Why Broadswords & Sabres are BETTER IN WAR than Spadroons & Smallswords
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 05. 2024
- Why Broadswords & Sabres are BETTER IN WAR than Spadroons & Smallswords.
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfightinglondon.com
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easton.co.uk/
www.pinterest.co.uk/matt_east...
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-swords.co.uk
#swords #military #history
honey, wake up, matt is dissing the spadroon again...
*That why We a''z have the Tomahawks*; which is kept under the CHESTERFIELD!!! ~We've been through this darling... _Edited_: Oh Wow Googtube really mangled that one...
Yeah, I think stab wounds were more lethal. But lethal in 3 days time isn't as safe as cutting a couple of the enemy's fingers causing him to drop his sword.
No evidence of that. A cut though is much less likely to impale and get stuck if you are riding a horse. A heavy sword is more likely to cut through clothing and in most cases the opponent will not have armour.
People are also likely to be less well trained in swordfighting and slashing would be easier than stabbing regardless of effectiveness.
Tons of evidence of that. In ww1 trench warfarw and modern knife crime. U can stab someone 50 times and he still will be running and alive.
Wound placement always matters first, then the scope of the wound. If it's not an immediately fatal/disabling wound (heart, throat, brain), mechanical and psychological effects of large gashes and bits missing are the best chance in the moment.
@@seriousmaran9414no evidence of someone getting a muscle or tendon severed hampering their ability to fight?
I don't wnat to kill anyone. I just want them to stop attacking me. So I agree: the cut is siperior in battles and brawls. Points seem to be superior in duels: see the rapier v katana thing.
Matt Easton saying how spadroon is a "perfect encumberence". Getting 2017 vibes from this vid.
I love that spadroon slander is still on the table.
It's kind of like how trained boxers will mostly throw straight jabs and crosses. Hooks and uppercuts are more situational, but typically reserved for when they get close. But watch untrained fighters and they throw wild, looping haymakers in a fight.
Is that a reaction to Skallagrim’s april 1 video? I know, it’s not, but the timing is perfect)
Sadly I didn't manage to watch that yet, so I don't know!
@@scholagladiatoria[waits for react video]
When you are in a melee, slashing all around you is a better defensive technique than standing ready to give a thrust. A slashing sword is better against multiple opponents than a thrusting sword which is better for 1 vs 1. That's my view on it.
@joegillian314 *Lynn Thompson of COLD STEELⓇ, Ventura, CA, USA, follows the same philosophy, thus the Model 88EBTS "Thompson Saber," a thorough modern saber for today's combat.* Optimized for cutting, 88EBTS tapers from laser-sharp at the point to blunt at the hilt.
The "bashing" motion is a highly evolutionarily preserved behavior in humans, and it follows sensibly that a relatively similar motion with sword in hand would be a natural inclination for people in the heat of combat.
What kind of inclination?
@@JoshJones-37334 Referring to Matt's description of overhand slashing as a way that combatants often default to attacking.
@@the_malefactor oh, “natural”. Got it.
@@JoshJones-37334 " natural"? Or natural people are violent and have evolved alongside our tools to do the deed
I don't know about that. People were very fast to develop spears and no one wriggles those around.
I remember once reading a (possibly apocryphal) story recounted by Robert E. Lee of a Captain who carried a small sword into battle with the reasoning being 2 fold;
First, "The small sword is the sword of a gentleman, the sabre is the weapon of a pirate, so how is any man supposed to inspire morale and discipline in his men if he does not present as a gentleman at arms".
Second, it didn't matter since he'd fought the Mexicans and knew that "no army would ever meet their foe at arms length as artillery and musketry were so advanced a science that no army would survive within 200 yards of the enemy so I'd need the strength of Sampson and the throwing arm of Hercules to ever use a sword in battle"
And he apparently died at the battle of Harper's Ferry from a Union bayonet.
Sounds like he was screwed which ever sword he carried!
Cucked
@@Master...deBater Quite possible. Especially as before the Civil War commanders often over-estimated the range of engagements of units, they'd planned for a 200-400 yard engagement range while often infantry in the American Civil War tended to engage at 100 yards, often due to quickly raised volunteer units being less experienced than the largely professional base of soldiers the US deployed in the Mexican-American war.
