right back out....
@@byutube4360 the Garand was effectively only America's weapon of World War II and the Korean War. By the Vietnam War, we'd moved on to the M14 (and quickly the M-16). The 1911 is still part of U.S. inventory in some modified form (albeit no longer standard issue), and was standard issue 1911-1985.
I am not a fan of that analogy, because pistols are very much sidearms intended to be used in emergency, while gladius are very much intendend to be a light main weapon they are more akin to a submachine gun or a carbine, while pistols are more akin to a dagger.
Short swords are my favorite kind of swords, and they're always underappreciated as the "weak swords"
Quite sad. Though it's nice that video games are slowly learning from their criminal bastardizations, the scars will take a long time to heal. Might even get an african stick fighting game in coming decades.
@@MrYago-xd7um broken copper short sword o-o
Judging from design alone it proved to be an abuse resistant sword. Weak? Unbelievable.
@@MrYago-xd7um besides Terraria, what they did is fine and works for most enemy's
@@chengkuoklee5734 He's talking about D&D, where the weapon only did 1d6 damage, as opposed to the Long Sword with 1d8, the bastard sword with 1d10 (two handed), or the great sword with 1d12 damage.
Spears also got the shaft (sorry), and did 1d6 as well. You needed to move up to the Halberd to get decent polearm damage.
8:06 "Sometimes a smaller package gives you everything you need," - Shad. Yes, I completely agree!! Now to convince my wife...
You don't have a wife
@@pineappleproductions1696 "Now thats a lot of damage!!"
25:09 Shad: Literally almost stabs Nathan eighteen times.
Nathan: *nods*
The gladius is one of the most consistently well-constructed swords in history. In most other erras of human history military swords' quality varied greatly, like a pyramid with inferior specimens are represented at the bottom and superior by the top. So excellent specimens sit on piles of trash with a few decent pieces somewhere in the jumbel.
Survivorship bias is an important archeological factor.
@@Interrobang212 true. true. i also think the romans also did quite well on mass production. which can be tricky regarding replicating, distribution, and material availability.
i saw someone say the romam gladius is like the american glock. i thought it was a neat comparison. its not super fancy, but you can be sure it gets the job done.
@@Interrobang212 true but the construction is super simple and easily replaceable. Metallurgy aside.
Its good, true, but I'd say the Greatsword is a better design overall still...
@@allstarwoo4 That's the point, the quality of the steal was less relevant than the design.
Even a botched job that the whole thing was basically just low carbon steel would still stab fairly well.
Probably one of my favorite facts about the Gladius, is that during training apparently if a legionnaire was seen slashing with the Gladius he would get made fun of.
Not so much made fun of, as beaten to a pulp. Wouldn't be killed for it, but slashing cuts were a big no-no.
That is probably more indicative of practice with later gladii.
In the Late Republican period a fair amount of the Roman legionaries would have been using Gladius Hispaniensis types. Good luck telling those soldiers not to slash with that weapon, they are damn-well built to be good at slashing.
@@thejackinati2759 as effective as the WEAPON may be in single combat, you have to remember Romans fought in very tight formation. Holding the line in an ancient battle was much more important than risking it to kill a foe. Roman soldiers were specifically discouraged from breaking formation with “wild swinging blows”. There’s no reason they couldn’t swing it if they were engaging one enemy in a more chaotic battle, but most ancient battles were all about holding the line: whoever broke it first and scattered got slaughtered in the chaos. The whole point of the Gladius was that it paired well with a shield: they could get their line very close to an enemy with a shield wall, and then open small parts of it for multiple gladii to stab into the gaps.
I've read some things George Patton wrote when he was Master of the Sword at the U. S. Army Cavalry School. He stated that they did not teach slashing because in almost all cases the thrust was superior and in the rare instance that a cut was called for the soldier would resort to it instinctively without formal training. Perhaps some similar logic prevailed among Roman soldiers. I find it hard to believe that professional soldiers would fail to recognize that occasionally a cut was the best response but I can understand why they might not have felt it necessary to teach it.
...Wonder how many bullies got slashed as a result...
Another fun fact is the Roman’s would open they’re attack with a volley of pilums disabling enemies shields no matter what size of shield they had effectively making the phalanx and their weaponry that much more effective
yeah... honestly, i imagine their coordination and countering would leave a lot of their opponents questioning if its worth fighting them.
did romans even use archers then?
@@uglystupidloser if I remember correctly, they did but only when people who knows how to use bows. Other times they just use slings
Their*
@@uglystupidloser Romans rarely used archers but they did have auxiliaries that used bows.
It was a logistical waste to train archers for Rome when slings, plumbata, an pilum filled the role more efficiently.
@@uglystupidloser They were part of the auxiliaries though, so foreigners.
There were stories how during the Macedonian-Roman war, King Philip V couldn't even look at the wounded soldiers who had fought the Romans because the bodily injuries inflicted on them by the gladius were just that terrible to behold.
Key point is the plural use of the word injury. These guys got cut to pieces
@@majormarketing6552 cutted no, stabbed
Survivor bias. The stab victims didn't survive, so we hear about the slash victims
@@ctrlaltdebug oh shit. +1
@@ctrlaltdebug fk u right, i had only 3h of sleep today
I must say, as someone whose most recent project started as homebrewing for 5th edition and has quickly evolved into building my own ttrpg system, your videos are invaluable
Oooh! What’s the system like? Can you share some details?
Yep gotta hate it (and love it) when ya start homebrewing a D&D campaign so much that your million house rules wind up branching off into their own system. XD
Some years ago, I was trying to design a sword for one of my characters. Now, at that point, I was a 99% sword noob. The only thing I can really say I really knew about swords (and just weapons in general) was this: Video games had them all wrong. They way over decorate them, throw the balance off drastically, etc. I had never learned what the proper designs were, but I decided to just mess around and see what I could come up with. I sketched a few pieces and quickly came up with a simple design that, from what I could tell, fit my character's combat style.
