This is such a weird comments section, I think it is the only one I have seen (of this length) where every comment seems to be polite and well-considered. And it is about how best to kill people. Cause or Consequence? I don't even know how to tell.
I believe it is due to how old the topic is and its irrelevance to current power struggles, we're talking about a solution from hundreds of years ago for a problem that is as old as humanity and continues to this day with more effective solutions available.
It is a good community here. I also think it is because our host here, Shad, is so educated, but at the same time he has the humility to say "Let's discuss this. What do you think? Leave me a comment."
Well, the discussion about the efectiveness of weapons in history like swords seems like a topic that polite and educated people would talk about, and if we take in consideration the fact that this could help to people that like Fantasy, or that like to Write fantasy, then I don't see anything weird.
I would wager that specialized cutting swords are also more forgiving in the cut. In the sense that it is far less difficult to give an effective cut and far less likely to give an uneffective cut. Meaning that even if the strongest level of preformance is overkill, the average level of performance is still above non-cutting swords.
Three years later just now watching this video,but this is the same thought I had. Shad kept talking about how a cutting sword at full swing might cut all the way through while a long sword at full swing might only go part of the way through but the person still dies. My counter was what about less than full swing? A cutting sword could cut to the same depth as a long sword with FAR less effort!
Shad was just wrong. He visualized sword combat as if it was a fight of only 100% perfect hits and complete deflects. Much more common were the "half-successful hits", where weapons clashed to an extent, lost momentum but it still managed to hit the target, and in those cases the extra cutting capacity absolutely came into play and wasn't just a "pointless overkill". There is a reason why curved /cutting oriented swords heavily dominated the whole world despite the straight sword's much more simple and obvious design of being more balanced in cutting and thrusting. There is a reason why even 19th century brittish swords were typically curved/cutting oriented instead of short/longsword design or even rapiers. A successful deep cut bleeds out the opponent much faster than a thrust or a shallow cut. You undervalue (or overlook) the importance of "the time to make a target lose consciousness on the battlefield". It wasn't enough to just "eventually kill the target" on the battlefield,, you had to make a close range target lose consciousness as fast as possible to stop them from being a constant threat to others. It's a big reason why rapiers were not that popular in the actual battlefield, and were mainly used as self defense weapons for situations where you aren't technically in a "hurry to kill the target".
I've been reading Swordsmen of the British empire and there are whole sections dedicated to this exact point. British soldiers in India had a lot of so called 'balanced' swords which in fact were quite bad at cutting. Kinsley stresses the importance of the hard, difficult to sharpen metal used to make the swords and the metal scabbards which were known to blunt the edges, which are factors that may not have been at play to the same extent in the medieval period. Nevertheless, British soldiers often expressed complete lack of confidence in their swords, and in at least one instance decided to run away rather than fight the Tulwar armed Indians because they didn't think their swords would work.
@@noodleknight7924 I agree with what you’ve said, except for the part where a deep cut bleeds out quicker than a thrust. There are many examples of people dying near instantly from being ran through, usually through the heart. Thrusts have a greater chance of hitting a vital organ more than a cut does of hitting a major artery.
@@beardedbjorn5520 That mostly depends on where the trust ends. Namely, wounds to legs and arms were very common. And a thrust through the leg does deal a lot less damage than a gash.
You see. A battlefield is not a surgeon's table. Overkill is not a waste of cutting capacity but it's a weapon in itself: terror. Sure a battle with people dying and being wounded is bad enough, but with limbs flying, heads rolling and blood splatting everywhere? That's mental warfare!! Also, if you cut an arm or neck to the bone, there is a good chance your sword might bet stuck there, a specialized cutting weapon will clear itself out by removing the limbs and be ready for the next engagement, or to parry another opponent.
exactly my thoughts! Most battles even in historic ages are won by routing the opposing army, and what better way to do this than invoke complete terror on them :).
Sander vd Donk That's why the MG42 was so effective, it wasn't the damage it dealth or the casualty rates, but the terryfing sounds and rate of fire and bullets flying all around you. In reality it was a huge waste of ammunition, but it payed off by immobilizing the enemy.
Overkill is all good until it impedes other functions. THe MG42 ate up too much ammo and forced the squad to center around it. That's why most other powers have not copied it after ww2.
1. Better performance against soft armors like gambesons 2. Increasing the percussive damage of a sword (some of thrand's videos show how even without bypassing the armor, bones can be shattered by sword strikes) 3. Reduces the chance of getting a cut stuck in an opponents body 4. Intimidation 5. A thrust to non vital areas may be not that lethal, a gigantic gash is. 6. For group fighting is not only about keeping the enemy at bay, theres also the fact that when you thrust someone you have to remove your sword from their body before being able to engage anyone else. Cuts attack and "remove the sword from the opponents body" in one motion (well to be fair, this isnt always the case..) 7. under stress people revert to more primal and animalistic movements. We naturally favour the cuts over thrust in this situations. 8. I know that you mentioned "chopping your way through the jungle" as a joke but swords like the messer and cutlass were also used as tools. 9. Not only cutting swords make better cavalry weapons but are also good as anti-cavalry weapons (big, two-handed cutting swords) . To stop a horse with a "thrust" you would need a pike. 10. Lets face it... Cuts are just way cooler ;)
+Sir Galahad A few disagreements: 1. How do you know that a cut is more able to penetrate a gambeson than a thrust? 2. A long sword could potentially hit with every bit as much force as a shorter cutting sword; That said, against plate armor you reeeeally want a long pointy blade to get in between the plates. If you want percussion damage, strike with the pommel or use a polearm. For 3., 4., and 5.; I recall hearing and seeing accounts of the Spanish massacre of the Aztecs as described by the Aztecs themselves: Even though the average conquistador had a 3 foot straight thrusting sword, it was evidently very common for the Spanish to sever an arm, a head, and to even take parts of torso along with it. 7. That's the reason solders practiced their art religiously; it's the same with martial artists (I am one). Basically, you practice the movements over and over and over until they become instinctive. As a result, when practitioners become suddenly involved in a life or death situation, they will instinctively do as they were trained to do without thought. I don't know where this rumor started that people will revert to flailing cavemen on the battlefield, but it needs to die. 9. Again with the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, lances were used to great effect. The best anti-cavalry weapons were pikes (as you mentioned), and no sword of any type was going to allow infantry to deal with cavalry baring down on them. But if you want to play this card anyway, certainly many horseman have been cut down by swords that were long enough to reach them, and it's easier to get longer reach out of a straight double edged long sword.
***** 1. it isnt, but thats irrelevant as i was comparing a cut from a hilt heavy sword vs a specialized cutter 2. again irrelevant as the comparison in question is not between leverage and weight. 3.4.5. sorry, ill will skip this one 7. not a myth, im also a martial artist, so? 9. Pikes are irrelevant in a comparison between different sword characteristics...
Sir Galahad 1. So, you're basically saying “a specialized cutter is better at cutting”. Ok... I know this. What you have to show is that there is an overall advantage against gambesons with cutters vs. thrusters. If the cut can penetrate better than a thrust, then obviously we'd want to go with cutters. However, if it's the other way around, or if they are about the same, then you'd want a sword that's more versatile (i.e. a sword that can both cut and thrust). 2. Cutters tend to have the balance point out further to the tip to get a stronger blow, and thus transfers more weight of the sword to the target (increasing the percussive damage). The fact that you can do the same damage or better with a long sword by hitting with the back end is perfectly relevant. Again, against armor, (unless it's light armor like a gambeson, then we go back to point 1.) you really do not want a cutter. What you want is a war hammer or polearm, and/or a straight pointy stabber. Heavy armor drastically reduces the usefulness of cutters. 7. I guess we'll agree to disagree unless you can give me some proof. 9. Cavalry did tend to carry cutters rather than thrusters, but what I'm trying to say is that there were alternatives to swords that people were using by the middle ages more often than swords in general. This lessens the value of a sword on horseback, which lessens the value of cutters since they were largely used by cavalry. Yes, if I were in the late middle ages and had me a nice war horse, I'd still have a saber or something like that for backup. So your point is certainly valid, but what I'm arguing is the extent to which it matters. Also, Shad is basically just talking about infantry here.
Any actual arguments rather than the unfounded assertion that "...you're wrong on many aspects..." and assumptions about my character/motivations? I'm not a fan boy of any particular sword just so you know. I own a katana and practiced Iaido, but I've also always had a fascination with ancient weapons in general.Regalya
WOW, the great discussion and comments here are phenomenal! So phenomenal in fact that I just can reply to you all (Damn my limited time!). Not to worry, I certainly read all your comments and seriously consider everyone's feedback. So I'll make a follow up video addressing the more common ideas and replies, and those comments that particularly stood out to me ^_^
+I am Shad Good video. However rapier is able to cut skin, muscle and tendons. I think one thing needs to be brought up, it not about needing superb cutting sword, but why certain cultures seemed to like them. My kind ramble trying to answer it: In case of Messer: Germans could cut each other. But stabbing was BIG no-no. Legally speaking. They could thrust foreigners whom they engaged them in war. It is pretty common thing in civilian context where you have to be aware of legal system. Thrusts are not favored as they tend to put people in their early graves and legal systems might be pretty strict about punishing heavily from manslaugther from thrust (dunno how it went down in Germany). You do not kill a man for sleeping with your wife or stealing your purse... Or do you? This then affected fencing system they had/developed: Italians and many others started to favor dueling swords because of "flourishing" dueling culture, which changed fencing culture of theirs into certain ways, rule of "first blood" having big effect in cuts to face and so on. While Germans sportified their fencing traditions. If you want to find really hard core practical fighting arts you have to dig into earlier eras than renaissance, Fiore and Liechetenauer for example present pretty BS-free fencing systems if you just want to cause maximal damage to enemy without worrying (too much) what legal system thinks about it. And this again had effects on bigger scale: I have heard of accounts which says that landknecht were not thrusting in event of war against foreigners either because of saying: "you fight as you train". And german fencing schools and traditions at times of Kriegsmesser were heavily cutting oriented. Even relatively modern german bastard swords and like do have broad cutting oriented blade when others had adopted much more thrusting oriented blades. And so on. I seen examples of how you then justify superiority of cuts over thrusts because these and these persons did favor cut. When they actually cut for reasons mentioned above, not because it was more effective in killing disabling opponent. More so with knifes and what is supposedly effective fighting knife. When reasons originally were almost opposite, cutting knifes with short blades do not tend to kill (and send you into jail for a long haul). So with cutting i can see sort of "vicious" cycle reinforcing itself. Same can be stretched into thrusts as well, i think. I made comment elsewhere in this video about sword deisgns during Napoleonic war, there brits went for super cutters with pooor ability to thrust while french went for super thrusters ignoring cuts almost totally. After dust had settled both came back from their extremes into more compromised sword designs able to both cut and thrust. which is how it remained pretty much to end of era of swords.
+Second247 There were different typed of rapiers and the military ones definitely could cut. the civilian ones too but not to the same effect I believe
+I am Shad I believe that an massive advantage of a cut is the stopping power. In fight you dont want just kill the oponent. You want to stop his advance. You can impale someone charging at you with your sword but that will not stop him from going all the way up to your hilt just with his momentum practically disarming you and striking you down with hos blow. Even is he dies afterwards he takes you with him.
+I am Shad I do not know for other swords, but katana is made in this way to cut tru person you keep on fighting. No return back with blad just keep on cuting. I like all the swords in the world but it seems to me that you're thinking about katana with viuw from the philosophy of the European sword fighting. These are two completely different philosophies. Sabers are totally different story, you can kill a man but have been created to cope serious injury The philosophy of the saber is like this A man was seriously injured, require two people to take care of him. These two people are not fighting until they do not get injured to safety A good example is the battle of Waterloo. French cavalry was using trusting swords, English cavalry was using sabers. French cavalry in the attack leaving dead english soldiers. The English cavalry is leaving many severely wounded French soldiers . These wounded with severe cuts were huge burden Napoleon's army. They were as dead in this battle are just wasting resources and time for Napoleon's army. This is why many of Napoleon's maneuvers were late. His soldiers instead of fighting drew many of the wounded from the battlefield.
I dont Think western and Eastern swordfighting philophosies are that different. In that case then why is katana fencing so similar to longsword fencing? As stated Before by other commentprs, straight swords are good at cutting. A straight sword also gives Cuts that require other people to take care of your wounds.
You mention overkill, but neglect a few points... First of all, there's confirming the kill. The advantage that your 'overkill' has is that you are absolutely sure that a target is unable to resume fighting, usually because you can see his head flying off of his torso. If you deliver a cut that may kill, you would have to wait several seconds to confirm that the target is indeed dying/dead. Secondly there's the amount of effort required to produce a killing strike, when your sword does half the work for you, getting a deadly cut in is going to be far easier. Then you mentioned that stabbing requires action from the defender, this is correct. But it is common doctrine that a swordsman attacks and defends at the same time. So while he is required to use his tempo to deflect a stab, he is gaining a tempo, or even a deadly tempo because he's attacking at the same time. Then there's the guards where stabs can be made from... while cuts are telegraphed in their guards (1 guard has 1 direct attack and one indirect attack, everything else constitutes a guard change), thrusting is no different as they all require the sword to be pointing forward. The thing with the sword pointing forward is of course that the opponent gets a free binding which he can then use one of the master hews from to gain a (deadly) tempo.
There is one situation that comes to mind where thrusting is counterproductive. Fighting on horseback. The main reason for this being balance. Attempting to thrust while riding a horse is not only difficult (you can only use one hand, as the other is on the reigns) but dangerous. If your blade is grabbed by a man on the ground, they can easily rip it from your hands or simply pull you from your horse. The real benefit of horsemen comes from their mobility. Being able to ride past another person, while still being able to deliver a fatal blow, and keep on going, without having to pull your weapon out of them. This is why sabres became the go-to weapon for horsemen from their inception, all the way to when horsemen were rendered obsolete by Armoured Fighting Vehicles.
There were examples of swords more specialized for thrusting used on horseback. Many early 19th century cavalry sabres were actually specialized in the thrust. The koncerz estoc of eastern europe had a triangular cross-section and had NO cutting capacity, but was used as a cavalry sword; by the Polish Hussars, even.
Cut vs. Thrust was debated about by GENERATIONS of cavalrymen, and superiority was never really determined. Then WWI made the whole question irrelevant.
Though, the swords in vogue in the British army at the very end of the debate were extremely thrust-centric. For the record, you need a specialized technique for thrusting with a sword on horseback, to mitigate the problems pointed out by Nastrael above. I believe Matt Easton, over on Schola Gladiatoria, has talked about that in relation to the British Pattern 1908 cavalry sword, at some length.
Thomas Ueland Torp Yes, he has! Good video, I recommend it to anyone else following this. And I'd add that the swords in vogue in U.S. service at that time were also exclusively thrusters.
AnimeSunglasses Well of course it was. Colonies usually do follow their colonial masters. Joking aside, you are, of course, right. The Model 1913 "Patton" saber is remarkably similar to the Pattern 1908, though not actually directly inspired by it..
I think you might be overlooking the sword in cavalry application Shad. One of the reasons they used sabers, which is identified as a cutting weapon, is because a thrust is more likely to get stuck in the target. Since you're expected to primarily slash when on horseback why not use a weapon specialized for that purpose.
I don't see why you would require a sword, simply carry a bag or pouch pilled to the brim with pommels. Imagine the sheer number of rightly ended opponents, the results would be devastating.
I think it's connected to the armor people were wearing, e.g. in india turbans and baggy clothes was worn, a lot of flexible fabric that would be cabable of stopping the blade of a straight sword from going deep, but the extreme curvature of talwar is less likely to get stuck in the layers of fabric, because the point of the sword is pretty much out of the way and you can make really long cutting motions without your tip of your sword getting entangled in the cloth, similar thing with padded armor/gambeson in europe in connection with falchion/messer, great cutters for a better chance to cut through the thick wool padding
Wouldn't an Indian tulwar-user also have chain-mail? I remember seeing a video in which the swordsman was holding a tulwar in one hand and a stabbing-dagger in the other hand, along with the buckler, for bursting the rings of chain-mail.
Admiralmeriweather First and foremost, in almost all battlefields, whether Europe, India or Japan, the mass used weapon was the spear or any other polearm. Plus, in India, even since ancient times, there has been a widespread practice of using clubs and maces, called "gadaaas" in Hindu literature.
cutting clean through has one advantage in my mind: recovery. say you had a sword that can cut to the bone. that's great, but in combat your cut is sloppy enough that it embeds in their bone and you can't quickly remove it. your immediate battle would be over, I'm sure, but in any situation with more than one enemy it becomes essential to retrieve your weapon. this also applies to horseback battle, scimitars are shaped to have cutting potential far beyond what is necessary, but in the heat of the moment, on a moving horse, you don't have time to stop and wrench your blade out of the victim you've just hacked at.