@@edspace.Though I agree with Matt that a beefy saber would fare much better than a smallsword in a fight against a musket with bayonet...neither is an optimized weapon for such duty!
As far as engagement range is concerned...I think the topography and climate of the two theatres played the most important role in the utilization of artillery. The more open, arid environment of northern Mexico allowed for artillery to be used at greater range than in the confined, heavily wooded southeastern United States. Afterall...it is the officers rather than the enlisted men who determine the location and arrangement of forces before battle. And many...if not most of the high-ranking officers of the Civil war were veterans of the war with Mexico.
Ironic. He claimed hand to hand combat was outdated, but in the end he died by bayonet.
I greatly appreciate your ongoing emphasis on context. Putting things in perspective - anything - is a process which we should be undertaking in many ways every day. Many of our current social problems are due to the inability to see the current and historical contexts (perspectives). Thank you again and again for your insistence on context.
Absolutely.
Big and good usually beats small and good in many areas of life.
Schiavona for me! Or basket hilted broadsword!
Ah, the ultimate in complex guards. Beautiful works of art, if a bit specialized. Better than the bar type though...
One of the most beautiful swords as well.
Ah, I used to be an enjoyer of baskethiled beauties, just like you. But one day, in certain narrow alley bout I failed to get my hand in the hilt quiet fast enough and got nastily slashed because of it ...
Ever since recovery, it has been only stirup, threebar or bowl hilted sabre at the most for me ...
Absolutely
Boca de Caballo! Or the Bilbo Sword as Brits called it. Big spanish shell hilt on a broadsword blade.
And with the curve and sharp cutting edge you might be able to deal with multiple attackers faster than some one thrusting all the time
All very good arguements for open formation. I'm not sure I could swimg a sabre in close formation though.
One lesson I have learnt from this channel is that weapons suited their purpose. If we don't get it then it likely means we don't fully grasp the context.
Tldr: Matt Easton, for all his ribbing of Silver and English backsword, heartily agrees with the Elizabethan gentleman.
It's understandable as he - by his own words - began his blade - career by modern fencing (I didn´t catch if with foil, modern rapier or "sabre").
I think Silver was the first to make me actually sit down and think about the strengths and weaknesses of the cut and thrust, and I came away agreeing with him a fair bit. I think that thrusting swords, broadly speaking, get too much love in HEMA, which comes down to us not having to deal with what happens after a thrust or cut has landed. It makes sense to me that the rapier would come about as a duelling sword, but the idea of it being used as a tool of self-defence is slightly mad to me. I speak carefully with saying this, as I've not done the research, but I get the feeling that there's enough historical data to suggest that fights involving rapiers would be deadly to both men, which is not what you want if you're going to defend yourself. I think Matt even went over some of this in a video a while back. But yeah, as for Silver, it seems to be that folk see him being angry at Italians, and write him off without even seriously thinking about what he has to say; which is pretty funny but a little sad.
Do you not fence with afterblow rules at your club? Those are there to address the issue of non-incapacitating blows.
I feely oddly acknowledged with what you said about stab wounds. I feel like I've gone years being interested in HEMA and have never heard anyone bring up that thrusts, while more deadly than cuts, more easily get stuck in a target, and are less likely to give an immediately maiming wound; meaning that it's pretty likely that you're going to have a very angry, scared, near-to-death man stuck on your weapon, while his weapon may well be free and ready to stick or cut you lol. I've long thought the rapier, for all it's strengths, is recently being seen as a greater sword than it really is through folk doing HEMA (with limitations common to any sport) and not taking into account what happens when you run an angry man through and he doesn't die right away
Also, HEMA tourneys are essentially recreations of what rapiers excelled at is a narrow scope of historical self defense. People had to live with thier swords in period, pull them out of a sheathe if used, had to think of thier opponent, obstacles, the possibility of bystanders intervening, etc. Dueling already brandished matching weapons with cleared out flat ballrooms eliminates all that
I often think of one of Matt's "storytime" videos from some time ago, telling tales of historical combat where fatal wounds don't immediately incapacitate the opponent. One of the accounts was from India, in which an attacker was shot multiple times on approach, then run through with a sword which got stuck, and swung a counter-attack which was blocked by a friend. Not everyone is that committed to every fight, but in a war it's definitely a risk.