Fast forward about 4 years, and I'm looking into proper sword designs and trying to better educate myself on real medieval combat. I was worried that my character's old sword, which had become iconic for him at this point, was unrealistic and very ineffective. That's when I realized the opposite; I had accidentally re-invented the gladius.
Even 𝑺𝒌𝒚𝒓𝒊𝒎 couldn't get the gladius 100% right. The overall design looks fair, but...TEN POUNDS?! Not even a strongman would want to wield something so...𝒖𝒏𝒘𝒊𝒆𝒍𝒅𝒚. Bethesda can and should have done better.
5 years on character? Waste
@@unbroken1010 you breathe? waste
@@kingsizedmidget7294 we all do. But plants the most that's how we get clean air ffs
@@unbroken1010 whoosh
From what I understand about medieval blacksmithing, the quality of an item very much depended on who made it, what materials they had on hand, and if they were having an off day or not.
and temperature control could vary with weather, especially when it fluctuates throughout the day
It really depends on WHEN in the medieval period you are talking. Early medieval, absolutely true. By the late middle and late medieval period they had improved, or started to (Depending on where they were), the smelting process, as well as the smithing on the whole, that they were able to crank out consistently better weapons. By the beginning of the Renaissance crucible steel was not uncommon, and the process was pretty standard for making it. I saw an image of at least one stack for the making of crucible steel, still standing in Italy, that dates back to the 1300s.
My point is, it really depends on the when and where you are talking about as to the actual specifics of the forging technology and techniques of the medieval period.
Ancient cm China had a system of inspection where almost everything by markings could be traced back to who made it.
@@yfelwulf cm? what does that mean?
When I was in Latin class, I read a document that mentioned that the Roman's usually used the Gladius as a thrusting weapon because a wound 3 inches deep was much more deadly than a cutting strike
Especially if you consider that they'd stab, twist, then pull out. That twist does some nasty, nasty damage, even more so with such a wide blade like the gladius.
Thrust or jab is the most effective move because it not only strike fastest, it also allows fastest recovery to perform strike again.
It also uses minimal energy to stab.
@@__-fm5qv now consider furthermore that sometimes they smeared shit at the tips of these swords...
The Gladius conquered most of Europe. This weapon should be in the legendary ranking
Gladius or Pilum?
@@SerialChiller1000 Both.
Paired with a shield
@@IamQuh boffum
@@IamQuh Indeed.
When cavalry became more dominant, the shield walls tended to incorporate polearms as the primary weapon.
At some point
We give up using a Shield at all and just use a Comically long polearm
But apparently some polish got an idea to use a Lance that even longer than the swissest pikeman on their Calvary
I've had the opposite problem, encountering people who think Roman weapon and armor technology were across the board better than medieval weapon and armor technology. That the Lorica Segmentata was better protection than full harness!
That's because people only understand two things about the Romans.
1. They had an empire
2. In movies they're generally the OP bad guys.
Then naturally of course being humans we just fill in with a bunch of assumptions.
I remember having a good laugh at someone who unironically believed that Cannon wouldn't surpass the ballista until the late 19th century. Same dude also believed that the Romans would have shit-stomped 16th century Spain.
And people think weebs are nuts...
@Kanada Dry yea the Roman empire had a top notch army for such a long time meanwhile medieval armies were so all over the place in terms of quality because the decentral governments meant most armies were personally funded instead of being armed with the top of the line stuff at all times. Granted Parliament and few other institutes would do away with this problem but there is a reason so many different weapons armor and such in the medivieal period.
I guess it depends on perspective.
Are you looking at the capabilities of the individual suit of armour? Or are you looking at the strategic capabilities of units?
Medieval times certainly produced individual pieces of armour that far surpassed ancient roman armour. But on the same token, armour wasn't standardized in medieval times. Every army had a great mishmash of quality and effectiveness to it.
Romans were good at enforcing a standard within their units. Which means every commander had a good overview of what his units were capable of and it also put less of a strain on logistics.
That most likely played a big part in their success, as opposed to medieval times where Europe was composed of more smaller, warring states.
@@sevenproxies4255 a very good perspective, rome should be lauded for their army being so good for so many years, meanwhile medieval armies should be lauded for the innovaters and madlads who created all the new weapons and armor, as each shares an aspect the other lacks.
My dad and i recently finished forging a shortsword that's basically like a miniature sabre or cutlass. It's the first sword we've made together. It's also the best blade i've ever owned in my life especially since we worked for so long on it and made it ourselves. He can sharpen a blade enough to split a freaking atom. Lol. Like shad said on friday night tights "every man needs a sword."
Sword Blades should not be that sharp.
I would suspect that a major reason for the decline in use of the gladius was the disintegration of higher organized societies seen in the early middle ages. The gladius is ideal for large, but very close, and highly disciplined, shield formations. In the early middle ages, where armies were to a much larger degree comprised of levies with much less uniform equipment and training, it would be advantageous with a more individualistic fighting style, i.e. longer reaching swords.