You are making an interesting point there. I feel like if you need a weapon for self defense as say a charackter from your average RPG, that crawls through dungeons, fights indoors, outdoors, on the battlefield, from a horseback ect. you might need a generaly good one fits all weapon, that you can also carry around easiely. BUT: Some swords, in fact quite a lot of them, are designed in a very specialized way, because you only use them in a specialized way. For example the roman gladius, which is a very specialized thruster. Now it has scary sharp edges on either side, so you can cut with it but the very close-to-guard point of balance and pronounced point make for an excellent (while rather short ranged) thruster. Why do that? why limit the range of the person using it and take so much weight away from the point? And most importantly, why not add an extensive handguard, or at least a crossguard. Where the romans not concerned with their own safety? Of course they were, but other factors can make up for what the sword is lacking. In fact you only use the weapon to thrust at short range with it, so it might as well be absolutely overdesigned to do only that. Let's ask who was using it. The answer to that is of course a roman legionare. What does almost every legionare do for at least half his life? Working on a field. Roman legionares were usually not using that sword at any time, other then on the battlefield, or training for exactly that. So most of the time they dont even need a sword, and the sword can be awesome at being a battlefield weapon, while it aboslutely does not matter how it would perform in a one on one unarmored situation. Now, let's ask what a battlefield situation would require a roman legionare to do. As a roman legionare, you have a big ass shield. Because the solidiers aren't exactly experts in what they do, it's essential that the protection is very large. You can sink the lower end of your shield into muddy ground and push against it and you are rather safe, because men to your left and right are doing the same thing. Of course you are never truly safe, peaple to your left and right are dyin, those in front of you are trying to kill you, so you are always in danger, but a formation like this is really hard to break, even if the defenders are not very skilled so we can call it battlefield-safe, with the understanding that a thing such as safety really doesn't exist on the battlefield. Now with that being said, just defending is not gonna cut it(or thrust it in this case). If you are using so much energy for your defense and space is limited, your only attack option is a quick thrust over your shield or through the (ideally) small gap between you and the next legionare in line. It would be very hard, to get enough space to actually do a full swing for a decent cut. Also thrusting (especially with a short sword) is easier to learn. No need to worry about edge alignment, just "stick 'em with the pointy end" and you'll get the job done. This also means, that your hand is only going to be exposed for a brief moment, and only for attacking. (almost) Never predictable, because the shield blocks sight and (almost) never for defense, because it is so huge that you can fit your whole body behind it. Why add the weight of a cross, or knuckleguard then? well, you don't. Now, if you are done stabbing a few times, the roman formation will have you move back, so you dont get yourself killed and the next line takes the lead for a while. In that situation a bulky weapon is very unpractical. Same goes for super cutting weapons. Sabres for example where often used by the cavallery, where the weapon is already in a fast motion, so you just need to hold it out and you'll cut like a champ. On the other side, thrusting might be terrible, bacause if the weapon gets stuck, it's lost for good and your horse will not go pick it up for you. Being a bad thruster is actually beneficial for a cavallerist. Maaaaan that took way to many words. But people say that about your videos, so I think you'll understand. Also on a sidenote, I am still studying history, not done yet so let me know if I got things horribly wrong. Not to late to fix my knowledge. (hopefully)
+tharrock337 Great Post!! I just wanted to mention that when stabbing, crossguards/knuckleguards can get snag on the rim of your shield or your ally's shield. That's why the gladius doesn't have guards. I heard that from somewhere.... but I can't recall at the moment. It might've been Skallgrim's channel.
Actually gladii doesn't have crossguards due to one simple reason. It was never used without a shield and when you have a shield to protect you, you don't need extra hand protection. Hand protection started developing in Europe when shields were changing to strap-ons instead of boss held. Now with strap-on shields you can have a generally bigger and more protective shield BUT it's not going to be mobile, so you want some protection on the hand. When shields and armour went out of favor (and with specialized civilian swords) we see more complex hand protection appearing until we get to schiavonas, which later influenced completely closed hilts without gaps (schiavona hilts are made this way because of balance reasons and besides that it looks great)
In the rpg you mentioned, we sometimes visit towns, taverns, brothels, bazaars and homes. So I lean pretty hard towards a Spaffslinger like Lindybeige made. Just with a Rapier or Sidesword at the hip, something light and small compared to the long spear I've got.
It can take someone an hour or more to die from a thrust. You bleed a lot at first, but that slows down. The pain of a thrust is not really that debilitating, either. Enemies don't just keel over if they have a mortal wound.
Perhaps the cutting of complete limbs and beheading is preferable to bleeding wounds. Imagine. You cut off your opponent's arms. They are now disarmed. You no longer need to pay them any attention due to their lack of arms. Now, if you slash an artery in their arms, they will bleed out, but still pose a significant threat because a loss of blood does not equate to lack of threat. They can still kill you before dying themselves. Sometimes wounds don't kill a person until hours later. Also, wounds can be patched. Limbs cannot be reattached.
With regards to cavalry- perhaps they simply don't use thrusts often enough for it to be worth keeping the balance when they could simply make a sword which is better at cutting?
They do use thrusts, although it takes a specific technique to do so without having your sword yanked out of your hand. There was a long-running (over 200 years) debate among cavalry officers about which was superior, the cut or the thrust. It went back and forth, and the Thrust faction was on the ascendancy when WWI suddenly proved that cavalry would not be using swords much anymore.
Lots of places... Look up the Model 1913 Cavalry Saber to hear one side of the debate, and look up anything on the evolution of sabers to hear the whole mess... There were arguments that the point was more deadly; arguments that was, so to speak, besides the point; arguments that a more lethal stab wasn't worth the very real risk of a trooper losing their saber in the process... AND this is all overlapping with a debate about how curved the saber should be. And to muddy the waters further, not all militaries sharpened their sabers beyond the manufactured edge! This was apparently particularly true in the U.S. Civil War, where an overwhelming majority of swords were never introduced to a whetstone after delivery from their maker. This meant that, indeed, they often could not cut through heavy fabric.. Schola Gladitoria has at least one video on the issue, if you want to start there...
AnimeSunglasses I would say its indeed a problem with weight, balance and momentum. (I only have experience with Napoleonic weaponry though.) Thrusting with a 3 kg sword will propably get you out of balance, and just cutting with it will still kill your enemy
Niklas Gosink Yep. IF it penetrates... in the Crimean War, there are accounts of Allied sabers failing to cut through thick Russian greatcoats. Again, questions of sharpening have arisen, I don't know if they're supported or not. And this was certainly an example that the Thrust camp used to argue their point.
That's funny. Common historically used argument in favour of thrust (from Vegetius to Victorian times) was that in practice even very nasty-looking cutting wounds turned out to be superficial and not deadly. So perhaps you need that "overkill" to be effective cutter in real battle
+fizikshizik Agreed. There are acounts that during the Crimean war, the Russian winter uniforms were so bulky that they were virtually slash-proof from British sabres. And the curved sabre is a very cut-heavy weapon.
+Tim Birch The British sabres that had so much trouble during the Crimean war tended to be much lighter "pipe-backed"style swords I believe, which have a fairly thin blade backed with a great thick cylindrical rod on the back edge. It's that which made it very bad as a cutting weapon,. The older style sabres like the light and heavy 1796 models would've made much easier work of the Russian great coats.
A good account of this was in the Afghan war where the British surgeons dealt with so many wounds from cuts that they had a very high survival rate. The Afghans were mainly using the “Khyber knife”. The British surgeons were thankful that they didn’t thrust with them, other wise it would have been a nightmare.
+fizikshizik I'd add 2 other points: 1. cut has IMHO higher chance to hit. Cut is kind of area damage, anything in the wide path is in danger while stab is like a shot - not aimed properly and you miss. 2. cut might be more likely to immediately incapacitate. You may survive even fully recover but at the moment i.e. your fighting arm is disabled While stabbed you may die later due to the internal bleeding or infection yet you are able to fight for some time. Moreover for longer period of the history at least critical parts of the body were protected if possible. While cut could still at least disable the limbs.
In one of your later videos, you speculate that swords that emphasize the cut, like a falchion, are designed to let you easily sharpen the blade to the point that it will defeat gambeson armor. You answered your own question in a video that came out years later!
Surely it's to do with recovery? Bearing in mind that most of those "cutting" swords are designed for combat against people not wearing armour (or armour that would effectively stop a fatal strike). If you cut cleaner then your exit and recovery are surely faster?
When it comes down to it, I’d prefer a weapon that would come completely through the limb. If I stop short, if my angle is off, and my sword gets stuck ... well I’m done. It might be overkill, but I’d prefer to have that safety net. Because unfortunately, in the heat of battle, when you have to react, can you say you’re going to do everything perfectly?
There is practically no way you can cut any bone (maybe you can chop fingers at best) with any sword. Bones have hardness comparable to steel so you will just ruin your sword. You can only cut the limb if you manage to hit the joint
Shad, I respect the thought you put into this, but you're mistaken on several points. Before listing them, I wish to state that I agree with you concerning the effectiveness of the thrust. A properly placed thrust kills more efficiently than a cut. Yes. Absolutely. That said, 1. Extreme cutting ability is not redundant. In a fight, the ability to survive is at least as important as the ability to kill. Having struck his opponent, a fighter must be able to extract his blade easily to maintain defense. Swords capable of passing entirely through a limb will not get stuck in the bone. 2. Assuming for the moment that extreme cutting is redundant, your argument proves the same about extreme thrusting. A thrust from a longsword or katana, properly executed, will kill. Why then develop the rapier? Because it's nimbler, possesses superior hand protection, etc. 3. Weapons specialized for thrusting, if they are swords and not daggers, tend to be long. This makes them less suitable for close quarters combat since it is more difficult to bring the point to bear. A cutting blade, sharpened along its entire length is more useful here. 4. It is not easier to block a cut than a thrust. Yes, a thrust can terminate at any point on the body, but it really arrives from only one direction. A cut can come from anywhere, and a skilled fencer will not telegraph his intentions. True, cuts require preparation, perhaps this is what you mean by 'telegraphing, but the inclusion of feints can keep your opponent guessing. 5. Combining points 1 and 3, we that cutting swords are better for facing multiple opponents. Granted, these do not necessarily need to be 'extreme' cutters.
1) stopping power: deep cuts debilitate faster; less need to aim well; even a weak/bad swing will do signifiant damage (untrained; exhaused; stressed) 2) target area: normal swords won't cut through winter clothing and gambesson as much as falchion or Katana would; similarly a rapier might kill with a cut to the throat or arm-insides but do little against the torso (or try to fight a rabid bear) 3) psychological: flying limbs, rolling heads and falling entrails scare enemies; the ability of an overkill will boost your confidence 4) potential weight reduction by specialisation: a machete cuts better than most swords but is 2-3x lighter; same could be said about thrusting with an epee
All good points. One another thing to note is that while Katanas and many types of Messers/Falchions are very forgiving in the cut, they are by no means inadequate thrusting swords. One isn't going to be able to wield them like Rapiers due to being blade-balanced, but when thrusts are actually needed - for instance when finishing off an enemy on the ground or against armor - these swords are perfectly capable. Both of them are single edged, therefore quite stiff. Curvature may be involved, but most of them tend to be only semi-curved or straight. A large number of Messers/Falchions have clip points, which aren't functionally that different from spear points in the context of thrusting. Katanas may have hatchet points but tend to be fairly narrow and pointed, not to mention being even more stiffer - which aids in both cuts and thrusts. In reality, Messers/Falchions and Katanas aren't really even dedicated cutting swords, but rather compromise design cut-and-thrust swords. If they are specialized towards the cut, it is only slightly so; as sidearms and close-combat weapons, most people wanted something that would suit the natural human tendency to cut/strike while remaining very versatile. Which is why the above swords were very popular among both commoners and nobility back in the day.
Curve of some swords (the additional cutting ) I was told was for making it easierr for a person on a mount to use as straight blade would stop on bone but curve would slide out so they could keep riding by and not stopping
+Xaro Xhoan Daxos or a riding lance? You know? Use the power and momentum of the animal you are riding to your advantage? But if you want, you can try to ride up beside me and try to take me out, while I ride towards you with a big stick in front of me...and have the option of taking either you or your horse out of commission before you can ride get beside me. (I think I would prefer getting the first attack in)
I don't see why the last time they used them is important? When gunpowder was become the largest form of defense, the swords were more or less a tradition. If I am not mistaken, they were handed mainly to the officers. Well, I guess, the standard solider had a Bayonet, which was basically a sword at the end of the gun (much like the lance) (I guess it was important) So as far as not being a sword, the lance is used for trusting...It just has more length than the standard sword. If I really wanted to, I could attach a sword on a stick (actually I think the Vikings would do that...if I remember right, they had a spear head could be taken off and used as a sword in a pinch)
Scott LeviHeichou Rivaille Lances have nothing to do with what SWORDS were used by cavalry. You people need to shut the fuck up about lances. No one is talking about lances in this video.
The weakness of a rapier is that your opponent can initiate grappling from a longer range than if you have a bladed weapon. Lichtenauer taught that grappling is the base of all swordsmanship.
Gambesons are the kicker, a Longsword has extreme difficulty against heavy padding, on the cut, a falchion does not, their are demonstrations of this available on the Medieval Review channel, also a curved blade is less likely to bind, and retains cutting power better with edge wear/damage (which is an important thing to remember, modern steel is far better than medieval steel, so holds and edge better, for longer, especially when striking shields etc), a third point, even trained combatants get a little cave man under stress, which is downward strokes to the head and neck, especially while tired and stressed. This argument was a major part of British Cavalry tactics and sword design, Matt Easton has addressed it iirc.
I think he also overstates thrusts - a thrust will kill perfectly fine, but unless it goes through the heart, it will not kill for a good 5 minutes or so. Speaking from massive blood loss experience here, It takes forever and so many litres of blood before you fall unconscious - and when you are low on blood, it stops coming out very fast, so you have even longer than you would think. Having said that your eyes get a bit blurry and fighting would probably speed things up, hence me saying 5 minutes, not the 1 hour that generally doctors consider for things like stab wounds giving a reasonable chance to save. Also, bleeding is painless in itself - especially internally. most nerves are on the surface of the skin, thus slashes ARE more debilitating in my reckoning.
5 liters of blood, if you lose 1 you are in shock wich mean sitting still and not moving being pale. 1 good thrust in the main portion of your body is game over. Now of course, if you thrust trough a plate in a gambeson I doubt you reach his torso unless you have a spear, but I could be wrong. Then again good luck cutting a full plate knight. The way I see this is that weapons are invented to kill, then as a reaction people protect against it and then new weapons come around ect. Cutting weapons are for horse back riders as a second weapon or for civilians walking around. Who walks around in plate all day right.
In a civilian context, weapons like the messer make sense. If you get attacked by bandits or mugged in the street, you may be severely outnumbered. Therefore you want to make sure that any clean hit will immediately take an opponent out of the fight for good. A cut that incapacitates an arm or slowly makes them bleed out may not be good enough, but cutting off an entire arm will cause extreme shock from sudden blood loss and therefore make sure, they can't fight on no matter what. Just causing a slight bleeding and incapacitating limbs might be enough in a dueling sense, where you can just pile on the damage and a weakened opponent will not be much of a threat, but in a one versus many scenario, even a guy that can only use one arm still poses a significant threat because he can still grab you, pull you or otherwise distract you, so his buddies can finish you off. A weapon that's overkill pretty much rules this out. There may be people who can fight on when they have a wide cut over the back of their arm but there is nobody who can fight on with the shock of sudden blood loss that sets in after they lost an entire arm... Unless they are on an insane dose of amphetamines. The reason for the overkill factor is mostly stopping power. That also translates to the battlefield. Cavalry wants to end opponents in a single strike and their high position on horseback facilitates big downward cuts. A big mean cutter makes sense there.
+naphackDT sure, the Messer was a sidearm for the common man, they were allowed to carry them anywhere. But I'm curious how do you explain why the Kriegsmesser, the two handed Messer, was so popular in the age of plate armor ? It doesn't have a straight point to go through armor gaps and it doesn't have a pommel either. And the name translates to War Knife, supposedly used by Landsknechts in battle.
+naphackDT not to mention if the bandits see their mate's arm lopped off they'll think twice about getting any closer. a cut even a lethal one, just doesn't have the same psychological impact
You say a sword specialized in cutting like the scimitar is overkill because it detracts from the thrust. So wouldn't a sword specialized in thrusting like the rapier also be considered overkill because it detracts from the cut? The only sword not considered to be overkill by you, is the long sword. What you're kind of saying is the long sword is basically a beige minivan. It's comfortable to use, it does two things very well and it's boring.
I would argue that the mid point is more in the katana end. he says they were popular - china and japan all used katana (yes japanese made katana too) 1300s onwards. katana literally was the most popular sword. I would argue a thrust could take hours to kill you and many minutes to disable.
I do know the answer to your questions about cutting an arm off (or whatever) vs just cutting deep enough to disable. In combat, there is allot of adrenaline. There are several instances where a person will receive fatal wounds and did not know it, and fought for the few minutes while he was alive. If you cut the arm off, It is very unlikely he is going to be able to strike you again. If you cut deep, the person may not even know they been cut (especially if the sword is sharp) and make a swing.
+iseeicyicetea It matters, because the person has got two arms. Completely cutting a limb is something that even adrenaline cuoldn't solve, the person would bleed out in seconds and lie on the ground, or try desperately to stop the blood flowing. If you cut a limb, you have won, if you just disable it, you'll still have to fight.
If you get that perfect shot, yes. You have to remember that your target isn't just standing there. He is trying his best not to get cut. So if you're off, even i little, the other still has the ability to strike. Just as a side note (to prove my point), on my right ring finger, I have a big hole in my tendon. I have only about 40% of my tendon there and yet I have never had any trouble using my ring finger since that happened. Now if it were cut off, I am sure I would be having more trouble with it
Cutting through cloth is not as easy as you seem to assume. It's hard. Sabers, scimitars and tulwars were designed to do it effectively. From accounts of duels I read, saber cuts usually wounded, not killed, so there was no excessive cutting ability there at all. Just enough to do the job,. Then, a thrust has a shorter reach. Realistically you need to aim for the torso. Hand or head are small targets, difficult to hit on a moving opponent. Cut to the arm or head will usually do the job, but contrary to what you expect, it will usually not kill. People used to wear protective headgear (thick hats and so on), and even without it a quick light cut will stop on bones. Enough to stop the threat, not enough to kill. Thrust to the torso will likely kill, but it's very difficult to recover from them. You sword is stuck in the target for a considerable time, two-tempo action, while a cut can be followed into an immediate guard within one-tempo action. Especially important in melee, and that's probably why sabers became so universally adopted in armies all over the world.
also not all of your swings are going to be at full power. i mean you may be tired or do not have much space to swing so the force of your swing will be lower. if you had a longsword you may bruise your enemy but probably not even pierce through leather armor. if you had a blade specialized in cutting the blade would pass through the leather and give your enemy a possibly fatal blow. this could mran the difference between life and death
From experience, Messers(what I've used) are far more forgiving in the cut then longswords, they can sometimes cut through targets even with horrible edge alignment, and can just generally cut through things with less effort.