@@johnladuke6475 To speak to gunshot wounds as they're pretty much just more extreme than any thrust; I've been shocked by how "tough" the body can be against weapons that I know do truly awful things to the body. I keep hearing tales that drive it home. It's shocking how often tries at self-ending end in the man "later dying of his wounds" hours later in hospital, which isn't what you'd expect from someone putting a pistol round through their brain - never mind heavy shot or a hunting rifle round. I think we like to sanitise these things and imagine that people are more likely to "die instantly" than they really are.
Not to say you can't die more or less right away, but I wouldn't put money on it for most cases
Matt: "I'll keep this as brief as possible"
Me: checks calendar for next few days
😝
Honestly I agree. I don't even think it's about the weapon types you'll be facing. It's about conditions. If indeed you're in melee then you've ether charged in with your company, or someone has charged in on you. That means you're in a bees nest of actions. You most likely won't be fighting one on one at all. In a cluster F a weapon that can swing around and offend multiple opponents at one time is probably going to be the wiser choice. Thrusts are deadly but they take a bit of commitment and they tie up your weapon, even if only for a moment. That could be the moment the other guys bayonet enters your body, or you get clubbed in the face or a knife sticks in your gut. Even if you are a dueling master with a small sword...........I feel like you're going to be able to adapt to the saber well enough anyway to suit the situation. IT's not like gaming where a proficiency in one weapon makes you incompetent with another lol.
Musketry and cannon killed the shield walls that made the roman stabbing sword and pokie pilum a close combat dominator. I would feel confident with a rapier vs a saber one on one... but in a battle scrum... I'll take a saber ;)
Really good point about facing bayonets. It’s not just about defending against the heavier weapon (although that is important); using a thrusting weapon against a longer thrusting weapon is pretty much the most miserable matchup possible.
Thank you for being Matt Easton and continuing to be so.
I agree with you. I like the spadroon but if I where an officer likely to do a lot of actual combat I think my choice would be some sort of basket hilt broadsword.
If I recall correctly, a couple years ago Matt posted a video or two featuring unique swords of the Victorian era which had been specially ordered by officers going to India or the Sudan, custom jobs featuring Scottish broadsword type blades in beefed up (compared to the standard pattern) hilts. So, in the relevant period, there were some who shared your thinking and put their pounds and shillings on it.
"...And that sword, Sharpe, is the sword of a butcher!"
Respect the reference.
I imagine another great reason to use a slashing weapon over a stabbing weapon for in an actual battle would be because once you stab someone your sword is now in them and you have to pull it out before you can use it again, which in the chaos of a melee could turn out to be pretty difficult. Especially if your aim was a bit off and now it's lodged in a rib. So a cutting weapon that is far less likely to to get bound up in your opponent would seem like the better idea.
First ❤
I have a request :
Would love to see non regulation cavalry officer's swords from the Indian Mutiny.
2:01
I have never heard the double s of Hussar pronounced like a z before.
Thank you Matt. This is a great follow up from the spadroon video.
I've never heard anyone talk about the amount of space you can take up with a cut vs a thrust. If you are fighting possibly multiple people you need to be able to threaten a wide space at any given moment, which a thrusting weapon is not as good at
Great video. Always assumed the saber would be better but never really heard anyone talk about it specifically
"The enemy cannot reload their musket, if you lop their hand off."
Matt, I am proud and delighted, (and late on this), to be subbed to this channel.
It is good know, that as certain minority, I can rely on your respect, it warms my heart.
However, while I understand distancing from other channels that do not believe in basic respect, this is not the only thing marginalised people need, we need to be accepted as equals (not necessarily subscription to our view, but agreement that self determination is worthy of respect) and therefore advocates.
I am not asking you to make a video, or a facebook post or to talk with people you've already decided not to, or to spend energy you do not have, but when you find you need to distance yourself from people, talk to them first, simply blanking someone causes entrenchment, making the world less sae or us, but making an effort to build consensus, may make us more safe.
But over all thank you for being a decent human being who care about where the world is heading.