You're partially correct but getting very close. One of the biggest advantages to Roman field tactics, formations and weaponry was that their entire society supported such structures to exist. Due to the Marian reforms, the government supplied troops with standardized weapons, equipment and training somewhat similar to modern armies of today (Some would argue that those very Roman reforms are the basis of many modern military methods). The Roman empire was one massive, well organized machine which could push their frontiers into what became one of the largest Empires to ever exist.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, smaller countries couldn't support the purchase and training of their regular regiments, and relied more so on what gear they could get a hold of themselves. Even the larger countries would only have their more elite troops trained to the degree of the regular Roman Legionnaire. It was less the size and more-so the structure of the Empire itself which led to them being so capable on the battlefield. You can look at similar sized Chinese Empires of the exact same time periods the Romans were at their peak and see that they couldn't support such training and equipment for their armies because their logistics and reforms weren't as advanced (That's not to say that certain aspects of Chinese advancement wasn't ahead of Rome also).
it's more to do with shifting army tactics, changes in armor and blacksmithing. Reach advantage is huge, and as blacksmiths were able to make longer swords that would stay stable and durable there was a big advantage to doing so.
Gladius is a Latin word, thus the plural form would be "gladii"
I'm gladii saw this video
@@joshrussell4081 Ha! Good form! 😄
There's a joke that goes:
A Roman walks into a bar and orders a martinus. The bartender thinks for a moment, then asks "You mean martini?" The Roman replies "No thanks, just one."
@@arcticbanana66 I’m stealing that, hope you don’t mind.
Actually, the plural form would either be gladii, gladiorum, gladios or gladiis. Insisting on using Latin nominative plurals is pointless pedantry. You're speaking English, not Latin.
Wait... People didn't appreciate the gladius?
The gladius is amazing. Very mobile and agile when you're carrying a massive square shield, standing shoulder to shoulder with your mates.
Doubles as a sturdy, multi-purpose tool due to its shape and thickness.
Easy to hide within the folds of your toga when you want to backstab your senator dawgs.
It's the Glock19 with hollow points of yore, people. Get with the program.
right? The roman army fought in very compact formations, and in a line battle the front ranks were crushed together making the gladius your best chance of survival.
It is better than the Glock. A gladius don't go boom. You can't hear it.
They could be a bad weapon if used on a way that wasn't intended. It was the right tool for the specific context.
It's like saying pliers are bad because you can't use it as a hammer.
@@Chico_Julio
Totally.
I'm not sure I'd recommend bringing a gladius without a shield to a one on one duel with a guy with a longsword or a katana XD.
Weapons are tools. Just like I'd rather have a spear on the battlefield than a sword. Or a solid mace and a half-blade in a confined space where everyone's wearing full plate.
They always make me think of lightsabers lol
A similar weapon called Qama was used in Iranic regions up until the modern day. And it is still made by knife makers. And they are quite vicious.
It’s not too far off in size from some machetes, so that makes sense that people still carry it. Not only would it be a weapon, but it could probably double as a tool in a pinch
Pretty cool
Was the Qama used with a shield typically?
@@attigator I don't know. I've usually seen it as a sidearm.
I can appreciate that you want to use the word sverd for viking swords. However, we still use the word sverd in scandinavia for any type of sword, so this classification isn’t ideal in translation.
How about Brand? That's an old nickname for swords and very Tolkienesque.
I mean, in Italy the sword is called "spada" which is very similar to the word "spatha", but we still call the roman spatha like that. What about calling it "sverd" in English and "sverð" in the nordic languages? Since I know the letter ð exists only in Icelandic and Faroese today
@@rikers_libido interesting idea. Only problem is that we would have to add the letter ð back to our alphabet, just for that one word
@@asmundhovland211 I hadn't thought about it, it would be quite absurd indeed. Perhaps the best solution is to simply call it "sverd" in English and "viking sverd" (dunno how u say it) in Scandinavia. Like, in Italian simply saying "spatha" would create confusion, so we almost always say "Roman spatha"
@@rikers_libido Yes, I think this indeed would be the easiest
Sharing this with my 8th Legion Brothers. The Gladius is our choice of sword in the Legion.
Roma Invicta
praise the sun
Ave Dominus Nox
Ave.
Death to false emperors. *Lupercal Invictus!*
Nathan looks way more calm than I would with someone like Shad waving a sharp sword at my head...
I'd probably look more calm than you as I hold a nail for my boss to drive. Trust is a powerful thing
In defense of the Gladius? Is anyone questioning the effectiveness of the weapon? I don`t think any reasonable or knowledgeable person would question the effectiveness of the Gladius. It is a proven weapon. It is effective at what it is meant to do.
The Gladius is the epitome of the phrase "This side toward enemy"
Greatshield + Shortsword = Perfection
And here I was in 3.5e, using a Buckler and a Greatsword all my life
×100 Equals Perfection*
A short sword can be used as a machete or a kitchen knife or a sickle. Versatility.
Or serving tray in this case.
Fun fact about the Spatha:
This particular blade was more or less used by the Roman Equistes or Horsemen. The longer reach made it better for combat on a horse when the Gladius was better in the shield wall formations of the legion.
Later on though as more and more barbarians joined the legion the pila and Gladius was retired and replaced with the Spatha and the Hasta. This mainly being to the tribes being used to these weapons and the decaying empire needing more soldiers and quickly.
Awesome video. The Gladius is one of the best self defense swords. Each sword has their place, strengths and weaknesses, but the Gladius is my favorite. I bought a Spatha style sword earlier this year. 27 inch blade and a weight of 55 ounces. It's on the heavier side, but still very easy to use. If more Gladius swords come up for sale from the same Bladesmith I plan to buy one.
Sword in modern Norwegian:
Written: SVERD (old norse: sverð)
Pronounced: SVÆRD - where the 'Æ' has the exact same sound as the 'A' in 'SHAD' or 'BATTLE' or 'CAN'.
Tangent for the tism'd:
- You can also skip the 'R' and pronounce it 'SVÆD' unless you're emphasizing a particular dialect.
- A slight american bent to the R portion really sells it. After the 'Æ' try to form the american 'R' in your mouth but pronounce 'D' instead.