Love the point! Generally I agree with this, but I have a possible rebuttal. Maximum *potential* cutting power is not all that matters; how hard you have to swing the sword to achieve a good wound is also important to consider. If a sword can cut very well, it doesn't require as much physical exertion to do damage in the cut as one that only cuts well enough. Largely, this would be against unarmored opponents. Of course, again, I agree with the overall point. When people do these cutting tests I think they obscure the original intent for having such a specialized sword; but I do believe there were times when the extra cutting power came in handy. Or should I say 'came OFF handy', amiright?!
Thrusts take what, 30 mins, an hour? to kill? maybe disable in 5 minutes perhaps, optimistically, this is completely run through, too. Think about bullets. Though tiny, they cause fist sized cavities on impact, with hydroshock damage. yet most people survive gunshot wounds nowadays, if they get medical attention in under 1 hour. Now consider the actual volume of the cavity from a sword. hell, even in combat it could take days for enough blood to actually pool in the injury to actually kill you. Cuts, now cuts are way more painful, the enemy still has running away as a possibility (when stabbed through they will fight with wild abandon knowing they will die) and it is easier to sever tendons in fingers and such and actually disable, whereas a thrust to the stomach won't actually disable anything.
@@dpakoh1822 Adrenaline is one hell of a drug. There were even reports of people being dismembered (including decapitation) yet they would still fight (or at least flail wildly) for hours after the fatal wound occurred. Now, if this can happen even with nasty cuts like this, how often do you think it'll happen with thrusts? Don't forget that adrenaline blocks pain reception.
Classic Shad. Takes several thousand years of military history influenced by various economic, cultural, legal, technological, and fashionable factors, carried out by people who were often career warriors; thinks about it for five minutes and develops a hunch that all those people using cut centred swords were failing. Here's a thought. Thrusts are much more likely to kill than cutting swords and medieval fighting was often far more centred on disabling opponents than killing them especially if you are a knight. It's not always desirable to kill your opponent. Or in the case of falchions you're moving so far into heavy blades for cutting that you're also getting blunt force trauma. I've seen a guy in armour get hit on the arm by a falchion and the plate armour has stayed intact but the arm has broken inside the plate. It probably wouldn't have happened with a long sword. Okay it's not cutting but was an example of a more specialised blade. Or perhaps even though a longsword would cut through a hung pig the same as a tulwar you might be worried about glancing blows. Maybe on a glancing cut through layers of padding a longsword just wouldn't cut as well as the cutting specialised sword be you want every chance to count. It wasn't for no reason that in the late 17th century when officers began to get stuck in to the fray against muskets with bayonets that they largely swapped from small (thrusting) swords to heavy blades cutting sabres, because a long thin blade couldn't cope with the spear like bayonet. All these reasons and more might be valid reasons to opt for a specialised cutting sword just as there are many other scenarios to opt for a thrusting weapon. And sometimes a compromise weapon that excels in neither is the worst option of all. You can't just boil it down to 'against a immovable target a non specialised sword cuts well enough'. It's hugely reductive.
Another thing to consider that I haven't seen anyone else say is that certain weapons developed because of legal factors. I don't know it's validity but I've heard that messrs were developed because the population were at one point banned from owning swords and so they just made their knives bigger. Even if this is an over simplification it does demonstrate that not everybody in all situations had a choice and if you didn't have the choice in a thrusting sword you better make sure you sword could cut to the extreme!
Thank you so much for first paragraph of your comment .. it is so accurate!! :D Sometimes I simply shit bricks from his vids. :D Like.. as his katana series videos shows, he is able to get so much informations go really deep in that topis and than there is video - Why the katana has curve - because it looks good. :D Oh my, what to say, right? :D
From what I understand with a number of curved swords is they were cavalry weapons. You have a standard war horse going about 25-30 miles per hour or 43-48 Kilometers per hour charging at your enemy, the cutting edge can do some devastating damage. The blade doesn't even need to be sharp; the impact alone can take someone's head off. Exceptions exist, but this tends to be the case
I think another potential utility of curved swords is that they tend to slide across and off their target rather than stopping on them. The weapon can then be quickly chambered for the next strike rather than having to reset completely.
Good question, mate. I will make a video response to this because I think of many important point which would kill the comment box. But I will say here that I think there were many weapon designs which were overkill or basicly not that practical, because people did them out of fashion or they just "felt" it would be a good idea. Another important subject here is the meaning of cutting, because it has actually two meanings. First the technical meaning in seperating material but this is also done by thrusts so this is just the physics meaning. Second meaning are cutting techniques like the "famous" draw cut. I prefer to differ the attack types of melee weapons in three: thrust, strike and cut (this meaning here in form of draw or push cuts). I say this because the katana is great for cutting techniques, but a messer (by the way very nice pronunciation :3) or falchion is more a striker, of course those weapons can also cut well mostly throu the nature of sword blades. Some axes also have mor cutting abilities, like the dane axe. Some weapons can only work at their highest under certain circumstances like the rapier in duels or the katana in battle situations were you also facing many light armoured enemys (ashigaru) and where many people trained out of tradition cutting techniques (but you see development in Japan, before the katana you had the tachi which was more curved and more a cavalry weapon, then the shorter and straighter katana emerged as a result of samurais fighting more on foot and lesser room because they fought in tight ashigaru formations and more in castles). I already writing too much, like i said I will make a video about that tomorrow.
in college, a book on medieval/ancient weapons (cannot remember the name) stated that curves in blades/swords were used to shift the center of gravity in addition to making blocking/parrying more difficult do to different location of the blade per inch.
Historically thrust are more deadly than cuts. Matt Easton has a great video where he goes into great detail with first person references. It’s much easier to stitch a cut than it is a thrust wound.
Well the fact that the longsword can turn into a military pick/warhammer with a simple flip pretty much makes is the absolute ultimate melee weapon of them all. Nothing even comes close to covering such a variety of possible fighting situations as the longsword does. Jack of all trades, master of none. Must be the reason why it is widely portrayed as a main battle weapon in all those late medieval battle depictions.
+Neutral Fellow while i agree that longswords are great, there really are no ultimate weapons. its all about context. in a small room, i would much prefer something a bit shorter that i can actually use. The had protection on longswords is very adaquete, but its not amazing (if we're talking about earlier longswords that is.) And longswords were not main battle weapons, polearms were. spears, poleaxes, halberds were almost always the first choice (unless fighting from horseback or if your an archer.) Whilst longswords are great weapons, the do have their limitations, like all swords
+Neutral Fellow "Well the fact that the longsword can turn into a military pick/warhammer with a simple flip pretty much makes is the absolute ultimate melee weapon of them all." a flipped longsword is very lackluster compared to an actual military pick/warhammer though. personally, if i was a late medieval fighter in full plate, i'd go with a pollaxe. ideal to deal with armored opponents, still plenty to cut down peasants.
Shad, please do not take offense to this question, but have you ever been in a fight? Not a little sparring match between buddies, but a conflict that really matters? When your fight or flight instinct kicks in, your adrenaline increases exponentially. That in turn heightens your other senses, which may be very difficult to control. In extreme duress the body can perform feats a rational mind could not fathom. Because of this and a few other factors the body can withstand a lot of abuse. That said, "just enough" could very well be not enough. When I went to war I heard so many reports that some of the insurgents would continue charging after having an entire magazine of pistol ammunition fired into them. There are times when "overkill" may be your only option. In hand to hand training one time, my partner got a bit overzealous and tried to snap my arm. No amount of tapping was he ever going to release me. So after repeated headbutts to his face, breaking his nose and leaning my free arm into his throat cutting off his air he finally let go. In war there is no such thing as "just enough", you destroy your enemy as completely as possible. You not only shatter their bodies, but their morale and their will to fight on.
This is correct. Kind of. It's a lot harder to incapacitate someone with pain when their hopped up on adrenaline, but a severed biceps is still going to disable an arm. And that doesn't require cutting through the bone. As others have stated, a thrust that misses vital organs isn't going to be fatal. Similarly, a thrust that doesn't go through muscles isn't going to disable a body part. And bullets are basically very powerful thrusts
Dude no. Most people panic. Also just enffoe works. You don't have to full stop someone. I have had fight with bats and bottles. One good hit and most people back of. People dont keep fighting if they lossing
1: The emphasized cutting design choices could also make landing a damaging cutting blow easier to perform: You would have to work less with a specialized cutting weapon to do the same damage as a more general-purpose design could with great effort. 2: The saber, scimitar, and other curved weapons you mentioned were often used by cavalry against unarmored targets. The rider would have to swing his saber down in an underhand motion to slam into the back of a fleeing soldier. A cutting emphasis could help penetrate the soldier's backpack and the back of the ribcage. Or the rider could make a chopping motion backward as he passed to attack the running soldier's face. Much of the power of the cut would be lost with the blade and horse traveling in opposite directions, meaning that a cutting-specialized design could compensate again. 3: The katana was certainly on many battlefields, but the samurai probably left those famous swords in their scabbards when contending with armored targets. When fighting formations of lightly armored soldiers or just figthing away from the battlefield, the katana was probably a very effective weapon.
Shad, there is one problem in you analysis, namely that you only considered it from the unarmoured, fighting-on-foot perspective. For some reason, curved sabre type back-swords were in vogue in cultures that placed light cavalry and horse-archers in a prominent role. If the weapon was designed for fighting on foot from the ground up they may not retain that level of curvature. Take Japanese back-swords for example, and no there is no such thing as The Katana; a katana is a back-sword and can be further categorised into more specific types. Tachi was fashionable from late Heian to early-mid Sengoku period where the primary function of the samurai was horse-archery. Uchigatana, a much straighter version of tachi with longer handle, came into fashion in mid Sengoku where samurais were mostly fighting on foot in formation. Uchigatana was further shortened during the Edo period, as the Shogunate wanted to limit duelling, and this is The Katana that we think of today, Therefore, the katana is not the result of trying to maximising certain battle effectiveness, for example cutting; as a matter of fact, the Shogunate was trying to reduce its effectiveness in unarmoured fighting scenarios. It is what it is mostly because it is the descendent of Taichi and retained a degree of curvature. When it comes to nodachi, we have to again consider it in a different historical context. Ming Chinese noted that it was particularly effective in cutting off pike-heads during their war with Japanese pirates. It was so effective that the Chinese general in charge invented new tactics and adopted the nodachi as one of their infantry weapons. But then we need to compare the nodachi to the greatswords and it will be a different discussion.
I heard the reason the uchigatana was shortened was for the purpose of making it more convenient (ie. easier to wear, easier to draw and easier to use) as during the Edo period, there were no large scale battles and the primary reason the samurai still carried swords was for self defense in usually urban environments.
One reason for cutters like falchions might have been that they were often used by and against unarmored people, like on ships and in general once guns improved to the point where people started forgoing armor entirely on battlefields, and generally chopping/cutting will make someone a non-threat quicker than stabbing, since the trauma is generally more immediate and devastating.
Hi Shad! Let me first say that I greatly appreciate this channel as a place to gush over swords. I realize that this video has been posted for quite some time and that I am showing up rather late to the party, but I wanted to weigh in on this a bit, since I am a proud owner of a sabre, a scimitar (or shamshir), and a longsword, and have done limited HEMA training with the latter. Having played around with curved sword a bunch, I can confidently say a few things about their advantages and properties: 1. Their advantage in cutting lies less in their curvature of the blade and more in their weight distribution, which is a result of curvature. Basically, curved swords have more weight-to-length ratio over the length at which they curve, essentially giving them more force in the cut but sacrificing length and nimbleness (since the point of balance lies farther away from the hand than in most straight swords). These are, as far as my amateurish experience has shown, the main advantages of straight blades- easier to wield and more balanced, and have greater reach per weight, which are very important qualities. 2. They can most definitely thrust. In fact, I don't think they sacrifice much in thrusting capacity as you say. The scimitar you showed is an extremely curved sword that is not a good example of the majority of Middle-Eastern blades. If you take a gander at a number of popular curved blades, such as Tulwars, Pulwars, Shamshirs/Saifs, Sabres, Kilijes, and even Katanas, you will see that the curvature is not so pronounced as to prevent one from thrusting. To the contrary, I believe you can deliver equally powerful thrusts with curved swords as with straight ones. With the longsword, one tries to position the point in somewhat of a perpendicular alignment to the length of the target. To thrust effectively with curved blades, you simply need to adapt your arm motion to go into the curve (think of the motion one makes when throwing a frisbee). I practiced stabbing around my shield, over the top of my shield, through targets, what-have-you, and it works beautifully. 3. Curved swords _slice_. This is a point that is often overlooked. I should also hedge my statement and say that straight blades can slice as well, but curving the blade makes this happen much more easily. Where cutting is moving the blade through a target, slicing is moving the blade along a target. This becomes relevant when you consider two important situations in which slicing is advantageous: attacking heavy cloth (or silk), and attacking from horseback. In Europe, the most ubiquitous piece of armor, aside from a helmet, was the gambeson, a heavy jacket (which you have made a great video about, by the way!) that is rather difficult to hack through. Using a straight sword such as a longsword or an arming sword, an easier method of attack would probably be the thrust, which gets you through that heavy padding much more easily. In the East (read: hotter climates), gambesons are not in fashion, but other, lighter forms of padding were. Leather lamellars were around, as were silk robes and linnen. These are also very hard to cut through (particularly silk which was used rather often by elite fighters in many Islamic countries). As with gambesons, you can stab through them, or alternatively, you can slice through them. Regarding cavalry warfare: if you would imagine yourself to be riding down an enemy and striking on the gallop, how much force do you think would be transferred directly to your wrist? How easily do you think you could lose your blade if it gets stuck in an enemy? How easily do you think the increased impact force of striking from a moving horse could warp and damage your blade? Slicing helps mitigate all of these issues by allowing you to make more gradual contact with the target, and the fact that curved blades tend to have rather rigid backs means that warping is less common and more force is transferred to the target. 4. Come on man, you just made a series gushing on falchions and messers where you mentioned the usefulness of having more cut-centric sword designs. Same thing applies. 5. Your point about rapiers is rather pedantic. They did become the most important dueling sword in Europe, where people often came unarmoured to duels and only had one person to fight. Of course reach would give you a huge advantage in that setting. The broadsword still ruled the battlefield at the time of the rapier (correct me if I am wrong). Such a specialized thrusting weapon as a rapier would leave you vulnerable in a melee, while a nice broad sword allowed you to hack and slash more effectively, while still capable of delivering deadly thrusts.
And yet swords like the koncerz and swords from the second half of the 19th century are designed to thrust from horseback as a main form of offence. Thrusting is very useful from horseback though a bit harder to do.
Way harder to do, I would go so far as to say out of reach for all but a lancer. The fact is, people more their damn heads out of the way at the last second, the inconsiderate fools. Even static targets are really hard to hit on a horse like that. AND you can't couch a sword. Just use a sabre.
But bro why not just use a katana? My grandfather was in ww2 and he said he saw a samurai cut a fighter jet in half. But long swords can't even cut wet paper (not even joking, this one time me and my anime club tested it and we couldn't cut anything, it was a training sword but everyone knows that katanas are better) So obviously it's the best tool ever! But for real gr8 vid plz make more.
The terror weapon is a good point, but also I think the leverage of the wound might stand to get the blade stuck in the target if you don't cut wholly through. For example with katana the blade goes through an entire soldier and immediately frees the weapon for a follow up attack, whereas for example if you were using a short sword (something less likely to slice through the target, something the longsword is more than capable of) and the weapon stopped at the bone, or worse dug into it 1/4 to 1/2 way through, the wound could close on the blade and make it difficult to free giving your opponent time to thrust into you at close range or for one of his buddies to take you out. I know when I was using a chainsaw if you stop at all with it the tree leans into the cut and it becomes nearly impossible to get the chainsaw back out. Just a thought. Great videos, you've earned a subscriber! experience: Marine Corps Combat Trained (trauma experience) self taught long sword aficionado minor student in Iaido
I've heard in some areas, highly curved longswords were wielded close to the body and a highly defensive fashion. The blade would "wrap" around the wielder's body and they would use positioning and bodyweight/twist to drag the blade against their opponents. Often used in very close quarters situations.
*So it's not that Blades built for Cutting "cant' cut it" in combat, It's just that Swords built for Thrusting tend to "Get to the Point" faster and with greater efficiency?* Well, imo... Either way you slice it this is a good episode. And that medieval age weapons of any culture are awesome. ^~^
This is a horribly pointless and redundant comment. read at you own risk. I think super cutting swords are useful in that you can't presume your opponent is going to be naked or allow you a nice clean perfect strike to their arm or where ever. Let's use the the Samshir as the example for a moment. (For those who may not understand why a curve enhances the cut to such a extreme degree) That exaggerated curve means less of the blade will be touching material at any time. Distributing the the energy to a much smaller area. Where as a longsword's straight edge means your energy is meeting a lot more material at any given time. Among other reasons. Blah blah blah, you already knew that. After stewing on it for a good half an hour, maybe it would rock with is cavalry work? Maybe facing people in more linen armor? *sigh* you Sir, have a very compelling argument. But, with that said (looking away from all you pesky and messy facts and logics). I guess just love my Samshirs. I fear that because I'm Persian, I have become biased, or perhaps it's hard coded into my DNA. I just can't not love those curvy things.
Idk how you do it, the fact that my 6 year old son’s favorite youtube channel is a medieval informative is crazy to me. Lots of love from this tiny home in Texas Shad, congrats on new book 😅
There's a great documentary which looks at the injuries sustained during Waterloo where two very different swords were used. The French cavalry used an elegant thrusting sword which killed very easily, but if it didn't kill outright, caused "clean" injuries. It was efficient but generally harder to use on horseback. The English used a heavy, curved saber, which killed outright surprisingly infrequently but caused absolutely HORRIFIC injuries, cutting into bone, lopping off limbs, etc. Their saber bit deep and often took a soldier out of the fight. It horrified the French and surely had a psychological effect but, again, though easier to use from horseback, and causing terrible, maiming, injuries, it killed very rarely. Which sword was "better"? Not an easy question to answer, the French thrusting swords killed much, much more, but if they didn't kill, they didn't take a soldier out of the fight, whereas the English cutting swords killed very infrequently, but caused debilitating injuries which inevitably took soldiers out of the fight even if it didn't kill them.
there's reasons why the saber dominated the battlefield for so long. It can cut as well as a katana, it can thrust as well as your long sword, it's one handed freeing your second hand to carry a buckler, a dagger, or even a second sword. It's one handed so you have greater range and freedom of movement than a two handed sword like your long sword. It's blade is curved allowing you to cut around shields and swords, reaching soft spots your straight long sword can't reach. I'll take a saber any day, you can have your long sword.