I've mentioned this on other videos like this, but it deserves repeating. Stabs may be more lethal than a cut long term, but it is scary just how hard it is to actually stop an opponent with one. I will never forget the news story I once heard of a strung out drug addict who had gone to the hospital complaining about a headache after a fight. The cause? He was unknowingly walking around with a large butcher knife embedded in his head. It was causing him so little trouble that at first he didn't believe it and resisted when the doctors tried to take him to surgery, and they had to hold him in place and use a pair of mirrors to let him see the knife before he'd let them work. He survived because the blade had managed to slip between the two halves of his brain, missing anything vital in that gap.
Drugs are a helluva drug.
That's not even unique to people on drugs. There's another similar story of a guy who had the same thing, but with a hunting knife straight out the top of his skull after a fight. He never even saw the knife and thought he'd been punched, then went to the hospital with a headache after winning what he thought was a fistfight. Didn't resist surgery, though; probably much easier to show in a mirror. When it comes to knives, people very often don't realize they've been stabbed until they see the blood.
How would they function with a blade in his head? And How much strength would it take to make it through the skull?
@@johnladuke6475Back then they WOULD know when they got stabbed because they would be facing the blade.
@@EddieWhitmon I assume it would be even weirder in historical combat than it is in a modern street fight.
As for how they function, the example I recall was a fellow who used to be popular on tabloid medical TV shows and they showed his x-ray. The knife luckily went _exactly_ between the two sides of his brain. Always wondered at the amount of strength myself, the skull is a hard bone.
Ohhhh boy Matt
Kicked the doors right off the hinges with this one .
When speaking on the saber in the American Civil war .
I’ll agree from what has came through my hands when comparing the campaign sharpened English examples , Euro examples , and Indian etc etc STILL quite sharp .
The civil war ones only on occasion did I come across a sharp sword that would compare . Having said that it’s my personal belief that only those graduated from VMI or West Point etc etc would have been well trained in sword play. Therefore backing the authors assertion that a higher ranking officer be more apt to use a sharp or be of quality with a sword etc etc .
Also I will add that at this time in our history must to do southern families still taught fencing etc etc .
Now I will say OLDER American swords from say 1812 era and on a while those swords that have came through my hands have almost ALWAYS been still very sharp . Especially the English made 1796 types that are often incorrectly called the 1810 model type militia horseman’s or artillery/ infantry swords
Imported from England and Prussia .
Having a few decades of experience in modern épée and predominantly sabre fencing but without any HEMA experience, I would always share Matt’s preference for the Sabre in combat. But if I were to walk around with a sword all day as an officer, I’d rather carry a smallsword with some bling. Kind of like a modern day soldier outfitted with a M4 rifle and officers carrying some pistol like the SIG M17.
No one:
Matt: Spadrooons! Gnarrrr!!
Me: Ah, a brief one.... I'll pop the kettle on. 😍
I just watched "The Duellists" again and after that your video on it. But it has been many years since and you only covered their second duel. I would like it if you'd talked about the other ones as well, especially the first one.
Fully agreed 👍 for quick, in battle,skirmish fight saber is a winner 👍
''When the proverbial hits the fan''. I'm going to steal that.
In Riboni's Broadsword Fencing and Quarter-staff Play (1862) there are four methods described for dealing with crowds. All require long sweeping cuts to defend against multiple opponents. I'd prefer a good sharp 1803 sabre for this sort of fighting.
2nd point is the reason why fire arms are measured in their ability to" stop" someone/ put him out of action and not necessarily kill
A person can get a fatal injury and still be able to put a fight for Several minutes before Succumbing to his Wounds
Yes. Very much so. Just referencing your comment about people slashing and hacking when under pleasure, the Adamliski Monument shows Roman legionaries from the Dacian invasion under Trajan doing just that with their thrust-centric Mainz-pattern Gladii, which we are told they were trained to thrust with. So yes, big difference between theory and practice. Plus, cuts hurt more.....
You've spoken before on this topic, and I find it very interesting. I've often wondered how and why the earlier transition away from beefy chopping blades, like broadswords and backswords, towards smallswords and spadroons happened.
Guns and pomp, essentially.
Guns limited the use of swords, so swords got smaller and became more of an accessory than a weapon.