- The official way of pronouncing 'R' is similar to Italian, by rolling it off the tip of the tounge, but the German way is standard in southern and western Norway (back of the tounge).
- So pronounce SVÆRD in a stereotypical Italian or German accent, while keeping the 'Æ=A in SHAD' sound, and you're also fine.
Very cool to know
So you pronounce it as "Svard"?
In german writing of norwegian pronounciation "Swärd"
Spatha, Latin for sword. Espada, spanish for sword.
@@mogaman28 spatha comes from spathi, greek for sword. The celtic word for sword are cladio or kludda. Original latin word for sword is gladius.
Gladius proves that sometimes size doesn't matter
*sometimes smaller size can be a benefit
how? the length and width defines what a gladius is versus other swords
Nobody has mentioned Nathan's reactions when he's serving as the demonstration target for the swords, they're pretty funny in a low-key way.
On the point of increasing use of cavalry reducing the effectiveness of the shield wall, it’s also worth noting the improvements made for the protection of the horse and rider. Both were armoured and heavier, which made inflicting damage to them harder and also made it more difficult to stop them crashing through the formation
Don't forget the apparition of the stirrups that make the cavalier so much more effective at fighting on the horse and to stay on it and to apply force when he charges
@@Kaliblister Ding ding ding we have a winner. The Romans did very well against the cavalry heavy armies of the Parthians by using their pila to knock them off their horses (yes they weren't just used for throwing). They would knock the riders off their horses then finish them off once they're on the ground. Much harder to knock someone off their horse if they're using stirrups
There is a more modern artillery sword (i think it was French) that was a Gladius. If I remember correctly it was made in the 1880's and served up to WWI. One of the things that surprised me was thst it wasn't really a self defense weapon, more of a chopping tool that could be used as a sword. Just proves how versatile the design was.
It is my understanding that the navies of the world also favored shorter swords due to the tighter confines of fighting aboard a ship compared to an open battlefield. And even today tend to use shorter guns than their land-based counterparts.
And when it comes to role playing games, my characters always carry a shortsword of some variety in addition to their main, longer weapon because you never know when you're gonna have to carve your way out of something's stomach.
funny, I wonder how we got the stereotype of pirates with these long, curved cutlasses, and how modern navies carry ceremonial long sabers. that always felt like a mismatch to me.
@@KairuHakubi I think thats partially due to movies using larger, more impressive swords. I've seen some cutlass designs that were only 16-24 inches and they usually were less ornate then you see in movies, being more like a machete. I dont remember if they had a different name but there's a knife/dagger that _looks_ like the stereotypical pirate cutlass but it's not as long as the cavalry version you see in movies, being roughly the size of a chefs knife (again around 12-16 inches). Many pirates during the golden age (14th-17th century roughly) used small swords, cuttoe swords, plug bayonets, and various types of working knives/daggers.
Part of this discrpency is that captains were the most famous on any ship and they'd wear a more ornate full sized sword but wouldnt fight nearly as often so it was more a symbol or used for duels, same as officers on land or in real military's. The other major reason is that in media many pirates would fight in fencing style (think Errol Flynn) and those actors were all trained by a small group of professionals who mostly used sabers and rapiers, both longer then your typical real pirate daggers and knives.
“Big stick mean big danger.”
I was kinda concerned about Nathan for a second there when you held the sword to his belly, which is weird because I never worry about Oz. 🤔
Thinking about it, you can almost equate Roman formations to modern mechanized infantry. Mechanized infantry are protected by their vehicle to a degree and use shorter firearms due to the confined spaces they have to be in. Romans rely on their shields for protection and use their shorter swords due to the confined spaces of their formations. The Romans really had battle tactics almost down to a science a crazy long time ago. Funny how the more things change the more they also stay the same.
I realize this is more of a "classical" weapon, but could we at some point get a take from Shad on that often-ignored weapon: the sling?? I'd want to see that!
The microchip is my favorite weapon.
Hey shad, I just want to say in the clip of the professional cutting competition, in the background on the left side of the screen, you see a Jantz banner, that's where I work we make custom knives and supply custom knife makers
Not gonna lie, I've always loved the Gladius from an aesthetic viewpoint and it is cool to learn a bit more about them.
Great video! I love to see your review of an other underrated sword: the Khopesh. It's an ancient design, but interesting
I love that sword like a simp, but I'll admit it might be overrated.
@@MrYago-xd7um for the time period though it was a good weapon. Adept at slashing by design but still able to thrust and since it was shaped much like sycles that farmers used, it didn't make it too hard for them to use
Great video Shad! I would love for you to make an in-depth video on the xiphos. I know that you did a video some time ago on Greek weapons but it would be awesome to have you breakdown the xiphos specifically.
15:45
"Espada" is also "Sword" in Portuguese and spanish too :^D
Indeed! When I was younger and only knew about the Gladius I was confused as to where the word Espada came from in Latin derived languages until someone introduced me to the Spatha.
And in Italian it's "Spada"
Love your videos, you teach medieval stuff and make it entertaining. That is a skill most history teachers cannot do.
love shortswords, gladius look amazing too
I've always highly regarded the Gladius.
Specially for defending my studio flat from marauding scumbags.
"Smaller package gives you everything you need"
THANK YOU
Enjoyed! Answered some of my questions!
First.
And I love this video.
I’ve always been a huge fan of the gladius.
It may be functionally identical to rapiers except do less damage but my god I love my shortswords.
Less? Twist the fucker when its inside your enemy and see how "little" damage it does
@@michelecastellotti9172 I believe they're referring to Dungeons & Dragons, where a rapier does 1-8 damage, and a shortsword does 1-6 damage.