Cornered Fox that's what I thought, just talking out your ass. Had to edit your comment to change the plate mail part. That's okay though because I already addressed your edited comment, a saber can thrust just as well as a long sword, cuts better, has a greater reach, and is faster. It's crazy how people think sword smithing, unlike any other technology, got crappier as time went on. Clearly the sword smiths of 8th century were miles ahead of sword smiths from 1600's.
Well, some cutting swords with a really curved blade naturally align their edges more perfectly because it's more like swinging a disk instead of a stick. The added mass behind the centre line of the handle stabilizes the blade and you would need more energy to accidentaly tilt the weapon mid swing, leading to better edge alignment when under stress/being untrained.
Modern accounts of guerillas using scimitars on foot against soldiers would indicate that half-swording a heavily curved long blade and maneuvering it very close to the body could be a more effective use of these weapons than trying to swing it at arm's length like you would a military saber.
In the German longsword systems, thrusts are generally thrown from Von Tag, which is a shoulder guard. The most basic attack is done by cutting into the center and then stepping forward to thrust your opponent in the face. The cut into line protects you from the sorts of responses bad fencers will throw at you, and also makes it easy to transition into a cutting attack if you misjudge the distance. The step forward into the thrust gives you better reach. This attack, the Oberhau, is executed similarly to the example Shad shows at 10:30 or so. It's as effective as any first-intention action. I have a lot of fun plugging newer fencers in the face with it, and it's an excellent set-up for more complicated actions against more experienced fencers. It can also be done as a defense, which is called a Zornhau, which is pretty effective against most actions from the shoulder.
I know this is a very old video and I think it is great I have a question. Would thrusts allow assailants to continue fighting verses the cuts ability to incapacitate a enemy? I ask this because of the reaction I have seen when people are shot in a fight with hand guns. I have seen people shot upwards of 9 times and still fighting. So thinking of damage to a person bullets create a wound channel along with concussive force rupturing the surrounding area. The thrust would cause a wound channel like the bullet minus the kinetic and concussive force. The shock of taking a limb or large open wound from a devastating cut would seem to overwhelm the enemy. I could be way off. Thank you so much for the video!
Shad, your new video on Falchions disproves the point about super-cutting blades: the arming jacket, or gambeson/aketon, or simply padding would not stop the falchion, but a lonsword they would
Cavalry, or any swift horse riding units used sabers, as while riding you can hardly stab someone and cannot afford that the sword might get stuck in the body, you have just stabbed. Slicing while riding has the advantage that you can kill your enemy easily with out the sword getting stucked and go right tot he next kill. Also as a one-hander, saber/scimitars are lighter and easier to handle.
Yeah I can think of a reason why you would want to chop limbs off instead of just doing enough to kill: shock value. If you're fighting and you see someone next to you get their whole arm or head sliced off, it'll cause a different reaction than just seeing them basically get hit with the sword and falling down still in tact. Intimidation, psychological manipulation and morale are important factors in battle too.
A curved sword also has the advantage of being harder to block since it can bend into and behind the defenders weapon during a parry. The thrust could then be turned into a cut when an unexperienced defender blocks or parry the sword away. Twisting a curved sword allows the attacker to also chose between vertical, horizontal or any range of diagonal during a parried trust.
from what I've seen from the Cossacks (I LOOOOVE the cossacks) their sabers were built to be able to quickly switch from blade-top to reverse dagger grip using one hand, so as to stab when you have your foe on the ground, can you confirm?
In Kali, the Filipino martial art I study, the cut is king. I've done a lot of practice bouts in sword fighting, and the thrust is not overly difficult to defend against, I actually look for it. The problem with the thrust is that you have to move towards the opponent to effectively stab them with enough force and all I need to do is slightly redirect the tip to make my opponent's sword a liability instead of an obstacle. If my sword cut is blocked, momentum allows me more flexibility in moving sideways, and backwards if i mess up horribly, if I miss a thrust, I have to completely stop and reverse my momentum. I can still do damage with cutting while close and not just blunt trauma. I can slice legs, arms, gut or neck as I pass my opponent instead of needing to retreat. Not that the thrust isn't useful, I just prefer cutting.
Once in the past, when I was analyzing this, I went from the rapier to something like the schiavona, or the A&A Gustav Vasa Rapier or Town Guard Sword, which guards the hand, has the rapier length and thrust, but also has a cutting edge to some extent.
Thrusts also have a comparative advantage to cuts in that they are a direct movement toward the target and thus are completed much more quickly. All you do is close the gap between the point of your weapon and your target on a straight line, it's the shortest path of movement possible. A cut can literally only be quicker than a thrust if you are already in position to start the cut, that's where your point about telegraphing comes in. You can thrust the point of your weapon toward your target from essentially any guard position, whereas to throw any specific cut you have to first be in the corresponding position. This is why sword vs. sword combat evolved into rapiers/sabres heavily focused on thrusts, they are the most efficient way to strike with a swordlike weapon.
Sorry for being late to the party. Some thoughts: 1st: As mentioned already, it might be worth consindering whether you fight mounted or on foot. Mounted, you only have a small window of opportunity to land a hit, but thrusting might need more time to aim and look for an opening. Furthermore, I would guess that after a mounted thrust, my blade has a higher chance to stick in the body, getting ripped from my hand and leaving me "toothless". From medieval imagery it seems to me that knight on horse, when using a sword, preferred a cutting attack. And many curved blades I know of are especially cavalry weapons. Some others are designed to attack e.g. the legs of horses in an explicit anti cavalry fashion - something where a thrust wouldn't work well. 2nd: Thrusts sure can be deadly, but a thrust comes in a linear way, the "danger zone" is a straight line. As soon as I can evade that line (or redirect it), I am good. A slashing/cutting attack has the whole plane as danger zone. The movement may be more elaborate and thus slower than a thrust, but that might be a small price to pay. 3rd: Depending on the armour (or lack thereof), a slashing weapon might cause more damage. A thrust might go deep, but the wound is linear. There are parts of our body where such a hit will hurt as hell and maybe kill you in the long run, but the damage is rather local, leaving you in the fight for now. A cutting/slashing weapon could cause damage on a larger area. Not being a specialist on medieval times I am more interested in ancient times, and from my reading, the romphaia was a rather feared weapon that caused rather nasty damage. On the other hand I would expect cutting weapons to be less effective against heavy metal armour. Here it might be better to precisely aim for the weak spots instead of wasting the blade by running it over a thick sheet of metal. Just some thoughts (^_^)
I agree 100% with Shadervisity, infact this theory I always had in my mind, but since I have no CZcams channel I never could share that thought. It feels good to find someone who exactly explains what I actually always thought to be the case.
I know that this is an older video but a lot of people never seem to want to mention body physics when they talk about the effectiveness of armor. “Not directed you! Btw”. But I’ve heard people make comments like “the katana would just rip right through leather or gambison blah blah.” Or “a mace would kill you even through plate.” It’s like people don’t lend a thought to the fact that a person is also moving, and blocking, and energy gets wasted, redirected, etc.. if a person was up against a wall and you hit them dead on, with perfect edge alignment, and enough force then sure, I think a good cutting weapon could bite into leather to an extent. But humans being non stationary targets makes a lot of that force get wasted or redirected. I’d like to hear that brought up more often in discussion.
Hi I live in Uruguay. That's in southern South America. We didn't have a medieval age and we went straight to the age of Mercantilism, but it was Spanish Bourbonic Mercantilism which means outside of the army there's a huge difference between the technology in mainland Spain compared to the technology this side of the Atlantic and the main force in Latin America during this times were the militias. So the sword was very prominent from mid 1600's to even 100 years after the Independence in 1904. The reason why cutting swords were so popular back in the day was not so much for functionality during battle but AFTER battles. It was psychological. You see, there was something called ''la parte''(read it as ''the recquired kills'') which is a term that's applied to a specific and mandatory number of enemies dead bodies scattered through the fields to detter the enemies from another conflict, this enemies were not taken prissioners but killed (decapitated) after the battle. Think of it as an alternative of the the Vlad the Impaler method to deter enemies from attacking his kingdom. Also, after the fall of the Spanish Empire the government was technically rebuilding itself based on alliances and there was a lot of backstabbing for power as well so it was also a very efficient parctice to infuse loyalty in your own troops. I'd assume that my ancestors didn't invent this so I think it would be a practice common in all the former Spanish Empire.
So i think there are some points, that not mentioned yet in the discussion: Construction: The most good cutters are curved blades and curved blades have more differences to straight blades then the cutting power. Many of them are very Tip heavy , but don't feel tipheavy like a straight blade. Because of that many types of sabres have no Pommel (the Falchion has a Pommel i know). They have hooks and little shields to prevent slipping of (The Katana has a verry ruff gripp). Because of the tipheavyness, it has the same force like a straight sword but lighter (by the same forcelevel) because it has not so mutch weight on the hilt. At the same time they are very nimble at very close attacks, and get power in low space moments from their tipheavyness. The other point is swordalignment. The curved blade hit with a very small line of the edge. Its like a ball fall on the ground, only a little piece touch the ground. A straight blade is more like a board that hit the ground with the small side. Thats ab bigger area, and so the force are not so much concentrated. I trained much with many types of swords and i use not much armor. its very complicated to hit with a DULL sabre in a way that it dosnt hurt. Straight blades are very ok and only i and other advanced members of my club use sabers because we have learned the "nice" way to handle it. But in the hands of a newbie...its dangerous, the same by the spear. The combat-reach isnt so important like a straight blade. Sure you make more damage by the perfect distance, but in close fights (Dagger range) it still hurts a lot. You dont need so much training to "hurt enough" the same like spears and clubs. But, and that is the Thing because i like Straight blades or slightly curved blades more: Binding is very dificult. You can't stop the blade of an enemy with a very curved blade, you have to hit it away or you let the sword of thy opponent slide to the side. Ah... but one point more, blades and also spears in the thrust can be grabbed, and they can be grabbed in the binding. Curved blades binding is verry rare, also thrust and no one want to grabb a swinging blade. Expirences like that could make a difference in some cultures to prefer the curved blade, but other arguments like chavalry, stuck-prevent and other are also true. In my opinion, the sabre and also other more cut-likley-swords need not so much training to be effektiv (my own expirence) its like the spear, easy to learn hard to master. And because you have to hit other blades instead of easy blocking (specialy by strong curved versions) your fighting stile is more aggressive. every weapon has its stiles and cuttingpower is only a part of argument for a sword. I like shortswords with leafblades and macheteforms like the copis. You have a curve for the tiny-edge-space-hitting, a straight blade for trust and binding, and the very low lever-effekt on short blades gives me a great advantage in bindings and they are very nimble. but sometimes...these swords are not long enough^^. Nothing is perfect.
One thing to take into account is not only the first cut, but also the follow up move. With a long sword, it is much harder to keep cutting through someone's defence then it is with a one handed Polish sabre.
Is there a video that explains which medieval long sword that has similar design (in cutting edge) features and performance of the katana? I’ve seen a Scottish medieval sword compete alongside dedicated choppers and cutters, but I’m wondering what the two edged design would look like if you wanted to compete with the katana.
I think out of all the specialized cutting swords, the katana is probably more practical, because although it's stabbing ability isn't as good, you can still largely be able to use the thrusting technique with the katana that you would do with most other two-handed swords that gave you the option of thrusting at your opponent, because they didn't sacrifice *all* of its thrusting ability to make it a cutting sword. It's probably the closest to the longsword of Europe than the other specialized cutting swords, because you can definitely stab someone with a katana, and there are techniques you can learn that involve stabbing with the katana, whereas with the scimitar or Sabre, there is barely any room for a traditional stabbing technique and you'd have to hold the sword at a very sharp angle to thrust, or with a very thick sword like the Grosse Messer, the fathead makes it more difficult to thrust, even though it does have a point, and if you had the opportunity of course try to thrust with it, but unless you're aiming for a soft or large open Target, it would be more easy to catch on bone and clothing or armor.
i do agree with most of the points you made, but CONSIDER THIS! If you swing a sword into someone's limb or gut and it does not go all the way thru them, well now your sword is probably stuck in the rather macabre trap that is their partially disemboweled body. and now there very likely will be a few moments you have to spend trying to remove your sword from them whilst more enemies may be closing in on you. whereas if your cut goes all the way through them, you don't have that trouble. you can get right into the next fight without the aforementioned delay.
Remember, after 1600-1650 armour came to be less and less used with heavy cavalry being the last to discard it. At the same time, curved specialized cutting swords starting showing up in Western Europe, e.g., the Polish/Hungarian Szabla. The torso and often head was still well protected but the arms were quite vulnerable and the face usually exposed. A specialized cutter like the szabla could, with a fairly small wrist and forearm movement, do horrible damage to limbs.
I agree with those points Shad. If one were to make the comparison between sword fighting and mixed martial arts, they might find that fighter's who are too specialized in grappling are highly susceptible to striking attacks and vice versa. Likewise, an unarmoured dual between someone with a saber or rapier and another with balanced longsword would likely result in a similar outcome to pro boxer going against a UFC fighter in an MMA match. Or, if you could isolate the effectiveness of swords to just there own physical properties and chart that on a line graph, you'd find that cutting and thrusting have a linear relationship.
The sword on the far right in the thumbnail- i have the same one, ot a cheap replica of it. Is it a wall hanger? Ive also got a sword of arwen, its a bit heavy. But the only sharp sword i have is balanced, yet the handle is clearly cheap and you can hear the steel knocking around. Would that be a real fake sword or a real fake sword?
The curve of a saber specifically a cavalry saber was not only for the cut it was also for a curved blade being less likely to stick into what was struck. There is a difference between cutting and chopping. To cut a piece of meat with a knife you drag across it, or you use a cleaver to chop. I think in the video cut and chop are often lumped together and need to be looked at completely separately.
Also one point: During the age of sails (high phase of the british empire etc) a cutting weapon was also a favorite. Sabers etc .. if you fight in close range you might not have the space for trusts etc. And less training, just slash and hack.
A possibility that I considered is in the context of a battlefield, a sword that can sever limbs and heads cause more fear among the ranks, it's one thing to witness someone getting a cut to the arm or impaled, however in the event that you witness someone's arm or head be cut off your going to be scared and horrified out of your bloody mind, which can cause panic, this is further supported due to the fact that in Europe, the duelling weapons were often strait thin swords completely meant for thrusting while many military swords were Sabres.
sorry for late reply, but during the whole clip I had to think: Is this the same for fight zombies or other foes where you Need to cut off limbs/heads?
This is such a weird comments section, I think it is the only one I have seen (of this length) where every comment seems to be polite and well-considered. And it is about how best to kill people. Cause or Consequence? I don't even know how to tell.
i think that too, and its a pretty good comunity, but its sightly terrofing, btw i dont speak english but it catches the idea
I believe it is due to how old the topic is and its irrelevance to current power struggles, we're talking about a solution from hundreds of years ago for a problem that is as old as humanity and continues to this day with more effective solutions available.
It is a good community here. I also think it is because our host here, Shad, is so educated, but at the same time he has the humility to say "Let's discuss this. What do you think? Leave me a comment."
Well, the discussion about the efectiveness of weapons in history like swords seems like a topic that polite and educated people would talk about, and if we take in consideration the fact that this could help to people that like Fantasy, or that like to Write fantasy, then I don't see anything weird.
Welcome to the inscrutable art of the blade...
I would wager that specialized cutting swords are also more forgiving in the cut. In the sense that it is far less difficult to give an effective cut and far less likely to give an uneffective cut. Meaning that even if the strongest level of preformance is overkill, the average level of performance is still above non-cutting swords.
Three years later just now watching this video,but this is the same thought I had.
Shad kept talking about how a cutting sword at full swing might cut all the way through while a long sword at full swing might only go part of the way through but the person still dies. My counter was what about less than full swing? A cutting sword could cut to the same depth as a long sword with FAR less effort!
Shad was just wrong.
He visualized sword combat as if it was a fight of only 100% perfect hits and complete deflects. Much more common were the "half-successful hits", where weapons clashed to an extent, lost momentum but it still managed to hit the target, and in those cases the extra cutting capacity absolutely came into play and wasn't just a "pointless overkill".
There is a reason why curved /cutting oriented swords heavily dominated the whole world despite the straight sword's much more simple and obvious design of being more balanced in cutting and thrusting. There is a reason why even 19th century brittish swords were typically curved/cutting oriented instead of short/longsword design or even rapiers.
A successful deep cut bleeds out the opponent much faster than a thrust or a shallow cut. You undervalue (or overlook) the importance of "the time to make a target lose consciousness on the battlefield". It wasn't enough to just "eventually kill the target" on the battlefield,, you had to make a close range target lose consciousness as fast as possible to stop them from being a constant threat to others. It's a big reason why rapiers were not that popular in the actual battlefield, and were mainly used as self defense weapons for situations where you aren't technically in a "hurry to kill the target".
I've been reading Swordsmen of the British empire and there are whole sections dedicated to this exact point. British soldiers in India had a lot of so called 'balanced' swords which in fact were quite bad at cutting. Kinsley stresses the importance of the hard, difficult to sharpen metal used to make the swords and the metal scabbards which were known to blunt the edges, which are factors that may not have been at play to the same extent in the medieval period. Nevertheless, British soldiers often expressed complete lack of confidence in their swords, and in at least one instance decided to run away rather than fight the Tulwar armed Indians because they didn't think their swords would work.
@@noodleknight7924 I agree with what you’ve said, except for the part where a deep cut bleeds out quicker than a thrust. There are many examples of people dying near instantly from being ran through, usually through the heart. Thrusts have a greater chance of hitting a vital organ more than a cut does of hitting a major artery.