They were also perfect for gentlemans duels to first blood because there was skill to them and real danger, but you were still fairly unlikely to accidentally kill your opponent.
Haven't I seen this one already?
This feels really familiar
I'd also think that if I were a flustered officer trying not to die, then a downward cut would occupy the space in front of me better than a stab into the air. Of course in an actual staged sword fight a prepared opponent might be able to use that to an advantage, but in a skirmish a slash near their face might give me enough space to retreat a bit into my formation and buy some time for my men to save me.
I think George Washington is a good example of this shift, before the war, and at the beginning, he carried smallswords. But sometime toward the end of the war he began carrying cuttoes (which I feel is something of a proto-saber), even painted as carrying one during the crossing of the Delaware river. I would not doubt that this is because he began to see more and more combat himself, as opposed to just leading the soldiers, he likely realized he needed a heavier sword to deal with bayonets on the end of muskets.
I have made this point when weighing in on martial arts discussions about whether the size of a fighter matters. In terms of simple Newtonian physics, mass matters. We have known this for over three hundred years. We can express this mathematically as follows:
f=ma or force equals mass time acceleration
Ke=1/2mv^2 or kinetic energy equals one half mass times velocity squared
In other words, the mass of a weapon absolutely matters. A more massive weapon can deliver more kinetic energy on target than can a less massive weapon. It helps if that weapon allows kinetic energy to be focused along an edge or point. Having said that, there are any number of other factors that matter including skill with the weapon, the fitness level of the person using the weapon, the speed of the user, the quality of the weapon, conditions on the battlefield, and many others.
Ahhhhhhh I love waking up to this
Billy Crystal's "Fernando Lamas" would point out that it is better to look good than be good. I am pretty sure he was talking about officer's swords.
The video gives good points about the toppic. But: In some cases, infantrymen had even in second half of 19th century a short sword in addition to rifle/ musket snd bayonnet. And after plug bayonnet was replaced by socket bayonnet ( Tüllenbajonett), this was mostly only a smallswordlike long spike. How good had those infantry sabers (for example the Briquet) , Hirschfänger, Hangers, fascine knifes etc. been compared to officers sabers or spadroons?
Good video thanks. They wouldn't be my first choice but if I had to pick out of these I would choose the broadsword and sabre however I think everyone is entitled to their preferences ⚔️
I saw another video ( czcams.com/video/EIGIBJeRfnQ/video.htmlsi=MEYaq6lLIiK642j6 ) discussing how the trench warfare of the Great War (WW1) changed the dynamic again, favoring daggers and similarly small weapons over swords let alone a rifle with a bayonet. In the narrower confines of a trench when most combatants have bolt action rifles you aren't going to get more than one shot off before your opponent closes to melee range. Most trenches were deliberately angled or curved (no long straight lines) so that someone with a firearm couldn't engage the whole trench from one position. In the video they showed how all you have to do is deflect the first thrust of the opponent with a bayonet and you can close to to where the rifle is a hindrance and your dagger or club or sharpened shovel (entrenching tool) is your enemy's end.
3:43 'Some effect'... with a sharp sabre?... is that the infamous British understatement?
Cheers.
+scholagladiatoria *The U.S. Sword, Cavalry, 1912, strikes a balance betwixt broadsword and rapier.* Optimized for the thrust, while slashing better than the Saber, Light Cavalry, 1860. In my estimation, the ideal all-arms officer's sword for the United States Army.
The 15th/16th century Swiss, who were not known to shy away from melee combat, carried thrusting swords as secondary weapons (Schweizer Degen). Their German opponents did not. Both met one another a good number of times and had plenty of opportunity to adapt their particular fighting style (they also wielded their pikes in a slightly different manner). Both the Swiss and the Germans stuck with what they were used to. I highly doubt the thrusting sword is per se a worse weapon than the slashing sword.
The really amazing thing is how some people, having been stabbed, don't even know it for some time after. Your opponent, that you just stabbed, is still fighting as if not stabbed. That could be a very long few minutes.
is there any correlation with the switch from small swords to heavier ones, and officers no longer carrying spontoons/halberds? am not sure how dates line up, or which would lead the other
Before the Napoleonic era, officers in battle quite often carried a spontoon - may be they regardes small-swords or spadroons as inefficient.