@@astro6009 Doesn't make a lot of sense when you think about it. It's blade would hurt a lot more to be hit by.
@@thearcanehunter2736 It is admittedly game-ified. As consolation, one can wield and attack with two shortswords at once, as they are considered "light," whereas the rapier is not, and so must be paired with a shield, if anything.
@@astro6009 ooooooooooooh... i dont play D&D, sorry
This video answered so many questions I was thinking about. Love this channel 😊
In the context the Gladius was most commonly used, that being a roman shield wall, it was AMAZINGLY Effective; all that weight becomes tongues of death lapping up the blood of your enemies, powerful claws lashing out from gaps even a skilled swordsman wouldn't be able to break.
I've always loved the Gladius. I collect blades of every kind, and the one i have is one of my top 5 favorite weapon I own.
knowing what you know, what kind of sword would you *design* for self-defense purposes?
He did a video on that.
@@AdlerMow did he? I only saw the one where he picked from already existing options and put the gladius as the winner.
Always one of my favorite swords! Just so incredibly well done.
Nathan's expressions are gold.
The Gladius one of my all time favourite swords. I studied the Roman Empire my whole life and with it came from my love for this weapon.
The Gladius lead to one of the greatest civilizations in human history to be born and that was the Roman Empire.
Suggested Correction: -one of
@@Pangora2 Suggest re-correction: the
@@jackodonail1980, correction. One of.
It didn't lead to Roman civilization because they were civilized long before they adopted the gladius from the Celt-Iberians. It did help lead to the Roman Republic morphing into the Roman Empire though.
@@Hainero2001 Who can rival the glory of Rome?
As someone who recently acquired a gladius, I can confirm that they have some weight behind them. But it's not just about the weight of the sword, it's also about how the weight is distributed throughout the length of the sword. A lot of primarily thrusting swords such as rapiers (for example) have the centre of gravity closer to the hilt in order to make the tip a lot more nimble. Cutting swords tend to have a centre of gravity a little further away from the hilt to add a significant amount of punchiness to the cut, allowing it to cut through denser materials such as bone a lot easier.
Yes, the gladius is an exceptional thrusting weapon, but it's an absolute monster for hacking and slicing as well. It's a versatile weapon, which makes sense given the fact that the Roman military was a lot more than just some young, dumb ape hiding behind a massive slab of laminated wood. There were all sorts of roles within the Roman military that had different jobs to do, and consequently, might not necessarily be issued a scutum. Such people would still need a versatile weapon for self defense, and the gladius more than adequately provided that versatility and utility to the military, meaning the Romans could just mass produce the things and hand them out like pre-owned games at an EB Games sale quite quickly and quite cheaply, and it meant that each soldier's kit was standardised in the same way modern standing armies have standard issue equipment for virtually the same reasons.
I love your weapon analysis videos.
man the gladius is my favorite blade design. not incredibly partial to the hilt and guard design but definitely in my top sword rankings
I agree. If I could get a gladius blade on a cruciform hilt, that would be perfect.
the hilt and guard design says a lot about its function though, doesnt it? not really intended for one on one combat against another sword.
@@uglystupidloser yup, but just as perfect in combination with a shield as with a H&K G3 battle rifle 😆
You might like the xiphos then. Blade is slightly different in shape though, but similar.
@@megadesu69 maybe, but I already have a modernized gladius style machete, I've fitted the scabbard with straps in a way that allows me to wear it horizontally across the small of my back by the webbing.
Damn Shad slimmed down. Looking like chadiversity.
"sometimes a smaller package gives you everything you need"
Thanks Shad I really needed to hear that rn
I'm curious to what degree the falling out of favor of the gladius could be attributed to the collapse/fracturing of the Roman Empire and the inability of successor states to raise and maintain the large, well-trained, well-equipped, and disciplined armies that were needed for the tactics they were useful for.
This is probably a pretty big contributor. It took centurys for any western power to have the ability to raise, train and maintain a professional standing army. And with the gladius requiring tight formations and heavy shields to work effectively, the roman soldiers physical conditioning (which was outstanding for the time), and their training was a necessity. I personally think had the romans continued, and evolved their tactics as time went on the gladius could still serve front-line military duty into the medival era.
The degree to which this is true is that it is almost entirely the reason for the gladius falling out of favour, lol
I heard some historian claim that by lengthening the sword and shrinking the shield they were ironically becoming more and more defensive, focused on keeping their enemy at range and away from them rather then getting right into their faces.
@@Acesahn That makes sense. While I can't imagine any any ancient battlefield feeling safe, I can imaging standing behind a wall of scuta in a tight formation would instill a fair bit of confidence that might otherwise not be present.
Shad ever cover the whistling stones the Romans would shotgun sling at people for psychological warfare?
Scaring germanics with shotgun blasts way before the trenches. They also had a tendency to put jokes on the slingstones (Some were cast lead) like "catch!"
Humor is part of the military condition. It is a coping mechanism among other things.
This still hapens in modern times. Just a few examples:
Allied bombers dropping bombs painted like Easter eggs in WW2.
TAO of a USN ship announcing on the ships intercom "Mr. Hussain, this is your 0330 wake up call!" (think it was 0330) before launching missles for OIF.
As long as snark, sarcasm, and dark humor exist there will be soldiers making jokes with the weapons used to harm their enemies.