@@beardedbjorn5520 That mostly depends on where the trust ends. Namely, wounds to legs and arms were very common. And a thrust through the leg does deal a lot less damage than a gash.
You see. A battlefield is not a surgeon's table. Overkill is not a waste of cutting capacity but it's a weapon in itself: terror. Sure a battle with people dying and being wounded is bad enough, but with limbs flying, heads rolling and blood splatting everywhere? That's mental warfare!! Also, if you cut an arm or neck to the bone, there is a good chance your sword might bet stuck there, a specialized cutting weapon will clear itself out by removing the limbs and be ready for the next engagement, or to parry another opponent.
exactly my thoughts! Most battles even in historic ages are won by routing the opposing army, and what better way to do this than invoke complete terror on them :).
Sander vd Donk That's why the MG42 was so effective, it wasn't the damage it dealth or the casualty rates, but the terryfing sounds and rate of fire and bullets flying all around you. In reality it was a huge waste of ammunition, but it payed off by immobilizing the enemy.
Overkill is all good until it impedes other functions. THe MG42 ate up too much ammo and forced the squad to center around it. That's why most other powers have not copied it after ww2.
and that's why people use axes, not kitchen knives.
The problem is that if it fails to be effective it fails to be scary.
Humanity's greatest invention, a pointy end on a stick. We call it the "stab-farther".
1. Better performance against soft armors like gambesons
2. Increasing the percussive damage of a sword (some of thrand's videos show how even without bypassing the armor, bones can be shattered by sword strikes)
3. Reduces the chance of getting a cut stuck in an opponents body
4. Intimidation
5. A thrust to non vital areas may be not that lethal, a gigantic gash is.
6. For group fighting is not only about keeping the enemy at bay, theres also the fact that when you thrust someone you have to remove your sword from their body before being able to engage anyone else. Cuts attack and "remove the sword from the opponents body" in one motion (well to be fair, this isnt always the case..)
7. under stress people revert to more primal and animalistic movements. We naturally favour the cuts over thrust in this situations.
8. I know that you mentioned "chopping your way through the jungle" as a joke but swords like the messer and cutlass were also used as tools.
9. Not only cutting swords make better cavalry weapons but are also good as anti-cavalry weapons (big, two-handed cutting swords) . To stop a horse with a "thrust" you would need a pike.
10. Lets face it... Cuts are just way cooler ;)
+Sir Galahad A few disagreements: 1. How do you know that a cut is more able to penetrate a gambeson than a thrust? 2. A long sword could potentially hit with every bit as much force as a shorter cutting sword; That said, against plate armor you reeeeally want a long pointy blade to get in between the plates. If you want percussion damage, strike with the pommel or use a polearm. For 3., 4., and 5.; I recall hearing and seeing accounts of the Spanish massacre of the Aztecs as described by the Aztecs themselves: Even though the average conquistador had a 3 foot straight thrusting sword, it was evidently very common for the Spanish to sever an arm, a head, and to even take parts of torso along with it. 7. That's the reason solders practiced their art religiously; it's the same with martial artists (I am one). Basically, you practice the movements over and over and over until they become instinctive. As a result, when practitioners become suddenly involved in a life or death situation, they will instinctively do as they were trained to do without thought. I don't know where this rumor started that people will revert to flailing cavemen on the battlefield, but it needs to die. 9. Again with the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, lances were used to great effect. The best anti-cavalry weapons were pikes (as you mentioned), and no sword of any type was going to allow infantry to deal with cavalry baring down on them. But if you want to play this card anyway, certainly many horseman have been cut down by swords that were long enough to reach them, and it's easier to get longer reach out of a straight double edged long sword.
*****
1. it isnt, but thats irrelevant as i was comparing a cut from a hilt heavy sword vs a specialized cutter 2. again irrelevant as the comparison in question is not between leverage and weight. 3.4.5. sorry, ill will skip this one 7. not a myth, im also a martial artist, so? 9. Pikes are irrelevant in a comparison between different sword characteristics...
Sir Galahad
1. So, you're basically saying “a specialized cutter is better at cutting”. Ok... I know this. What you have to show is that there is an overall advantage against gambesons with cutters vs. thrusters. If the cut can penetrate better than a thrust, then obviously we'd want to go with cutters. However, if it's the other way around, or if they are about the same, then you'd want a sword that's more versatile (i.e. a sword that can both cut and thrust).
2. Cutters tend to have the balance point out further to the tip to get a stronger blow, and thus transfers more weight of the sword to the target (increasing the percussive damage). The fact that you can do the same damage or better with a long sword by hitting with the back end is perfectly relevant. Again, against armor, (unless it's light armor like a gambeson, then we go back to point 1.) you really do not want a cutter. What you want is a war hammer or polearm, and/or a straight pointy stabber. Heavy armor drastically reduces the usefulness of cutters.
7. I guess we'll agree to disagree unless you can give me some proof.
9. Cavalry did tend to carry cutters rather than thrusters, but what I'm trying to say is that there were alternatives to swords that people were using by the middle ages more often than swords in general. This lessens the value of a sword on horseback, which lessens the value of cutters since they were largely used by cavalry. Yes, if I were in the late middle ages and had me a nice war horse, I'd still have a saber or something like that for backup. So your point is certainly valid, but what I'm arguing is the extent to which it matters. Also, Shad is basically just talking about infantry here.
+WhatIsMisophonia Give up you're wrong on many aspects be objective instead of being a fanboy.
Any actual arguments rather than the unfounded assertion that "...you're wrong on many aspects..." and assumptions about my character/motivations? I'm not a fan boy of any particular sword just so you know. I own a katana and practiced Iaido, but I've also always had a fascination with ancient weapons in general.Regalya
WOW, the great discussion and comments here are phenomenal! So phenomenal in fact that I just can reply to you all (Damn my limited time!). Not to worry, I certainly read all your comments and seriously consider everyone's feedback.
So I'll make a follow up video addressing the more common ideas and replies, and those comments that particularly stood out to me ^_^
+I am Shad Good video. However rapier is able to cut skin, muscle and tendons.
I think one thing needs to be brought up, it not about needing superb cutting sword, but why certain cultures seemed to like them. My kind ramble trying to answer it:
In case of Messer: Germans could cut each other. But stabbing was BIG no-no. Legally speaking. They could thrust foreigners whom they engaged them in war. It is pretty common thing in civilian context where you have to be aware of legal system. Thrusts are not favored as they tend to put people in their early graves and legal systems might be pretty strict about punishing heavily from manslaugther from thrust (dunno how it went down in Germany). You do not kill a man for sleeping with your wife or stealing your purse... Or do you?
This then affected fencing system they had/developed:
Italians and many others started to favor dueling swords because of "flourishing" dueling culture, which changed fencing culture of theirs into certain ways, rule of "first blood" having big effect in cuts to face and so on. While Germans sportified their fencing traditions. If you want to find really hard core practical fighting arts you have to dig into earlier eras than renaissance, Fiore and Liechetenauer for example present pretty BS-free fencing systems if you just want to cause maximal damage to enemy without worrying (too much) what legal system thinks about it.
And this again had effects on bigger scale:
I have heard of accounts which says that landknecht were not thrusting in event of war against foreigners either because of saying: "you fight as you train". And german fencing schools and traditions at times of Kriegsmesser were heavily cutting oriented. Even relatively modern german bastard swords and like do have broad cutting oriented blade when others had adopted much more thrusting oriented blades.
And so on. I seen examples of how you then justify superiority of cuts over thrusts because these and these persons did favor cut. When they actually cut for reasons mentioned above, not because it was more effective in killing disabling opponent. More so with knifes and what is supposedly effective fighting knife. When reasons originally were almost opposite, cutting knifes with short blades do not tend to kill (and send you into jail for a long haul).
So with cutting i can see sort of "vicious" cycle reinforcing itself. Same can be stretched into thrusts as well, i think. I made comment elsewhere in this video about sword deisgns during Napoleonic war, there brits went for super cutters with pooor ability to thrust while french went for super thrusters ignoring cuts almost totally. After dust had settled both came back from their extremes into more compromised sword designs able to both cut and thrust. which is how it remained pretty much to end of era of swords.
+Second247 There were different typed of rapiers and the military ones definitely could cut. the civilian ones too but not to the same effect I believe
+I am Shad I believe that an massive advantage of a cut is the stopping power. In fight you dont want just kill the oponent. You want to stop his advance. You can impale someone charging at you with your sword but that will not stop him from going all the way up to your hilt just with his momentum practically disarming you and striking you down with hos blow. Even is he dies afterwards he takes you with him.
+I am Shad I do not know for other swords, but katana is made in this way to cut tru person you keep on fighting. No return back with blad just keep on cuting. I like all the swords in the world but it seems to me that you're thinking about katana with viuw from the philosophy of the European sword fighting. These are two completely different philosophies. Sabers are totally different story, you can kill a man but have been created to cope serious injury The philosophy of the saber is like this A man was seriously injured, require two people to take care of him. These two people are not fighting until they do not get injured to safety A good example is the battle of Waterloo. French cavalry was using trusting swords, English cavalry was using sabers. French cavalry in the attack leaving dead english soldiers. The English cavalry is leaving many severely wounded French soldiers . These wounded with severe cuts were huge burden Napoleon's army. They were as dead in this battle are just wasting resources and time for Napoleon's army. This is why many of Napoleon's maneuvers were late. His soldiers instead of fighting drew many of the wounded from the battlefield.
I dont Think western and Eastern swordfighting philophosies are that different. In that case then why is katana fencing so similar to longsword fencing? As stated Before by other commentprs, straight swords are good at cutting. A straight sword also gives Cuts that require other people to take care of your wounds.
You mention overkill, but neglect a few points...
First of all, there's confirming the kill. The advantage that your 'overkill' has is that you are absolutely sure that a target is unable to resume fighting, usually because you can see his head flying off of his torso. If you deliver a cut that may kill, you would have to wait several seconds to confirm that the target is indeed dying/dead. Secondly there's the amount of effort required to produce a killing strike, when your sword does half the work for you, getting a deadly cut in is going to be far easier.
Then you mentioned that stabbing requires action from the defender, this is correct. But it is common doctrine that a swordsman attacks and defends at the same time. So while he is required to use his tempo to deflect a stab, he is gaining a tempo, or even a deadly tempo because he's attacking at the same time. Then there's the guards where stabs can be made from... while cuts are telegraphed in their guards (1 guard has 1 direct attack and one indirect attack, everything else constitutes a guard change), thrusting is no different as they all require the sword to be pointing forward. The thing with the sword pointing forward is of course that the opponent gets a free binding which he can then use one of the master hews from to gain a (deadly) tempo.
Hes trying to show that long sword is good but i think the other blade are far more better
There is one situation that comes to mind where thrusting is counterproductive. Fighting on horseback.
The main reason for this being balance. Attempting to thrust while riding a horse is not only difficult (you can only use one hand, as the other is on the reigns) but dangerous. If your blade is grabbed by a man on the ground, they can easily rip it from your hands or simply pull you from your horse.
The real benefit of horsemen comes from their mobility. Being able to ride past another person, while still being able to deliver a fatal blow, and keep on going, without having to pull your weapon out of them.
This is why sabres became the go-to weapon for horsemen from their inception, all the way to when horsemen were rendered obsolete by Armoured Fighting Vehicles.
There were examples of swords more specialized for thrusting used on horseback. Many early 19th century cavalry sabres were actually specialized in the thrust. The koncerz estoc of eastern europe had a triangular cross-section and had NO cutting capacity, but was used as a cavalry sword; by the Polish Hussars, even.
Cut vs. Thrust was debated about by GENERATIONS of cavalrymen, and superiority was never really determined.
Then WWI made the whole question irrelevant.
Though, the swords in vogue in the British army at the very end of the debate were extremely thrust-centric.
For the record, you need a specialized technique for thrusting with a sword on horseback, to mitigate the problems pointed out by Nastrael above. I believe Matt Easton, over on Schola Gladiatoria, has talked about that in relation to the British Pattern 1908 cavalry sword, at some length.
Thomas Ueland Torp
Yes, he has! Good video, I recommend it to anyone else following this.
And I'd add that the swords in vogue in U.S. service at that time were also exclusively thrusters.
AnimeSunglasses Well of course it was. Colonies usually do follow their colonial masters.
Joking aside, you are, of course, right. The Model 1913 "Patton" saber is remarkably similar to the Pattern 1908, though not actually directly inspired by it..
I think you might be overlooking the sword in cavalry application Shad. One of the reasons they used sabers, which is identified as a cutting weapon, is because a thrust is more likely to get stuck in the target. Since you're expected to primarily slash when on horseback why not use a weapon specialized for that purpose.
I don't see why you would require a sword, simply carry a bag or pouch pilled to the brim with pommels. Imagine the sheer number of rightly ended opponents, the results would be devastating.
I like a quarterstaff (effectively a lengthened pommel) and a mace (a pommel on a stick).
Catapults where merely pommel launchers. Even today, modern guns fire small pommels shrunk down for added speed.
Ahhhh, but without the rest of the sword, could you start them rightly?
I love this thread.
You are a fan of the Angry Marines arnt you?
I think it's connected to the armor people were wearing, e.g. in india turbans and baggy clothes was worn, a lot of flexible fabric that would be cabable of stopping the blade of a straight sword from going deep, but the extreme curvature of talwar is less likely to get stuck in the layers of fabric, because the point of the sword is pretty much out of the way and you can make really long cutting motions without your tip of your sword getting entangled in the cloth, similar thing with padded armor/gambeson in europe in connection with falchion/messer, great cutters for a better chance to cut through the thick wool padding
Exactly my thoughts. This guy made the mistake of assuming every battlefield to be the same.
Wouldn't an Indian tulwar-user also have chain-mail? I remember seeing a video in which the swordsman was holding a tulwar in one hand and a stabbing-dagger in the other hand, along with the buckler, for bursting the rings of chain-mail.
Admiralmeriweather First and foremost, in almost all battlefields, whether Europe, India or Japan, the mass used weapon was the spear or any other polearm.
Plus, in India, even since ancient times, there has been a widespread practice of using clubs and maces, called "gadaaas" in Hindu literature.
Admiralmeriweather not all warriors wore chainmail, known as sanjoh. It was extremely expensive and only worn by nobility mostly
Gaurab Chatterjee are you a practitioner of the vidhya?
cutting clean through has one advantage in my mind: recovery. say you had a sword that can cut to the bone. that's great, but in combat your cut is sloppy enough that it embeds in their bone and you can't quickly remove it. your immediate battle would be over, I'm sure, but in any situation with more than one enemy it becomes essential to retrieve your weapon. this also applies to horseback battle, scimitars are shaped to have cutting potential far beyond what is necessary, but in the heat of the moment, on a moving horse, you don't have time to stop and wrench your blade out of the victim you've just hacked at.
You are making an interesting point there. I feel like if you need a weapon for self defense as say a charackter from your average RPG, that crawls through dungeons, fights indoors, outdoors, on the battlefield, from a horseback ect. you might need a generaly good one fits all weapon, that you can also carry around easiely. BUT: Some swords, in fact quite a lot of them, are designed in a very specialized way, because you only use them in a specialized way. For example the roman gladius, which is a very specialized thruster. Now it has scary sharp edges on either side, so you can cut with it but the very close-to-guard point of balance and pronounced point make for an excellent (while rather short ranged) thruster. Why do that? why limit the range of the person using it and take so much weight away from the point? And most importantly, why not add an extensive handguard, or at least a crossguard. Where the romans not concerned with their own safety? Of course they were, but other factors can make up for what the sword is lacking. In fact you only use the weapon to thrust at short range with it, so it might as well be absolutely overdesigned to do only that.
Let's ask who was using it. The answer to that is of course a roman legionare. What does almost every legionare do for at least half his life? Working on a field. Roman legionares were usually not using that sword at any time, other then on the battlefield, or training for exactly that. So most of the time they dont even need a sword, and the sword can be awesome at being a battlefield weapon, while it aboslutely does not matter how it would perform in a one on one unarmored situation.
Now, let's ask what a battlefield situation would require a roman legionare to do. As a roman legionare, you have a big ass shield. Because the solidiers aren't exactly experts in what they do, it's essential that the protection is very large. You can sink the lower end of your shield into muddy ground and push against it and you are rather safe, because men to your left and right are doing the same thing. Of course you are never truly safe, peaple to your left and right are dyin, those in front of you are trying to kill you, so you are always in danger, but a formation like this is really hard to break, even if the defenders are not very skilled so we can call it battlefield-safe, with the understanding that a thing such as safety really doesn't exist on the battlefield. Now with that being said, just defending is not gonna cut it(or thrust it in this case). If you are using so much energy for your defense and space is limited, your only attack option is a quick thrust over your shield or through the (ideally) small gap between you and the next legionare in line. It would be very hard, to get enough space to actually do a full swing for a decent cut. Also thrusting (especially with a short sword) is easier to learn. No need to worry about edge alignment, just "stick 'em with the pointy end" and you'll get the job done. This also means, that your hand is only going to be exposed for a brief moment, and only for attacking. (almost) Never predictable, because the shield blocks sight and (almost) never for defense, because it is so huge that you can fit your whole body behind it. Why add the weight of a cross, or knuckleguard then? well, you don't. Now, if you are done stabbing a few times, the roman formation will have you move back, so you dont get yourself killed and the next line takes the lead for a while. In that situation a bulky weapon is very unpractical.
Same goes for super cutting weapons. Sabres for example where often used by the cavallery, where the weapon is already in a fast motion, so you just need to hold it out and you'll cut like a champ. On the other side, thrusting might be terrible, bacause if the weapon gets stuck, it's lost for good and your horse will not go pick it up for you. Being a bad thruster is actually beneficial for a cavallerist.
Maaaaan that took way to many words. But people say that about your videos, so I think you'll understand. Also on a sidenote, I am still studying history, not done yet so let me know if I got things horribly wrong. Not to late to fix my knowledge. (hopefully)
+tharrock337 Oh I understand alright. thanks heaps for all the thoughts mate!