How would you compare the spadroon with later period officer's sword like the 1897 pattern as a fighting weapon? Is the 1897 pattern sword functionally a heavier spadroon with bigger handguards?
A small sword is a .32 acp pistol, a badge of office that you hope you never need to use. A spadroon is a .38-200 revolver that you can use to defend yourself if you are cool headed and well trained. The trooper's saber is a Sten gun.
Great followup info!
agreed!!
hey Matt, what weapons (no guns, bows or crossbows) would you recommend for a soldier going against zombies? he wouldn't be a survivor, just one of many in an army. please consider both alone/in a formation and one hand + shield/two hands weapon scenarios, thanks!
I agree that a curved blade would be better for skirmish like battles, given the length.
One thing that strikes me in this and a few other videos, is that there's a very west-centric perspective here. You mention certain influences, Matt, which is good, but for me these things are pretty obvious as sabre had been a weapon of nobility for several centuries in Poland. It evolved of course, but it was in extensive use for a long while, not only by cavalry but by nobles fighting on foot, duelling too. And the military officers' weapon was something called "bulawa", a type of mace. They used this to direct and to show their rank.
It could also have something to do with the social changes brought about by the French Revolution. Before, officers everywhere were nobles only and only fought with their own kind. Due to the French Revolution, commoners also became officers, even in states that were not directly affected by it due to the greater need because the armies became so much larger. And officers were now much more likely to be attacked and had to defend themselves against attacks, which was not the case before because the status was previously much more respected.
Furthermore, in my opinion the cavalry became more important in war during Napoleon's time and as a result anything cavalry became more important in the army as a whole. Since the cavalry now explicitly switched to sabers, this also became more widespread among the foot troops.
Also there was no longer so much time available to ensure the more demanding fencing training with smallswords because the need for officers and soldiers was so high. And sabers are just easier to use and therefore need not so much training time. So sabers are "better" because you can train more men in sabre fencing in fewer time.
Is the sabre shorter in length? E.g. easier to carry in a hilt on the march? Less of an issue if on horseback but was that always an option?
I had a thought. What is the median change in age of field officers during the Nepoleonic Era? The ranks had to swell so I'm guessing the men and the officers became younger? That said maybe they were more willing to carry heavier swords with them at the same time be swayed by the hussar way?
I have a question what whas the standard style of sword for french line infantry ofisers. Did thay all have sabers or whas thare a french spadroon equivalent to the britisch 1796 spadroon.
Mobility, positioning, mobility. Curved slashing weapons are effective close-in, very nearly in a grapple, while you need to open the range for a long thrusting weapon - look at the shape of long blades among naval boarding parties, once they get steel figured out they put a curve on the blade. Furthermore, you can slash while moving without losing your weapon, unless it gets stuck in a bone - this is, I believe, the primary reason mounted troops very nearly always carry long blades with curves. Finally, utility: heavy blades can chop ropes and lines, slice clothes from wounded, or, in desperation, chop wood, vines, undergrowth, or enemy improvised fortifications like abatis.
5:30 onwards a bit...Matts argument about the thrust even to the body to often not being enough to put your opponent down immediately is quite similar to the one the US army used to develop the .45 M1911. As the existing .38 didnt offer sufficient stopping power v the Filipino Moros in CQC and we were losing too many young officers.
So defense was basically point 4), after point 3) lopping fingers off bayoneers, and I guess point 5) might be 'somewhat less likely to just shatter in the course of using the weapon correctly as intended (no offense to the magnificent looking spadroon, but if your garage floor is concrete, I'm worried about what might happen if you drop it!).
And I'm incredibly unsure about this point, but it *seems* like if you're swinging semi-wildly, in self-defense 'panic' mode, a lot of your swings are just as likely to *both* interrupt your opponent's perfect attack and impair them in the one motion, which is the sort of thing that actually gets you a golden little moment to properly hurt them with a nice cut, while the thrusting swords' assumption is that footwork and hand-speed and timing will all combine to let you score a poin... I mean create the opportunity for a lethal blow at the end of a well thought out combination of moves. Except there might not be all that much opportunity in a real battle for fancy footwork and the most skill you might ever get to show is smashing aside someone's bayonet a fraction of a moment before it skewers you, before donking them in the face with your hilt.