(Applies to all branches of the US military, but the nature of the message differs... Army messages must be >50% profanity. Navy is required to use "Argh" or "Matey" in theirs. Coast Guard are too busy handcuffing each other or doing actual work to do this much beyond the chalked "Little Friend" on a ships cannon. Air Force requires all messages be spell checked, grammatically correct, precisely alligned/spaced, and stenciled in a contrasting color of no less than 13.7 mm high. Space Force must refer to Lord of the Rings at least once or express the insult as a Differential Calculus equation. Marine Corp messages are required to include "hooah" if legible- but most carry only the intent as they are blobs of color drooled on the item while they are eating the crayons to be used for those messages... 🤣)
@@buffewo6386 there was a bomb a guy dropped from an Intruder on Vietnam… it was painted on the side “if you can read this, you are one lucky bastard!”
I Love the Gladius
thx for Covering it again
Thanks for this.
I was always a bit confused about why shortswords were even that prominant, like, obviously there was a reason or they would not be, now I'll find out.
i would imagine similar reasons to why pistols and short barreled rifles are prominent over full length barrel rifles. Concealability/size. I can put a pistol in my pocket, or a SBR in my backpack, but I have to sling a full size rifle.
They are easier to use, more agile in difgicult terrains, like woods, caves or cities, you can carry them in a smaller sheath.
@@narvaez355 yeah, and the fact that they carried bigger shilds
There is another one little thing: nowdays we haven't a shortage of metall to make guns of. So materials just don't cost nearly so much.
Spears break, and at that point they're probably too close, hence A SHARP METAL STICK
Thoughts on the Roman Pilum throwing spear/javelin?
was very effective but was designed to bend after the 1st throw so that the enemy couldnt throw them back... LOVE YA SHAD
Also so that the enemy won't be able to pull them out of shields, which means they no longer had shields (or were really unbalanced). Oh, those Romans.
yea the pilum did bend after the first shot but after the battle, (if the romans won) you could pick them up, hammer them out and they would be good as new
@@johntitor1256 the romans copied it from the etruscans.
Pila was invented to counter celtic warriors who had only their shields as protection. The romans copied it but changed the singular name to Pilum, because the etruscan Pila sounded too feminine for singular in latin. So Pila became the latin plural for the weapon.
Didn't those javelins also bend if they pierced someone? If that is the case you would have to have another 2 soldiers pull that one injured out of the fight.
@@jarlnils435 well, the origins of Rome are Etruscan, the last kings of Rome were certainly Etruscans and several historians agree that even the first kings, including Romulus, could have been Etruscans or in any case of Etruscan origin. So more than copying I would say that the Latin people of Rome, assimilating the Etruscan culture, have also assimilated their best innovations (an example outside the military sphere is the structure of the arches, which today so many of them remain standing even though no type of concrete was used to hold the stones together)
I've seen things about a gladius being made cheaply with a single piece of metal and the handle being wrapped with cloth
this video taught me that size doesn't matter. Very helpful!
0:41
“They were generally better made than the types of people they were fighting.”
You mean they ENGINEERED the people they were fighting!?
Sorry, grammar teacher. My students recently learned about misplaced modifiers and I couldn’t help myself.
Hey Shad, I was wondering if you can cover The Falcata Sword? thanks :)
Because I'm a child mentally, several times in this video I struggled to keep a straight face, anyway, great video, I love this channel
Thanks!
Pair it up with a shield and its great
But it can always work by itself if the wielder possesses the skill
According to metatron (response to matpat's awful viking shield video), the use of a shield is optional if the armor is good enough. Although an empty hand is limited, it can be used to grab, disarm, or blind an enemy. Gameology's for honor video emphasizes throwing an enemy the ground or half-swording
@@MunkyDrag0n limited sure, but with enough practice it can be advantageous
@@MunkyDrag0n Getting a shield is a lot easier than getting a full on armor. Way cheaper
@@lasseraina5865 that and shields can double as a bashing weapon if used correctly
gladius are one of my favourite sword types. also the perfect middle ground between sword and knife in close quarters i suppose.
The ad is very creative and entertaining. Seriously, well done with that.
Its beautiful in its simplicity...
Shad is the closest thing to a father I've ever had.
That went really dark, very fast .... Here son, have a beer.
I’m sorry but that’s sad
Sad
Your real dad is black, huh?
Oz, is that you?
Great job defending the Gladius. I will say as an aspiring history teacher/professor that the Roman style of warfare was revolutionary as they had to be as well-disciplined as a Hoplite shield wall but also be more mobile due to the Italian's mountainous/rugged hilly terrain. This is why their original style of warfare, the Phalanx system, was phased out as the Roman Republic expanded beyond Latium as the previous system was basically the Greek style of fighting which required plains or flatland to fight on, and so created what we now know as the legendary style of Roman warfare, the Manipular system during the Marius Reforms.
This also brought about the gladius as spears were much bulkier for formations which needed to turn, as you would trip up the guy behind you if you were carrying a Hoplite-like spear. So the Gladius became the main weapon with Pilum being the secondary weapons to throw at the enemy and due to their weight, get stuck in the enemy's shields forcing them to drop their shields and fight the Roman line with only their weapon. Stabbing then became the primary focus of the Gladius to both allow for more fatal wounds (a stab wound is more deadly than a slash wound statistically) and also allow for a short, flexible weapon which could move in complex formations while not impeding with the formation itself thanks to their size.
Gladius' were almost always inferior weapons when the Roman formations were not present and so the only way to defeat a Roman legion was to fight them out of formation, hence why in such battles like Tuteoburg forest, where the Roman legion was destroyed by a Germanic ambush, proved that ambushes was the most effective way at beating them.