+tharrock337 Great Post!! I just wanted to mention that when stabbing, crossguards/knuckleguards can get snag on the rim of your shield or your ally's shield. That's why the gladius doesn't have guards.
I heard that from somewhere.... but I can't recall at the moment. It might've been Skallgrim's channel.
Merciful One
Thanks. Lets say it's another reason. Being bulky when changing lines and unecessary weight because of your shield are also valid points.
Actually gladii doesn't have crossguards due to one simple reason. It was never used without a shield and when you have a shield to protect you, you don't need extra hand protection. Hand protection started developing in Europe when shields were changing to strap-ons instead of boss held. Now with strap-on shields you can have a generally bigger and more protective shield BUT it's not going to be mobile, so you want some protection on the hand.
When shields and armour went out of favor (and with specialized civilian swords) we see more complex hand protection appearing until we get to schiavonas, which later influenced completely closed hilts without gaps (schiavona hilts are made this way because of balance reasons and besides that it looks great)
In the rpg you mentioned, we sometimes visit towns, taverns, brothels, bazaars and homes. So I lean pretty hard towards a Spaffslinger like Lindybeige made. Just with a Rapier or Sidesword at the hip, something light and small compared to the long spear I've got.
Cutting swords can lower enemy morale.
It can take someone an hour or more to die from a thrust. You bleed a lot at first, but that slows down. The pain of a thrust is not really that debilitating, either. Enemies don't just keel over if they have a mortal wound.
Strange Person Cutting swords can't do anything vs chain mail or plate armour.
Yeah, I think if you cut someone’s limb off if you’ve got the right sword, that would almost definitely lower the moral of your other enemies.
How
Really?
Perhaps the cutting of complete limbs and beheading is preferable to bleeding wounds. Imagine. You cut off your opponent's arms. They are now disarmed. You no longer need to pay them any attention due to their lack of arms.
Now, if you slash an artery in their arms, they will bleed out, but still pose a significant threat because a loss of blood does not equate to lack of threat. They can still kill you before dying themselves. Sometimes wounds don't kill a person until hours later.
Also, wounds can be patched. Limbs cannot be reattached.
+Belle La Victorie "You cut off your opponent's arms. They are now disarmed." hahaha
Belle La Victorie If you lop off a leg, are they defeated?
'tis but a flesh wound, they can continue to kick you.
With regards to cavalry- perhaps they simply don't use thrusts often enough for it to be worth keeping the balance when they could simply make a sword which is better at cutting?
They do use thrusts, although it takes a specific technique to do so without having your sword yanked out of your hand. There was a long-running (over 200 years) debate among cavalry officers about which was superior, the cut or the thrust. It went back and forth, and the Thrust faction was on the ascendancy when WWI suddenly proved that cavalry would not be using swords much anymore.
AnimeSunglasses Where'd you read that?
Lots of places... Look up the Model 1913 Cavalry Saber to hear one side of the debate, and look up anything on the evolution of sabers to hear the whole mess...
There were arguments that the point was more deadly; arguments that was, so to speak, besides the point; arguments that a more lethal stab wasn't worth the very real risk of a trooper losing their saber in the process... AND this is all overlapping with a debate about how curved the saber should be.
And to muddy the waters further, not all militaries sharpened their sabers beyond the manufactured edge! This was apparently particularly true in the U.S. Civil War, where an overwhelming majority of swords were never introduced to a whetstone after delivery from their maker. This meant that, indeed, they often could not cut through heavy fabric..
Schola Gladitoria has at least one video on the issue, if you want to start there...
AnimeSunglasses I would say its indeed a problem with weight, balance and momentum. (I only have experience with Napoleonic weaponry though.) Thrusting with a 3 kg sword will propably get you out of balance, and just cutting with it will still kill your enemy
Niklas Gosink
Yep.
IF it penetrates... in the Crimean War, there are accounts of Allied sabers failing to cut through thick Russian greatcoats. Again, questions of sharpening have arisen, I don't know if they're supported or not. And this was certainly an example that the Thrust camp used to argue their point.
That's funny. Common historically used argument in favour of thrust (from Vegetius to Victorian times) was that in practice even very nasty-looking cutting wounds turned out to be superficial and not deadly. So perhaps you need that "overkill" to be effective cutter in real battle
+fizikshizik Agreed. There are acounts that during the Crimean war, the Russian winter uniforms were so bulky that they were virtually slash-proof from British sabres. And the curved sabre is a very cut-heavy weapon.
+Tim Birch The British sabres that had so much trouble during the Crimean war tended to be much lighter "pipe-backed"style swords I believe, which have a fairly thin blade backed with a great thick cylindrical rod on the back edge. It's that which made it very bad as a cutting weapon,. The older style sabres like the light and heavy 1796 models would've made much easier work of the Russian great coats.
And don't forget that russian winter coats stopped musketballs with regular frequency.
A good account of this was in the Afghan war where the British surgeons dealt with so many wounds from cuts that they had a very high survival rate. The Afghans were mainly using the “Khyber knife”. The British surgeons were thankful that they didn’t thrust with them, other wise it would have been a nightmare.
+fizikshizik I'd add 2 other points:
1. cut has IMHO higher chance to hit. Cut is kind of area damage, anything in the wide path is in danger while stab is like a shot - not aimed properly and you miss.
2. cut might be more likely to immediately incapacitate. You may survive even fully recover but at the moment i.e. your fighting arm is disabled
While stabbed you may die later due to the internal bleeding or infection yet you are able to fight for some time. Moreover for longer period of the history at least critical parts of the body were protected if possible. While cut could still at least disable the limbs.
In one of your later videos, you speculate that swords that emphasize the cut, like a falchion, are designed to let you easily sharpen the blade to the point that it will defeat gambeson armor. You answered your own question in a video that came out years later!
Surely it's to do with recovery? Bearing in mind that most of those "cutting" swords are designed for combat against people not wearing armour (or armour that would effectively stop a fatal strike). If you cut cleaner then your exit and recovery are surely faster?
When it comes down to it, I’d prefer a weapon that would come completely through the limb. If I stop short, if my angle is off, and my sword gets stuck ... well I’m done. It might be overkill, but I’d prefer to have that safety net. Because unfortunately, in the heat of battle, when you have to react, can you say you’re going to do everything perfectly?
I would use a gun
Munchkin.
I would use a drone
Double munchkin.
I'm just gonna go straight to Munckinx10^8 and use a Super Star Destroyer battlegroup.
There is practically no way you can cut any bone (maybe you can chop fingers at best) with any sword.
Bones have hardness comparable to steel so you will just ruin your sword.
You can only cut the limb if you manage to hit the joint
Tl;dr
Did you hear they used curved swords? CURVED swords?!
So original..
Shad, I respect the thought you put into this, but you're mistaken on several points. Before listing them, I wish to state that I agree with you concerning the effectiveness of the thrust. A properly placed thrust kills more efficiently than a cut. Yes. Absolutely. That said,
1. Extreme cutting ability is not redundant. In a fight, the ability to survive is at least as important as the ability to kill. Having struck his opponent, a fighter must be able to extract his blade easily to maintain defense. Swords capable of passing entirely through a limb will not get stuck in the bone.
2. Assuming for the moment that extreme cutting is redundant, your argument proves the same about extreme thrusting. A thrust from a longsword or katana, properly executed, will kill. Why then develop the rapier? Because it's nimbler, possesses superior hand protection, etc.
3. Weapons specialized for thrusting, if they are swords and not daggers, tend to be long. This makes them less suitable for close quarters combat since it is more difficult to bring the point to bear. A cutting blade, sharpened along its entire length is more useful here.
4. It is not easier to block a cut than a thrust. Yes, a thrust can terminate at any point on the body, but it really arrives from only one direction. A cut can come from anywhere, and a skilled fencer will not telegraph his intentions. True, cuts require preparation, perhaps this is what you mean by 'telegraphing, but the inclusion of feints can keep your opponent guessing.
5. Combining points 1 and 3, we that cutting swords are better for facing multiple opponents. Granted, these do not necessarily need to be 'extreme' cutters.
1) stopping power: deep cuts debilitate faster; less need to aim well; even a weak/bad swing will do signifiant damage (untrained; exhaused; stressed)
2) target area: normal swords won't cut through winter clothing and gambesson as much as falchion or Katana would; similarly a rapier might kill with a cut to the throat or arm-insides but do little against the torso (or try to fight a rabid bear)
3) psychological: flying limbs, rolling heads and falling entrails scare enemies; the ability of an overkill will boost your confidence
4) potential weight reduction by specialisation: a machete cuts better than most swords but is 2-3x lighter; same could be said about thrusting with an epee
All good points. One another thing to note is that while Katanas and many types of Messers/Falchions are very forgiving in the cut, they are by no means inadequate thrusting swords. One isn't going to be able to wield them like Rapiers due to being blade-balanced, but when thrusts are actually needed - for instance when finishing off an enemy on the ground or against armor - these swords are perfectly capable.
Both of them are single edged, therefore quite stiff. Curvature may be involved, but most of them tend to be only semi-curved or straight. A large number of Messers/Falchions have clip points, which aren't functionally that different from spear points in the context of thrusting. Katanas may have hatchet points but tend to be fairly narrow and pointed, not to mention being even more stiffer - which aids in both cuts and thrusts.
In reality, Messers/Falchions and Katanas aren't really even dedicated cutting swords, but rather compromise design cut-and-thrust swords. If they are specialized towards the cut, it is only slightly so; as sidearms and close-combat weapons, most people wanted something that would suit the natural human tendency to cut/strike while remaining very versatile. Which is why the above swords were very popular among both commoners and nobility back in the day.
Curve of some swords (the additional cutting ) I was told was for making it easierr for a person on a mount to use as straight blade would stop on bone but curve would slide out so they could keep riding by and not stopping
Yep easier on horseback
Because thrusting on horseback with a sword is stupid.
+Xaro Xhoan Daxos or a riding lance? You know? Use the power and momentum of the animal you are riding to your advantage?
But if you want, you can try to ride up beside me and try to take me out, while I ride towards you with a big stick in front of me...and have the option of taking either you or your horse out of commission before you can ride get beside me.
(I think I would prefer getting the first attack in)
undecidedgenius A lance is not a sword. WTF is wrong with you?
I don't see why the last time they used them is important?
When gunpowder was become the largest form of defense, the swords were more or less a tradition. If I am not mistaken, they were handed mainly to the officers.
Well, I guess, the standard solider had a Bayonet, which was basically a sword at the end of the gun (much like the lance)
(I guess it was important)
So as far as not being a sword, the lance is used for trusting...It just has more length than the standard sword.
If I really wanted to, I could attach a sword on a stick (actually I think the Vikings would do that...if I remember right, they had a spear head could be taken off and used as a sword in a pinch)
+Xaro Xhoan Daxos there were still lancers in the Victorian era.
Lancers didn't die with gunpowder xD
Scott LeviHeichou Rivaille Lances have nothing to do with what SWORDS were used by cavalry. You people need to shut the fuck up about lances. No one is talking about lances in this video.
The weakness of a rapier is that your opponent can initiate grappling from a longer range than if you have a bladed weapon. Lichtenauer taught that grappling is the base of all swordsmanship.
The trick is to surprise everyone by killing them with the pommel
Gambesons are the kicker, a Longsword has extreme difficulty against heavy padding, on the cut, a falchion does not, their are demonstrations of this available on the Medieval Review channel, also a curved blade is less likely to bind, and retains cutting power better with edge wear/damage (which is an important thing to remember, modern steel is far better than medieval steel, so holds and edge better, for longer, especially when striking shields etc), a third point, even trained combatants get a little cave man under stress, which is downward strokes to the head and neck, especially while tired and stressed. This argument was a major part of British Cavalry tactics and sword design, Matt Easton has addressed it iirc.
I think he also overstates thrusts - a thrust will kill perfectly fine, but unless it goes through the heart, it will not kill for a good 5 minutes or so. Speaking from massive blood loss experience here, It takes forever and so many litres of blood before you fall unconscious - and when you are low on blood, it stops coming out very fast, so you have even longer than you would think.
Having said that your eyes get a bit blurry and fighting would probably speed things up, hence me saying 5 minutes, not the 1 hour that generally doctors consider for things like stab wounds giving a reasonable chance to save.
Also, bleeding is painless in itself - especially internally. most nerves are on the surface of the skin, thus slashes ARE more debilitating in my reckoning.
5 liters of blood, if you lose 1 you are in shock wich mean sitting still and not moving being pale. 1 good thrust in the main portion of your body is game over. Now of course, if you thrust trough a plate in a gambeson I doubt you reach his torso unless you have a spear, but I could be wrong. Then again good luck cutting a full plate knight. The way I see this is that weapons are invented to kill, then as a reaction people protect against it and then new weapons come around ect. Cutting weapons are for horse back riders as a second weapon or for civilians walking around. Who walks around in plate all day right.
In a civilian context, weapons like the messer make sense.
If you get attacked by bandits or mugged in the street, you may be severely outnumbered. Therefore you want to make sure that any clean hit will immediately take an opponent out of the fight for good. A cut that incapacitates an arm or slowly makes them bleed out may not be good enough, but cutting off an entire arm will cause extreme shock from sudden blood loss and therefore make sure, they can't fight on no matter what.
Just causing a slight bleeding and incapacitating limbs might be enough in a dueling sense, where you can just pile on the damage and a weakened opponent will not be much of a threat, but in a one versus many scenario, even a guy that can only use one arm still poses a significant threat because he can still grab you, pull you or otherwise distract you, so his buddies can finish you off.
A weapon that's overkill pretty much rules this out. There may be people who can fight on when they have a wide cut over the back of their arm but there is nobody who can fight on with the shock of sudden blood loss that sets in after they lost an entire arm... Unless they are on an insane dose of amphetamines.
The reason for the overkill factor is mostly stopping power.
That also translates to the battlefield. Cavalry wants to end opponents in a single strike and their high position on horseback facilitates big downward cuts. A big mean cutter makes sense there.
+naphackDT sure, the Messer was a sidearm for the common man, they were allowed to carry them anywhere. But I'm curious how do you explain why the Kriegsmesser, the two handed Messer, was so popular in the age of plate armor ? It doesn't have a straight point to go through armor gaps and it doesn't have a pommel either. And the name translates to War Knife, supposedly used by Landsknechts in battle.
+Maxawe Some I haven't read on the subject but it looks big and study enough that you can use it as a crowbar and hit them with the guard.
Cutting an arm to the bone would not be considered "slight bleeding".
It's just a flesh wound
+naphackDT not to mention if the bandits see their mate's arm lopped off they'll think twice about getting any closer. a cut even a lethal one, just doesn't have the same psychological impact
You say a sword specialized in cutting like the scimitar is overkill because it detracts from the thrust. So wouldn't a sword specialized in thrusting like the rapier also be considered overkill because it detracts from the cut? The only sword not considered to be overkill by you, is the long sword.
What you're kind of saying is the long sword is basically a beige minivan. It's comfortable to use, it does two things very well and it's boring.
when in real combat you could not give less of a fuck if your weapon is boring.
+Drugs are good m8 the only combat this guy will ever be in is in video games.
Boring weapons are good! Exciting weapons tend to be either in the hands of the enemy or not working properly!
I would argue that the mid point is more in the katana end. he says they were popular - china and japan all used katana (yes japanese made katana too) 1300s onwards.
katana literally was the most popular sword. I would argue a thrust could take hours to kill you and many minutes to disable.
The Longsword is the coolest sword. Nothing beige about it
Also seeing someone cut in half on a battlefield would be pretty demoralizing
"overkill" is a practical thing .. you make sure you win -
"just enough" is not enough!
in a fight for life
I do know the answer to your questions about cutting an arm off (or whatever) vs just cutting deep enough to disable.
In combat, there is allot of adrenaline. There are several instances where a person will receive fatal wounds and did not know it, and fought for the few minutes while he was alive.
If you cut the arm off, It is very unlikely he is going to be able to strike you again. If you cut deep, the person may not even know they been cut (especially if the sword is sharp) and make a swing.
+undecidedgenius if you cut through the sinew or seperate the muscle, it doesn't matter one bit if the person knows they've been cut.
+iseeicyicetea It matters, because the person has got two arms. Completely cutting a limb is something that even adrenaline cuoldn't solve, the person would bleed out in seconds and lie on the ground, or try desperately to stop the blood flowing. If you cut a limb, you have won, if you just disable it, you'll still have to fight.
If you get that perfect shot, yes. You have to remember that your target isn't just standing there. He is trying his best not to get cut.
So if you're off, even i little, the other still has the ability to strike.
Just as a side note (to prove my point), on my right ring finger, I have a big hole in my tendon. I have only about 40% of my tendon there and yet I have never had any trouble using my ring finger since that happened.
Now if it were cut off, I am sure I would be having more trouble with it
Cutting through cloth is not as easy as you seem to assume. It's hard. Sabers, scimitars and tulwars were designed to do it effectively. From accounts of duels I read, saber cuts usually wounded, not killed, so there was no excessive cutting ability there at all. Just enough to do the job,.
Then, a thrust has a shorter reach. Realistically you need to aim for the torso. Hand or head are small targets, difficult to hit on a moving opponent. Cut to the arm or head will usually do the job, but contrary to what you expect, it will usually not kill. People used to wear protective headgear (thick hats and so on), and even without it a quick light cut will stop on bones. Enough to stop the threat, not enough to kill.
Thrust to the torso will likely kill, but it's very difficult to recover from them. You sword is stuck in the target for a considerable time, two-tempo action, while a cut can be followed into an immediate guard within one-tempo action. Especially important in melee, and that's probably why sabers became so universally adopted in armies all over the world.
Your videos always get me cozy at night before bed. 🙂
also not all of your swings are going to be at full power. i mean you may be tired or do not have much space to swing so the force of your swing will be lower. if you had a longsword you may bruise your enemy but probably not even pierce through leather armor. if you had a blade specialized in cutting the blade would pass through the leather and give your enemy a possibly fatal blow. this could mran the difference between life and death
From experience, Messers(what I've used) are far more forgiving in the cut then longswords, they can sometimes cut through targets even with horrible edge alignment, and can just generally cut through things with less effort.