(Also as a note, officer casualty rates at the start of World War One were tremendously high, they were clearly a favoured target of both sides and we can definitely infer from this that 'modern war' was in no way a gentlemanly affair, officers were indeed fighting alongside their men - quite aside from the need for active direction on the battlefield, which for armies of largely conscripts is basically *absolute* at all times, maintaining morale *at all* in the face of high velocity fire requires extremely active participation from the officer ranks, absent which - or even in spite of, frequently - a lot of men will just quit the battlefield.)
GOOD DAY MATT. A QUESTION, WHAT WOULD THE PROFILE OF THE TIP OF A SMALL SWORD BE CONSIDERING THE TIP WOULD BE THE LEATHAL PART OF A SMALL SWORD ? ANY ONE ?
You should mention at the beginning that the switched fashion to sabers in Napoleonic times is really a thing that was going on in Western Europe in perhaps the Americas! There were enough regions in Europe were the broad saber was in use (even by officers) since the 1600´s and spadroons were really just a court thing.
Glad you've gone past just penetration to talk about the context in which Sabres excelled, also, Sabres can thrust to finish when it makes sense to do so, that is btw the same argument for Tulwar/Shamshir/Kilij, we cut in motion and thrust to finish or against a target that's more stationary/slowed down, footwork is also less linear, much better to deal with the threat of multiple opponents.
Making the discussion a little wider, then what use, context at end, in war have "beefy" straight swords, because in common sense those sword are more contundent to cleave and push aside incoming limbs splashing blood while trying to stab. In the "sabre era" those sword were abandoned: Why?. Anyway, in medieval warfare a lot of slimmer sword were used against a really huge variety of really really heavy weapons, for example rapier. For me relies in expertise, medieval warriors then were far trained than the later ones, the were more physical, their clothes are like female tights, ready to do movements, instead of the later squared ones, did for example in fitness unnatural, dangerous, movements but that´s aside for a fitness channel... is like shooting a revolver only changing angles instead of aiming with a pistol first. Very different :) Please EXPLAIN.
when i fenced, my most useful method was to undercut the leading hand while slightly retreating. the saber is so agile; I love it. plus you can always just rush the hell out of them with the overwhelming agility, but that's risky. that spadroon (spatoon?) looks like a toothpick that a saber would parry on any attack & cut the bastards arm off; lol.
I really want a replica of the 1897 british infantry sword that comes sharp and is strong enough to test cut with. All the ones I can find are decorative. Can you help?
As far as I know there are none. The only alternative is an antique.
I recommend a good quality antique - the 1897 pattern is one of the most common and affordable of antiques and they will be cheaper than any decent replica anyway.
@@scholagladiatoria how much?
@@scholagladiatoria can you sell me one?
When I was going through basic training, they only taught us to attack in bayonet drill, to go forward with maximum aggression and momentum to end it quickly. And in grappling one lesson was that the winner would be whoever had a buddy come to their aid first. If you give any ground, you're liable to stumble over, and the man to your left or right becomes outnumbered by you being out of range to help him. A group that is pushed back will soon be unable to defend itself. A bayonet is a very dangerous weapon in the hands of a man with the resolute intention to skewer his opponent, no matter how skilled that opponent may be.
The bayonet is effective because, as proved again and again historically, "a man with the resolute intention to skewer his opponent" is happily likely to find his opponent no longer present.
It's a psychological weapon as much as anything else.
@@andyleighton6969 I think it would be fair to say that big shiny blade on a saber would be pretty serious looking.
Having trained in Sabre and Smallsword/Spadroon, it is apparent that the Sabre (both weapon and fighting system) is a great tool for staying alive on a battlefield in terms of parrying ability and potentially fighting off attacks from multiple angles and opponents. Also, the basics of Sabre can be taught relatively quickly as it comprises of few parries and few cuts (parry & riposte system) - this is useful when you need to train up an army quickly. Smallsword/Spadroon on the other hand takes longer and more finesse to be any good at it, and as Matt mentioned it is a weapon & fighting system that excels at the duel, and not so much the battlefield. Smallsword movements are very small and nuanced (hence the name "small" sword) where subtle, micro movements in the fingers and hands are used to open lines, disengage, beat, parry, wind, etc and is very much a focused battle of the mind against a singular opponent like a game of chess. This focused mind game of tiny movements is not well adapted to the chaotic madness of the battlefield.