The biggest reason the Gladius was phased out however was 2 reasons. The first was after the Roman Empire was split into East and West the Western Empire began to increasingly rely on and hire mercenaries rather than to continue training legions. It was cheaper than fielding a professional army and allowed for the Roman army's tactics and battlefield weapons to change. This resulted in the Roman legionary transitioning into a Germanic mercenary, which would bring their own newer tactics and choose different weapons. The second was in the Eastern Empire as you said Shad cavalry was becoming more effective and easier to field than previously as Roman cavalry was famously terrible, the Byzantines however could field Greek or Parthian cavalry which were famous for being excellent, so the Cataphracts came which would replace the previous Roman army tactics and make Gladius' obsolete. Something interesting to note though is cavalry still didn't have high-grade stirrups at this point, so Lances were always two handed until the medieval period allowed for Coached lances due to an increase in the quality of stirrups.
Just letting you know for your future history classes you have a couple of minor errors there.
Marius's reforms were significantly later than the development of the manipular system. Marius was responsible for developing the legionary system whereas the manipular system developed during the Samnite wars about 200 years earlier.
The pilum was a shorter spear designed to be easier for throwing. It was also used for close combat at times, particularly on the Parthian campaigns where it was used to unhorse cavalry. The pilum being used to foul shields has been shown to be a bit of a myth formed in the middle ages. It was used primarily for inflicting casualties, and was often thrown before the maniples would charge into battle or to foul an enemy charge (this is where the disrupting shields part comes from) as it would cause the charge to land piecemeal after disrupting the formation.
Other than that though you got it pretty much spot on.
@@jarrodbright5231 Yes I know I wasn't referring to everything happening at the same time, and no you're just flat out wrong about the Pillum. It's blade was made so it would bend after being embedded in shields and it was credited by the Roman military as an effective way to defeat shielded infantry. Do some more research on that, not everything is a myth.
@@boodstain I take it you're referring to the writing of Vegitius (he's the most common writer most people refer to for this phenomenon - Cato also mentions it but Cato knew very little about the battlefield and so can be regarded as unreliable) and the archaelogical finds of bent pilum shafts in France? If not then please feel free to correct me.
Vegitius refers on several occasions to the barbs of the pila being embedded into shields and if thrown hard enough they would pierce armour. Vegitius does not at any point refer to the pila bending. He also refers to the casualties inflicted by the pilum as well as the ability to foul shields. Aside from Cato though he is the only one to talk at length about pila being used to foul shields being a legitimate strategy. Even Scipio, Caesar and Pompey - the most successful Roman generals when dealing with shield carrying foes - did not make any mention of this in their accounts of battles.
Writings of many Roman generals including Julius Caesar and observers such as Josephus refer to the strategy of the pilum being to inflict casualties. At no point is there a reference to the pilum bedning or being used primarily to foul shields in most of these writings.
Remember also that in the early part of Rome's history they mostly fought against "barbarians" who did not use heavy shields like the Romans did. The pilum was designed for these battles not for the Punic wars or the Roman civil wars. They were much more concerned with killing people and weakening a charge than with fouling shields in these battles where the pila were first used.
There were 4 major variations of the pilum used in Rome's history - the thin pilum, the thick pilum (actually no thicker it just had a wide tang attaching the head to the shaft), the weighted pilum (a thin pilum with a weight behind the head) and the heavy pilum which was not thrown and used for melee combat. The thick pilum is the one most commonly referred to as fouling shields as people thought the tang connecting the shaft to the head was to intentionally break making it tangle shields. Testing of re-creations has proven this to be a myth. This is the "myth" I referred to in my original post.
As to doing my research, I have about 30 years of research on Roman history under my belt - it's a passion of mine. To back up my point however, there have been re-creations of the pilum tested against contemporary equipment, including by Matt Easton on his Schola Gladiatoria channel. I recommend looking at it as it's a pretty short video. It showed pretty clearly that the pilum would not foul a historically appropriate shield; it would go straight through it into the person behind the shield. This backs up the majority of written accounts of the weapon's performance in battle.
@@jarrodbright5231 Buddy the shafts themselves were made to bend, this is found by one of the nails being intentionally made of wood. When it hit a shield it would snap and cause the pierced end to fold, making it nearly impossible to wield the shield properly. It wasn't the main focus of the weapon yes, but it was undoubtable a feature that was used and can hardly be classified as a myth. It was a creation of Roman ingenuity.
@@boodstain OK I'm struggling to avoid sarcasm here. What historical or archaeological reference do you have for wooden nails in the pilum aside from Cato's oration about strength through flexibility (remembering that Cato never stepped foot on a battlefield)?
There are historical accounts against this particular myth because in the Iberian campaign, Scipio had his men recover used pila from the battlefield. That's kind of impossible if the shafts were made to break.
Can I please also refer you to MC Bishop's research on the construction of the pilum that quite thoroughly debunks the wooden nail theory, and notes the bending of the early pila as unintentional due to poor metal hardening techniques (and raises the theory that the bending pilum was a feature of Samnite construction and less of an issue for Roman constructed pila - the pilum being a Samnite design the Romans adopted after it was used against them btw)
Lastly, there are also numerous accounts of the pilum being used in close quarters combat. This would be impossible if the shaft were designed to break on impact.
[EDIT]: For a good explanation of the bending pilum shaft I suggest looking at around the 12 minute mark in this video by Tod's Workshop: czcams.com/video/RLmNQLZgdew/video.html
The pilum replica they are testing bends on about the 6th throw when the throw "goes wrong" as the athlete throwing it put it. Tod explains fairly well that this is likely not an intended feature (it didn't bend on any other throw). I'm not saying the shanks never bent or that it didn't have a benefit when it bent, just that isn't intended to bend on impact. They then to on to utterly debunk the theory that a bent pilum can't be thrown back.
Thanks for making the vid! I am currently in a gladius mood and recently bought a wooden replica!
Also I am surprised I had yet to subscribe, but i have watched a lot of your vids, good stuff
the dresden files are my favorite books!! and I just finished the shadow of the conquer and man I new within the first 2 hours that I didn't want the book to end. and wished the whole time that there was going to be 19 more books in a series lol. awesome work brother!