Love the point! Generally I agree with this, but I have a possible rebuttal. Maximum *potential* cutting power is not all that matters; how hard you have to swing the sword to achieve a good wound is also important to consider. If a sword can cut very well, it doesn't require as much physical exertion to do damage in the cut as one that only cuts well enough. Largely, this would be against unarmored opponents.
Of course, again, I agree with the overall point. When people do these cutting tests I think they obscure the original intent for having such a specialized sword; but I do believe there were times when the extra cutting power came in handy. Or should I say 'came OFF handy', amiright?!
Thrusts take what, 30 mins, an hour? to kill? maybe disable in 5 minutes perhaps, optimistically, this is completely run through, too. Think about bullets. Though tiny, they cause fist sized cavities on impact, with hydroshock damage. yet most people survive gunshot wounds nowadays, if they get medical attention in under 1 hour.
Now consider the actual volume of the cavity from a sword. hell, even in combat it could take days for enough blood to actually pool in the injury to actually kill you.
Cuts, now cuts are way more painful, the enemy still has running away as a possibility (when stabbed through they will fight with wild abandon knowing they will die) and it is easier to sever tendons in fingers and such and actually disable, whereas a thrust to the stomach won't actually disable anything.
Realy?! to stomach man! and you say it dosn't disable ANITHING ?!!! man come on... Are we all terminators? weren't you ever hit in the stomach?
@@dpakoh1822 Adrenaline is one hell of a drug. There were even reports of people being dismembered (including decapitation) yet they would still fight (or at least flail wildly) for hours after the fatal wound occurred.
Now, if this can happen even with nasty cuts like this, how often do you think it'll happen with thrusts? Don't forget that adrenaline blocks pain reception.
Classic Shad. Takes several thousand years of military history influenced by various economic, cultural, legal, technological, and fashionable factors, carried out by people who were often career warriors; thinks about it for five minutes and develops a hunch that all those people using cut centred swords were failing.
Here's a thought. Thrusts are much more likely to kill than cutting swords and medieval fighting was often far more centred on disabling opponents than killing them especially if you are a knight. It's not always desirable to kill your opponent.
Or in the case of falchions you're moving so far into heavy blades for cutting that you're also getting blunt force trauma. I've seen a guy in armour get hit on the arm by a falchion and the plate armour has stayed intact but the arm has broken inside the plate. It probably wouldn't have happened with a long sword. Okay it's not cutting but was an example of a more specialised blade.
Or perhaps even though a longsword would cut through a hung pig the same as a tulwar you might be worried about glancing blows. Maybe on a glancing cut through layers of padding a longsword just wouldn't cut as well as the cutting specialised sword be you want every chance to count.
It wasn't for no reason that in the late 17th century when officers began to get stuck in to the fray against muskets with bayonets that they largely swapped from small (thrusting) swords to heavy blades cutting sabres, because a long thin blade couldn't cope with the spear like bayonet.
All these reasons and more might be valid reasons to opt for a specialised cutting sword just as there are many other scenarios to opt for a thrusting weapon. And sometimes a compromise weapon that excels in neither is the worst option of all. You can't just boil it down to 'against a immovable target a non specialised sword cuts well enough'. It's hugely reductive.
Another thing to consider that I haven't seen anyone else say is that certain weapons developed because of legal factors. I don't know it's validity but I've heard that messrs were developed because the population were at one point banned from owning swords and so they just made their knives bigger. Even if this is an over simplification it does demonstrate that not everybody in all situations had a choice and if you didn't have the choice in a thrusting sword you better make sure you sword could cut to the extreme!
Thank you so much for first paragraph of your comment .. it is so accurate!! :D Sometimes I simply shit bricks from his vids. :D Like.. as his katana series videos shows, he is able to get so much informations go really deep in that topis and than there is video - Why the katana has curve - because it looks good. :D Oh my, what to say, right? :D
From what I understand with a number of curved swords is they were cavalry weapons. You have a standard war horse going about 25-30 miles per hour or 43-48 Kilometers per hour charging at your enemy, the cutting edge can do some devastating damage. The blade doesn't even need to be sharp; the impact alone can take someone's head off. Exceptions exist, but this tends to be the case
I think another potential utility of curved swords is that they tend to slide across and off their target rather than stopping on them. The weapon can then be quickly chambered for the next strike rather than having to reset completely.
Good question, mate. I will make a video response to this because I think of many important point which would kill the comment box.
But I will say here that I think there were many weapon designs which were overkill or basicly not that practical, because people did them out of fashion or they just "felt" it would be a good idea.
Another important subject here is the meaning of cutting, because it has actually two meanings. First the technical meaning in seperating material but this is also done by thrusts so this is just the physics meaning. Second meaning are cutting techniques like the "famous" draw cut. I prefer to differ the attack types of melee weapons in three: thrust, strike and cut (this meaning here in form of draw or push cuts).
I say this because the katana is great for cutting techniques, but a messer (by the way very nice pronunciation :3) or falchion is more a striker, of course those weapons can also cut well mostly throu the nature of sword blades. Some axes also have mor cutting abilities, like the dane axe.
Some weapons can only work at their highest under certain circumstances like the rapier in duels or the katana in battle situations were you also facing many light armoured enemys (ashigaru) and where many people trained out of tradition cutting techniques (but you see development in Japan, before the katana you had the tachi which was more curved and more a cavalry weapon, then the shorter and straighter katana emerged as a result of samurais fighting more on foot and lesser room because they fought in tight ashigaru formations and more in castles).
I already writing too much, like i said I will make a video about that tomorrow.
in college, a book on medieval/ancient weapons (cannot remember the name) stated that curves in blades/swords were used to shift the center of gravity in addition to making blocking/parrying more difficult do to different location of the blade per inch.
Historically thrust are more deadly than cuts. Matt Easton has a great video where he goes into great detail with first person references. It’s much easier to stitch a cut than it is a thrust wound.
Which might be exactly why you need a super cutter, to make it harder to stitch the wound.
Is a curved sword any easier/faster to lever out or pull back should it get stuck?
a sword like falchion has much higher impact force then longsword, so against armor like mail it can double as mace
Well the fact that the longsword can turn into a military pick/warhammer with a simple flip pretty much makes is the absolute ultimate melee weapon of them all.
Nothing even comes close to covering such a variety of possible fighting situations as the longsword does.
Jack of all trades, master of none.
Must be the reason why it is widely portrayed as a main battle weapon in all those late medieval battle depictions.
+Neutral Fellow while i agree that longswords are great, there really are no ultimate weapons. its all about context. in a small room, i would much prefer something a bit shorter that i can actually use. The had protection on longswords is very adaquete, but its not amazing (if we're talking about earlier longswords that is.) And longswords were not main battle weapons, polearms were. spears, poleaxes, halberds were almost always the first choice (unless fighting from horseback or if your an archer.) Whilst longswords are great weapons, the do have their limitations, like all swords
+Neutral Fellow
"Well the fact that the longsword can turn into a military pick/warhammer with a simple flip pretty much makes is the absolute ultimate melee weapon of them all."
a flipped longsword is very lackluster compared to an actual military pick/warhammer though.
personally, if i was a late medieval fighter in full plate, i'd go with a pollaxe. ideal to deal with armored opponents, still plenty to cut down peasants.
So, you're saying that giving up a sword's ability to thrust is...pointless ;)
This is giving me ideas for a sword design.
Shad, please do not take offense to this question, but have you ever been in a fight? Not a little sparring match between buddies, but a conflict that really matters? When your fight or flight instinct kicks in, your adrenaline increases exponentially. That in turn heightens your other senses, which may be very difficult to control. In extreme duress the body can perform feats a rational mind could not fathom. Because of this and a few other factors the body can withstand a lot of abuse. That said, "just enough" could very well be not enough. When I went to war I heard so many reports that some of the insurgents would continue charging after having an entire magazine of pistol ammunition fired into them. There are times when "overkill" may be your only option. In hand to hand training one time, my partner got a bit overzealous and tried to snap my arm. No amount of tapping was he ever going to release me. So after repeated headbutts to his face, breaking his nose and leaning my free arm into his throat cutting off his air he finally let go. In war there is no such thing as "just enough", you destroy your enemy as completely as possible. You not only shatter their bodies, but their morale and their will to fight on.
This is correct. Kind of. It's a lot harder to incapacitate someone with pain when their hopped up on adrenaline, but a severed biceps is still going to disable an arm. And that doesn't require cutting through the bone. As others have stated, a thrust that misses vital organs isn't going to be fatal. Similarly, a thrust that doesn't go through muscles isn't going to disable a body part. And bullets are basically very powerful thrusts
Crist dude
Dude no. Most people panic. Also just enffoe works. You don't have to full stop someone. I have had fight with bats and bottles. One good hit and most people back of. People dont keep fighting if they lossing
I think the better cutters were used against chain mail and gambesons. Weapon choice depends upon enemy protection does it not?
Cutters wouldn't compete any better at breaking through chainmail or gambeson. So many HEMA youtubers have proven that over the years.
Cutters can't cut trough any armor they were used to kill women, peasants, children, personel without armor etc...
I love the ending of your videos, you always go right off the deep end in the best way LOL ps - binging your channel atm ;D
1: The emphasized cutting design choices could also make landing a damaging cutting blow easier to perform: You would have to work less with a specialized cutting weapon to do the same damage as a more general-purpose design could with great effort. 2: The saber, scimitar, and other curved weapons you mentioned were often used by cavalry against unarmored targets. The rider would have to swing his saber down in an underhand motion to slam into the back of a fleeing soldier. A cutting emphasis could help penetrate the soldier's backpack and the back of the ribcage. Or the rider could make a chopping motion backward as he passed to attack the running soldier's face. Much of the power of the cut would be lost with the blade and horse traveling in opposite directions, meaning that a cutting-specialized design could compensate again. 3: The katana was certainly on many battlefields, but the samurai probably left those famous swords in their scabbards when contending with armored targets. When fighting formations of lightly armored soldiers or just figthing away from the battlefield, the katana was probably a very effective weapon.
Shad, there is one problem in you analysis, namely that you only considered it from the unarmoured, fighting-on-foot perspective. For some reason, curved sabre type back-swords were in vogue in cultures that placed light cavalry and horse-archers in a prominent role. If the weapon was designed for fighting on foot from the ground up they may not retain that level of curvature.
Take Japanese back-swords for example, and no there is no such thing as The Katana; a katana is a back-sword and can be further categorised into more specific types. Tachi was fashionable from late Heian to early-mid Sengoku period where the primary function of the samurai was horse-archery. Uchigatana, a much straighter version of tachi with longer handle, came into fashion in mid Sengoku where samurais were mostly fighting on foot in formation. Uchigatana was further shortened during the Edo period, as the Shogunate wanted to limit duelling, and this is The Katana that we think of today,
Therefore, the katana is not the result of trying to maximising certain battle effectiveness, for example cutting; as a matter of fact, the Shogunate was trying to reduce its effectiveness in unarmoured fighting scenarios. It is what it is mostly because it is the descendent of Taichi and retained a degree of curvature.
When it comes to nodachi, we have to again consider it in a different historical context. Ming Chinese noted that it was particularly effective in cutting off pike-heads during their war with Japanese pirates. It was so effective that the Chinese general in charge invented new tactics and adopted the nodachi as one of their infantry weapons. But then we need to compare the nodachi to the greatswords and it will be a different discussion.
I heard the reason the uchigatana was shortened was for the purpose of making it more convenient (ie. easier to wear, easier to draw and easier to use) as during the Edo period, there were no large scale battles and the primary reason the samurai still carried swords was for self defense in usually urban environments.
If the longsword was "good enough", then everyone would've just used longswords.
Longswords only became prominent because plate armour freed up your shield hand. When plate armour fell out of use, longswords also fell out of use...
@@joeycorbett2263 Exactly, and specifically Rapiers and Sabers were the new preferred styles. Though Sabers lasted even to this day.
I use saber like everyday.
One reason for cutters like falchions might have been that they were often used by and against unarmored people, like on ships and in general once guns improved to the point where people started forgoing armor entirely on battlefields, and generally chopping/cutting will make someone a non-threat quicker than stabbing, since the trauma is generally more immediate and devastating.
Hi Shad!
Let me first say that I greatly appreciate this channel as a place to gush over swords. I realize that this video has been posted for quite some time and that I am showing up rather late to the party, but I wanted to weigh in on this a bit, since I am a proud owner of a sabre, a scimitar (or shamshir), and a longsword, and have done limited HEMA training with the latter.
Having played around with curved sword a bunch, I can confidently say a few things about their advantages and properties:
1. Their advantage in cutting lies less in their curvature of the blade and more in their weight distribution, which is a result of curvature. Basically, curved swords have more weight-to-length ratio over the length at which they curve, essentially giving them more force in the cut but sacrificing length and nimbleness (since the point of balance lies farther away from the hand than in most straight swords). These are, as far as my amateurish experience has shown, the main advantages of straight blades- easier to wield and more balanced, and have greater reach per weight, which are very important qualities.
2. They can most definitely thrust. In fact, I don't think they sacrifice much in thrusting capacity as you say. The scimitar you showed is an extremely curved sword that is not a good example of the majority of Middle-Eastern blades. If you take a gander at a number of popular curved blades, such as Tulwars, Pulwars, Shamshirs/Saifs, Sabres, Kilijes, and even Katanas, you will see that the curvature is not so pronounced as to prevent one from thrusting. To the contrary, I believe you can deliver equally powerful thrusts with curved swords as with straight ones. With the longsword, one tries to position the point in somewhat of a perpendicular alignment to the length of the target. To thrust effectively with curved blades, you simply need to adapt your arm motion to go into the curve (think of the motion one makes when throwing a frisbee). I practiced stabbing around my shield, over the top of my shield, through targets, what-have-you, and it works beautifully.
3. Curved swords _slice_. This is a point that is often overlooked. I should also hedge my statement and say that straight blades can slice as well, but curving the blade makes this happen much more easily. Where cutting is moving the blade through a target, slicing is moving the blade along a target. This becomes relevant when you consider two important situations in which slicing is advantageous: attacking heavy cloth (or silk), and attacking from horseback. In Europe, the most ubiquitous piece of armor, aside from a helmet, was the gambeson, a heavy jacket (which you have made a great video about, by the way!) that is rather difficult to hack through. Using a straight sword such as a longsword or an arming sword, an easier method of attack would probably be the thrust, which gets you through that heavy padding much more easily. In the East (read: hotter climates), gambesons are not in fashion, but other, lighter forms of padding were. Leather lamellars were around, as were silk robes and linnen. These are also very hard to cut through (particularly silk which was used rather often by elite fighters in many Islamic countries). As with gambesons, you can stab through them, or alternatively, you can slice through them.
Regarding cavalry warfare: if you would imagine yourself to be riding down an enemy and striking on the gallop, how much force do you think would be transferred directly to your wrist? How easily do you think you could lose your blade if it gets stuck in an enemy? How easily do you think the increased impact force of striking from a moving horse could warp and damage your blade? Slicing helps mitigate all of these issues by allowing you to make more gradual contact with the target, and the fact that curved blades tend to have rather rigid backs means that warping is less common and more force is transferred to the target.
4. Come on man, you just made a series gushing on falchions and messers where you mentioned the usefulness of having more cut-centric sword designs. Same thing applies.
5. Your point about rapiers is rather pedantic. They did become the most important dueling sword in Europe, where people often came unarmoured to duels and only had one person to fight. Of course reach would give you a huge advantage in that setting. The broadsword still ruled the battlefield at the time of the rapier (correct me if I am wrong). Such a specialized thrusting weapon as a rapier would leave you vulnerable in a melee, while a nice broad sword allowed you to hack and slash more effectively, while still capable of delivering deadly thrusts.
I think for a cavalry man thrusting isnt that useful so they threw it out of the window completely by using sabers etc.
And yet swords like the koncerz and swords from the second half of the 19th century are designed to thrust from horseback as a main form of offence. Thrusting is very useful from horseback though a bit harder to do.
Way harder to do, I would go so far as to say out of reach for all but a lancer. The fact is, people more their damn heads out of the way at the last second, the inconsiderate fools. Even static targets are really hard to hit on a horse like that. AND you can't couch a sword. Just use a sabre.
But bro why not just use a katana? My grandfather was in ww2 and he said he saw a samurai cut a fighter jet in half.
But long swords can't even cut wet paper (not even joking, this one time me and my anime club tested it and we couldn't cut anything, it was a training sword but everyone knows that katanas are better)
So obviously it's the best tool ever!
But for real gr8 vid plz make more.
Luke Paul it's a joke, right?
I think your grandfather was lying...
Luke Paul They were cutting tanks with katana not planes your grandpa got it all wrong...
Stop making fun of anime!!!!!!!
T rex reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
The terror weapon is a good point, but also I think the leverage of the wound might stand to get the blade stuck in the target if you don't cut wholly through. For example with katana the blade goes through an entire soldier and immediately frees the weapon for a follow up attack, whereas for example if you were using a short sword (something less likely to slice through the target, something the longsword is more than capable of) and the weapon stopped at the bone, or worse dug into it 1/4 to 1/2 way through, the wound could close on the blade and make it difficult to free giving your opponent time to thrust into you at close range or for one of his buddies to take you out. I know when I was using a chainsaw if you stop at all with it the tree leans into the cut and it becomes nearly impossible to get the chainsaw back out. Just a thought. Great videos, you've earned a subscriber!
experience:
Marine Corps Combat Trained (trauma experience)
self taught long sword aficionado
minor student in Iaido
I've heard in some areas, highly curved longswords were wielded close to the body and a highly defensive fashion. The blade would "wrap" around the wielder's body and they would use positioning and bodyweight/twist to drag the blade against their opponents. Often used in very close quarters situations.
*So it's not that Blades built for Cutting "cant' cut it" in combat, It's just that Swords built for Thrusting tend to "Get to the Point" faster and with greater efficiency?* Well, imo... Either way you slice it this is a good episode.