"Shear" coolness ;)
Agreed saber is the best. Though Id rather have something slightly shorter. I have ran as bullets zinged over my head & imo it would suck to do with anything long enough to hang below the knee.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this although it's quite easy to be injured by a non-penetrating thrust also. My one concussion was caused by a longsword thrust to the mask. I've also had painfully bruised ribs that hurt for months from thrusts.
Also, my experience with HEMA sparring is there's no after blow from a thrust to the "tie knot". That seems to stop people in their tracks even with a gorget on. Not injured, but it's weird - it is mentally defeating in some way. Maybe that's an example of "does die quickly" though.
Would love some further commentary of the continuing evolution of the saber. They definitely became more like spadroon-like (cut and thrust) as time went on. My 1869 Austrian cavalry officer's saber is not a fearsome cutter by any means, has only a slight curve, and has a spear point.
the thing is you might be unlucky and have three or more enemies. another problem is that. a person can be so full of adrenaline that. they don´t feel anything. So that concussion might stop them for a few seconds.
I would have preferred a heavy cutting sword, that I could better thrust with rather than a thrusty sword I could cut with. Either of the ones on the wall behind you would have been more my taste.
Training weapons breaking arms. Could it be feasible considered that the early age (~800) viking swords be known to amputate limbs?
Are you telling me popular swords evolved from arming swords to complex hilts to rapiers to smallswords to sabers back around to what are functionally arming swords again
True dat!🤔
Any chance you could talk about how and why the smallswords replaced broadswords/sideswords in the first place?
On another, closely related topic - where did the association between musketeers and rapiers come from? Is the association even really true? (some complex-hilted swords were notoriously called rapiers even if they were noticably shorter and stouter) And what advantages could rapiers really have in war for them to be considered viable over more balanced swords?
In Russia, transition back to sabers happened in 18 century during wars with Turkey. But than at the end of century Pavel the First introduced Prussian uniform from Friedrich the Great times. The frustration described by one of the officers included this: " Instead of the bulat saber hanging from the hip, inflicting fear on the enemy, they stuck an iron knitting needle into our asses, convenient only for driving mice from granary to granary, and not for defending our lives".
The rise of the cutting sword, I suspect, was due to the decline of armour.
6:15 Yes, still waiting for my finger to fully heal... 😏
I can't imagine anything being better than a sabre for mounted cavalry.
If cutting swords are better for war, why did everyone seem to go back to thrusting weapons by the end of the 1800s? (They were called sabers, but we're still designed as thrusters. That includes many current models.)
Say I'm an artillery officer. Which sword is best at pointing at targets? 😂
The British are nutts with their heavy HEMA sabers. I am not surprised you have these accidents. It's just too heavy.
800g is not heavy.... It's lighter than most actual period sabres (which are generally 800-1200g), about the same as a sidesword, and lighter than most arming swords. The Olympics used to allow sabres up to 750g!
Most rapiers are 900-1300g. Pretty much all HEMA rapiers are heavier than the sabres we use.
Let me know which is better after the road march
I was wondering why have no Amy ever when with an all percussive weapon like a small weighted bat?
Like a thug that is getting money for there boss.
And yet, the final cavalry sword was designed to thrust.
OK, i want a good saber now. Matt, whats the best saber to buy? Which one is best made? I don't think Albion makes sabers.
Antiques by good makers like Prosser, Wilkinson, Osborn & Gunby, Mole, Thurkle etc
@@scholagladiatoria I’ll have to look through your videos and find a review of a good one!
How much was the sword a curb sign of rank, like an officer's small caliber pistol?
Do you think this at all play into the prevalence of curved sabers in Japan? I’m hearing faint echos of some of your katana videos
A huge slashing sword is intuitive and highly lethal. Sticking the pointy end through someone's heart is hit and miss. Especially without a shield.