Has Shad ever reviewed the Spartacus TV show ? With all the gladiators and training/weapons, I would make a great breakdown/analysis video about the combat style or accuracy !
it be awesome to see shad, nathan, and oz react to it on knights watch, their other channel.
I'd love to see that
Might be too violent for CZcams monetization
Also it was just a good dang show.
Good old guilty pleasure
Have you made a vid about pilums, their difference from javelins and their hypothesized use as short spears by chance? I think it would be quite interesting for tests and whatnot
Matt Easton has done a few.
They’re designed to bend to make shields hit by them unusable, how would you even begin to use that as a spear more than once?
@@griffinflyer77 watch Matt Eastons videos
@@griffinflyer77 Matt Eston proved that to be largely false. In his tests most pila didn't bend. But, even without bending they were still fairly difficult to pull out of a shield and they might bend in the process of trying to remove them. But bending on impact was not something they seemed to do nor bending in general really needed to make them difficult to remove.
@@Riceball01 In his description of the Republican Roman army, Polybius mentions that the javelins of the velites bent on impact and were thus rendered unusable to the enemy (6.22.4). Caesar himself explains at one point in his commentaries that "when the iron [shank] had bent itself, [the enemies] were neither able to extract it nor, with their left hands impeded, fight with sufficient ability" (cum ferrum se inflexisset, neque evellere neque sinistra impedita satis commode pugnare poterant, Gallic Wars 1.25.4).
He probably used high quality steel, which obviously wouldn’t bend. When the Romans themselves reported that they bent, they probably bent. Common sense. What some modern day CZcamsr reports based on tests conducted with modern day high quality steel is completely irrelevant.
Nice work
Thanks for all your work and research, Shad! I do not know where to make suggestions for future episodes, but one trend I would love to see you explore is the habit in some media of having blade users use a reverse (ice-pick) grip. I know that there are defined uses in some cases for short blades, but the more flashy uses of reverse grip with longer blades looks gnifty but is driving me crazy with how counter-intuitive it seems, and its limitations are never shown. Just my private hill to die on!
Shorts swords exist for same point for small knifes and small guns ,self defense and for royalty and nobility did not need big weapons lot lords used short swords as they could be in robes dresses and suits much more Easy then big sword or great sword also great wepions for peasants and town folk for self defense in big cities and some town had sword langth laws as well
i dont have any expertise or sources on this matter, but i would like to disagree.
swords are typically found across cultures as a warrior weapon, and typically of the higher class warriors.
swords are resource intensive, and more difficult to train for, versus, lets say an axe or a spear.
and an axe and a spear (or dagger) could also be used for other purposes besides battle, as well as be portable. this would be more ideal for picking something for self defense.
nobility or wealthy merchants may have worn swords with their attire for purposes of portability, concealment, and self defense, but maybe they wore swords more for ceremony and status than self defense. but idk. i have no idea.
im not saying that your points are wrong. they make sense.
@@uglystupidloser cheers mate after doing look I’m wrong and right for example in near end dark ages it was common for lords to carry dirks and small swords when not at war but also so just carry long sword because it was better weapon great sword from digging besides war sword size were bit more rear thanks for edit
This is where your strengths lie Shad - taking historical facts and summing them up in a logical and concise manner. Happy to see your channel has not entirely dropped into absurdity, thank you for that!
entirely dropped to absurdity?
its his channel. his opinions. and him having fun while sharing his passion with us.
what? do you prefer the history channel?
@@uglystupidloser I "prefer" empiric evidence to not be ignored (e.g. cut and combat tests with fantasy weapons done by other members of the Community of the Sword). I "prefer" arguments which do not agree with his point and he finds hard to be rebuffed to be acknowledged as the one feature, which while not entirely redeeming still provide a significant boon (lack of hand shock with flails, particularly on horseback) as opposed to other "competitive" weapons. I "prefer" a self-proclaimed expert swordsman to be able to manage his footwork. I "prefer" the same swordsman to acknowledge evident features of combat to contribute to the mechanics of how swords damage their targets (the guillotine experiment he has done recently, which other youtubers did not even attempt because they knew it would fail to mimic the mechanics of a sword cut). I "prefer" personal oppinions on franchises to not be presented as the absolute, irrefutable truth. Now - judging by the loaded way in which you have adressed me, I do not expect for any of the above to sink in. However - outside of his groups Shad has accumulated a reputation and it is not positive, some of the reasons are above. Me saying this is not an assault - I admire what he tried to do, but now I see a way in which he himself is deteriorating his own progress and that I do not like.
@@Eckister Shad is the most popular and most successful among the serious HEMA practitioners. The reason for that is because he is more into fantasy and fun than exclusively straight historical/hema science.
@@Eckister 😅 tell me how you really feel.
and, as annoying as it is to have you assume i dont get what you say... i dont even remember what i said. 😂
and i agree with your points.
@@Eckister ok ok, i read what i said. im sorry i triggered you. im sorry you cant pick a flaw of shads and then get annoyed when someone does the same to you.
not to be flippant, but if you seem well versed in these topics. you could make your own channel. id be happy to watch and enjoy. 🥰
edit: and you can always make a response to his videos so he could publicly address them. it would be a fair discussion, no?
I loved Listening to your book shadow of the conqueror on Audible would love to hear a book 2 if your Planning on making one
This is by far one of the best videos on how the Romans used a short sword. When people think of sword fighting it is mostly one-on-one but the Romans did not fight that way unless no one was there to help. They always counted on the person next to them for backup.
I have a friend that I spar who prefers a shortsword. I prefer the longsword and he can beat me