And that medieval age weapons of any culture are awesome. ^~^
This is a horribly pointless and redundant comment. read at you own risk.
I think super cutting swords are useful in that you can't presume your opponent is going to be naked or allow you a nice clean perfect strike to their arm or where ever. Let's use the the Samshir as the example for a moment. (For those who may not understand why a curve enhances the cut to such a extreme degree) That exaggerated curve means less of the blade will be touching material at any time. Distributing the the energy to a much smaller area. Where as a longsword's straight edge means your energy is meeting a lot more material at any given time. Among other reasons. Blah blah blah, you already knew that.
After stewing on it for a good half an hour, maybe it would rock with is cavalry work? Maybe facing people in more linen armor? *sigh* you Sir, have a very compelling argument. But, with that said (looking away from all you pesky and messy facts and logics). I guess just love my Samshirs. I fear that because I'm Persian, I have become biased, or perhaps it's hard coded into my DNA. I just can't not love those curvy things.
Idk how you do it, the fact that my 6 year old son’s favorite youtube channel is a medieval informative is crazy to me. Lots of love from this tiny home in Texas Shad, congrats on new book 😅
There's a great documentary which looks at the injuries sustained during Waterloo where two very different swords were used. The French cavalry used an elegant thrusting sword which killed very easily, but if it didn't kill outright, caused "clean" injuries. It was efficient but generally harder to use on horseback. The English used a heavy, curved saber, which killed outright surprisingly infrequently but caused absolutely HORRIFIC injuries, cutting into bone, lopping off limbs, etc. Their saber bit deep and often took a soldier out of the fight. It horrified the French and surely had a psychological effect but, again, though easier to use from horseback, and causing terrible, maiming, injuries, it killed very rarely. Which sword was "better"? Not an easy question to answer, the French thrusting swords killed much, much more, but if they didn't kill, they didn't take a soldier out of the fight, whereas the English cutting swords killed very infrequently, but caused debilitating injuries which inevitably took soldiers out of the fight even if it didn't kill them.
Now that I think about it, the documentary was on Napoleonic battles, not simply Waterloo....so, ignite that part lol
there's reasons why the saber dominated the battlefield for so long. It can cut as well as a katana, it can thrust as well as your long sword, it's one handed freeing your second hand to carry a buckler, a dagger, or even a second sword. It's one handed so you have greater range and freedom of movement than a two handed sword like your long sword. It's blade is curved allowing you to cut around shields and swords, reaching soft spots your straight long sword can't reach.
I'll take a saber any day, you can have your long sword.
Cornered Fox give me the situation where your long sword cuts through plate mail like butter. If you can't what the hell are you talking about?
Cornered Fox that's what I thought, just talking out your ass. Had to edit your comment to change the plate mail part. That's okay though because I already addressed your edited comment, a saber can thrust just as well as a long sword, cuts better, has a greater reach, and is faster. It's crazy how people think sword smithing, unlike any other technology, got crappier as time went on. Clearly the sword smiths of 8th century were miles ahead of sword smiths from 1600's.
Cornered Fox and you should look into what a saber actually is, they were used heavily all over the world, from Scimitars to Dao swords.
Cornered Fox not really, a saber is any one handed sword with a single curved blade. Hence most Dao, though not all, are most apply defined as sabers.
Cornered Fox the channel is Academy of Historical Fencing, probably the best channel for swords.
Well, some cutting swords with a really curved blade naturally align their edges more perfectly because it's more like swinging a disk instead of a stick. The added mass behind the centre line of the handle stabilizes the blade and you would need more energy to accidentaly tilt the weapon mid swing, leading to better edge alignment when under stress/being untrained.
Modern accounts of guerillas using scimitars on foot against soldiers would indicate that half-swording a heavily curved long blade and maneuvering it very close to the body could be a more effective use of these weapons than trying to swing it at arm's length like you would a military saber.
In the German longsword systems, thrusts are generally thrown from Von Tag, which is a shoulder guard. The most basic attack is done by cutting into the center and then stepping forward to thrust your opponent in the face. The cut into line protects you from the sorts of responses bad fencers will throw at you, and also makes it easy to transition into a cutting attack if you misjudge the distance. The step forward into the thrust gives you better reach. This attack, the Oberhau, is executed similarly to the example Shad shows at 10:30 or so.
It's as effective as any first-intention action. I have a lot of fun plugging newer fencers in the face with it, and it's an excellent set-up for more complicated actions against more experienced fencers. It can also be done as a defense, which is called a Zornhau, which is pretty effective against most actions from the shoulder.
How am I only now finding these older videos
The jokes are great
I know this is a very old video and I think it is great I have a question. Would thrusts allow assailants to continue fighting verses the cuts ability to incapacitate a enemy? I ask this because of the reaction I have seen when people are shot in a fight with hand guns. I have seen people shot upwards of 9 times and still fighting. So thinking of damage to a person bullets create a wound channel along with concussive force rupturing the surrounding area. The thrust would cause a wound channel like the bullet minus the kinetic and concussive force. The shock of taking a limb or large open wound from a devastating cut would seem to overwhelm the enemy. I could be way off. Thank you so much for the video!
Shad, your new video on Falchions disproves the point about super-cutting blades: the arming jacket, or gambeson/aketon, or simply padding would not stop the falchion, but a lonsword they would
Cavalry, or any swift horse riding units used sabers, as while riding you can hardly stab someone and cannot afford that the sword might get stuck in the body, you have just stabbed.
Slicing while riding has the advantage that you can kill your enemy easily with out the sword getting stucked and go right tot he next kill.
Also as a one-hander, saber/scimitars are lighter and easier to handle.
Not to say that curved swords can't stab. They're great at that.
Yeah I can think of a reason why you would want to chop limbs off instead of just doing enough to kill: shock value. If you're fighting and you see someone next to you get their whole arm or head sliced off, it'll cause a different reaction than just seeing them basically get hit with the sword and falling down still in tact. Intimidation, psychological manipulation and morale are important factors in battle too.
A curved sword also has the advantage of being harder to block since it can bend into and behind the defenders weapon during a parry. The thrust could then be turned into a cut when an unexperienced defender blocks or parry the sword away. Twisting a curved sword allows the attacker to also chose between vertical, horizontal or any range of diagonal during a parried trust.
from what I've seen from the Cossacks (I LOOOOVE the cossacks) their sabers were built to be able to quickly switch from blade-top to reverse dagger grip using one hand, so as to stab when you have your foe on the ground, can you confirm?
In Kali, the Filipino martial art I study, the cut is king. I've done a lot of practice bouts in sword fighting, and the thrust is not overly difficult to defend against, I actually look for it. The problem with the thrust is that you have to move towards the opponent to effectively stab them with enough force and all I need to do is slightly redirect the tip to make my opponent's sword a liability instead of an obstacle. If my sword cut is blocked, momentum allows me more flexibility in moving sideways, and backwards if i mess up horribly, if I miss a thrust, I have to completely stop and reverse my momentum. I can still do damage with cutting while close and not just blunt trauma. I can slice legs, arms, gut or neck as I pass my opponent instead of needing to retreat. Not that the thrust isn't useful, I just prefer cutting.
Having a 2 Metre Long sword would be terrifying, therefore reducing morale.
Once in the past, when I was analyzing this, I went from the rapier to something like the schiavona, or the A&A Gustav Vasa Rapier or Town Guard Sword, which guards the hand, has the rapier length and thrust, but also has a cutting edge to some extent.
Thrusts also have a comparative advantage to cuts in that they are a direct movement toward the target and thus are completed much more quickly. All you do is close the gap between the point of your weapon and your target on a straight line, it's the shortest path of movement possible. A cut can literally only be quicker than a thrust if you are already in position to start the cut, that's where your point about telegraphing comes in. You can thrust the point of your weapon toward your target from essentially any guard position, whereas to throw any specific cut you have to first be in the corresponding position. This is why sword vs. sword combat evolved into rapiers/sabres heavily focused on thrusts, they are the most efficient way to strike with a swordlike weapon.
what do you think about curved enough blade to be able to go around parry?
It doesn't exist.
Sorry for being late to the party. Some thoughts:
1st: As mentioned already, it might be worth consindering whether you fight mounted or on foot. Mounted, you only have a small window of opportunity to land a hit, but thrusting might need more time to aim and look for an opening. Furthermore, I would guess that after a mounted thrust, my blade has a higher chance to stick in the body, getting ripped from my hand and leaving me "toothless". From medieval imagery it seems to me that knight on horse, when using a sword, preferred a cutting attack. And many curved blades I know of are especially cavalry weapons. Some others are designed to attack e.g. the legs of horses in an explicit anti cavalry fashion - something where a thrust wouldn't work well.
2nd: Thrusts sure can be deadly, but a thrust comes in a linear way, the "danger zone" is a straight line. As soon as I can evade that line (or redirect it), I am good. A slashing/cutting attack has the whole plane as danger zone. The movement may be more elaborate and thus slower than a thrust, but that might be a small price to pay.
3rd: Depending on the armour (or lack thereof), a slashing weapon might cause more damage. A thrust might go deep, but the wound is linear. There are parts of our body where such a hit will hurt as hell and maybe kill you in the long run, but the damage is rather local, leaving you in the fight for now. A cutting/slashing weapon could cause damage on a larger area. Not being a specialist on medieval times I am more interested in ancient times, and from my reading, the romphaia was a rather feared weapon that caused rather nasty damage.
On the other hand I would expect cutting weapons to be less effective against heavy metal armour. Here it might be better to precisely aim for the weak spots instead of wasting the blade by running it over a thick sheet of metal.
Just some thoughts (^_^)
I agree 100% with Shadervisity, infact this theory I always had in my mind, but since I have no CZcams channel I never could share that thought.
It feels good to find someone who exactly explains what I actually always thought to be the case.
I know that this is an older video but a lot of people never seem to want to mention body physics when they talk about the effectiveness of armor. “Not directed you! Btw”. But I’ve heard people make comments like “the katana would just rip right through leather or gambison blah blah.” Or “a mace would kill you even through plate.”
It’s like people don’t lend a thought to the fact that a person is also moving, and blocking, and energy gets wasted, redirected, etc.. if a person was up against a wall and you hit them dead on, with perfect edge alignment, and enough force then sure, I think a good cutting weapon could bite into leather to an extent. But humans being non stationary targets makes a lot of that force get wasted or redirected. I’d like to hear that brought up more often in discussion.
Hi I live in Uruguay. That's in southern South America.
We didn't have a medieval age and we went straight to the age of Mercantilism, but it was Spanish Bourbonic Mercantilism which means outside of the army there's a huge difference between the technology in mainland Spain compared to the technology this side of the Atlantic and the main force in Latin America during this times were the militias. So the sword was very prominent from mid 1600's to even 100 years after the Independence in 1904.
The reason why cutting swords were so popular back in the day was not so much for functionality during battle but AFTER battles. It was psychological.
You see, there was something called ''la parte''(read it as ''the recquired kills'') which is a term that's applied to a specific and mandatory number of enemies dead bodies scattered through the fields to detter the enemies from another conflict, this enemies were not taken prissioners but killed (decapitated) after the battle. Think of it as an alternative of the the Vlad the Impaler method to deter enemies from attacking his kingdom.
Also, after the fall of the Spanish Empire the government was technically rebuilding itself based on alliances and there was a lot of backstabbing for power as well so it was also a very efficient parctice to infuse loyalty in your own troops.
I'd assume that my ancestors didn't invent this so I think it would be a practice common in all the former Spanish Empire.
So i think there are some points, that not mentioned yet in the discussion:
Construction: The most good cutters are curved blades and curved blades have more differences to straight blades then the cutting power. Many of them are very Tip heavy , but don't feel tipheavy like a straight blade. Because of that many types of sabres have no Pommel (the Falchion has a Pommel i know). They have hooks and little shields to prevent slipping of (The Katana has a verry ruff gripp). Because of the tipheavyness, it has the same force like a straight sword but lighter (by the same forcelevel) because it has not so mutch weight on the hilt. At the same time they are very nimble at very close attacks, and get power in low space moments from their tipheavyness. The other point is swordalignment. The curved blade hit with a very small line of the edge. Its like a ball fall on the ground, only a little piece touch the ground. A straight blade is more like a board that hit the ground with the small side. Thats ab bigger area, and so the force are not so much concentrated. I trained much with many types of swords and i use not much armor. its very complicated to hit with a DULL sabre in a way that it dosnt hurt. Straight blades are very ok and only i and other advanced members of my club use sabers because we have learned the "nice" way to handle it. But in the hands of a newbie...its dangerous, the same by the spear. The combat-reach isnt so important like a straight blade. Sure you make more damage by the perfect distance, but in close fights (Dagger range) it still hurts a lot. You dont need so much training to "hurt enough" the same like spears and clubs. But, and that is the Thing because i like Straight blades or slightly curved blades more: Binding is very dificult. You can't stop the blade of an enemy with a very curved blade, you have to hit it away or you let the sword of thy opponent slide to the side. Ah... but one point more, blades and also spears in the thrust can be grabbed, and they can be grabbed in the binding. Curved blades binding is verry rare, also thrust and no one want to grabb a swinging blade. Expirences like that could make a difference in some cultures to prefer the curved blade, but other arguments like chavalry, stuck-prevent and other are also true. In my opinion, the sabre and also other more cut-likley-swords need not so much training to be effektiv (my own expirence) its like the spear, easy to learn hard to master. And because you have to hit other blades instead of easy blocking (specialy by strong curved versions) your fighting stile is more aggressive. every weapon has its stiles and cuttingpower is only a part of argument for a sword. I like shortswords with leafblades and macheteforms like the copis. You have a curve for the tiny-edge-space-hitting, a straight blade for trust and binding, and the very low lever-effekt on short blades gives me a great advantage in bindings and they are very nimble. but sometimes...these swords are not long enough^^. Nothing is perfect.
I don't know how I laughed at that opening joke... I had my guard lowered I guess.
One thing to take into account is not only the first cut, but also the follow up move. With a long sword, it is much harder to keep cutting through someone's defence then it is with a one handed Polish sabre.
Is there a video that explains which medieval long sword that has similar design (in cutting edge) features and performance of the katana? I’ve seen a Scottish medieval sword compete alongside dedicated choppers and cutters, but I’m wondering what the two edged design would look like if you wanted to compete with the katana.
I think out of all the specialized cutting swords, the katana is probably more practical, because although it's stabbing ability isn't as good, you can still largely be able to use the thrusting technique with the katana that you would do with most other two-handed swords that gave you the option of thrusting at your opponent, because they didn't sacrifice *all* of its thrusting ability to make it a cutting sword. It's probably the closest to the longsword of Europe than the other specialized cutting swords, because you can definitely stab someone with a katana, and there are techniques you can learn that involve stabbing with the katana, whereas with the scimitar or Sabre, there is barely any room for a traditional stabbing technique and you'd have to hold the sword at a very sharp angle to thrust, or with a very thick sword like the Grosse Messer, the fathead makes it more difficult to thrust, even though it does have a point, and if you had the opportunity of course try to thrust with it, but unless you're aiming for a soft or large open Target, it would be more easy to catch on bone and clothing or armor.
i do agree with most of the points you made, but CONSIDER THIS!
If you swing a sword into someone's limb or gut and it does not go all the way thru them, well now your sword is probably stuck in the rather macabre trap that is their partially disemboweled body.
and now there very likely will be a few moments you have to spend trying to remove your sword from them whilst more enemies may be closing in on you.
whereas if your cut goes all the way through them, you don't have that trouble. you can get right into the next fight without the aforementioned delay.
Remember, after 1600-1650 armour came to be less and less used with heavy cavalry being the last to discard it. At the same time, curved specialized cutting swords starting showing up in Western Europe, e.g., the Polish/Hungarian Szabla. The torso and often head was still well protected but the arms were quite vulnerable and the face usually exposed. A specialized cutter like the szabla could, with a fairly small wrist and forearm movement, do horrible damage to limbs.
I agree with those points Shad. If one were to make the comparison between sword fighting and mixed martial arts, they might find that fighter's who are too specialized in grappling are highly susceptible to striking attacks and vice versa. Likewise, an unarmoured dual between someone with a saber or rapier and another with balanced longsword would likely result in a similar outcome to pro boxer going against a UFC fighter in an MMA match. Or, if you could isolate the effectiveness of swords to just there own physical properties and chart that on a line graph, you'd find that cutting and thrusting have a linear relationship.
The sword on the far right in the thumbnail- i have the same one, ot a cheap replica of it. Is it a wall hanger? Ive also got a sword of arwen, its a bit heavy. But the only sharp sword i have is balanced, yet the handle is clearly cheap and you can hear the steel knocking around. Would that be a real fake sword or a real fake sword?
Overkill is underrated. I am a firm believer in giving yourself the greatest advantage possible.
In my mind the best application for a cutting sword is from horse back .
The curve of a saber specifically a cavalry saber was not only for the cut it was also for a curved blade being less likely to stick into what was struck. There is a difference between cutting and chopping. To cut a piece of meat with a knife you drag across it, or you use a cleaver to chop. I think in the video cut and chop are often lumped together and need to be looked at completely separately.
Also one point: During the age of sails (high phase of the british empire etc) a cutting weapon was also a favorite. Sabers etc .. if you fight in close range you might not have the space for trusts etc. And less training, just slash and hack.
They used guns and the sword was a tool so you need to cut let's say a rope. Or a native's head who had no plate armour.
A possibility that I considered is in the context of a battlefield, a sword that can sever limbs and heads cause more fear among the ranks, it's one thing to witness someone getting a cut to the arm or impaled, however in the event that you witness someone's arm or head be cut off your going to be scared and horrified out of your bloody mind, which can cause panic, this is further supported due to the fact that in Europe, the duelling weapons were often strait thin swords completely meant for thrusting while many military swords were Sabres.
A 50-minute unskippable ad. VERY SMOOTH, CZcams. Very Smooth.
AdBlock mustardrace, since nobody gets any revenue from YT anyway.
sorry for late reply, but during the whole clip I had to think: Is this the same for fight zombies or other foes where you Need to cut off limbs/heads?