Leyrann just like German, if you say an English word with a German accent you do have a chance of getting it right, of course some words are vastly different too, like gift.
But that's where the art comes in, it's difficult to both attack and defend effectively simultaneously. Any peasant could pick up a sword and do one at a time to some degree
I've been practicing with sword since i was 13 (my grandpa presented me his old cavalry sabre at that age, and showed me the basics ) , since then i went around trying different styles and different weapons, made it a hobby. 27 years past since then, so i had quite a lot of practice with both one-handed weapons and two-handed. (well and 'hand-and-a-half' ofc) In my opinion even without armor, provided you have enough space to maneuver it's fairly easy to beat a shields-man using a 2h weapon, your attacks are both faster (not by much, thou) stronger, more accurate, and as you mentioned in the video - you do have a better reach. But for a less experienced fighter, I would recommend a short sword + shield combo myself, since 2h sword fighting is in a great part about coordination of the movements, and I, personally, began to really grasp main concepts after ~5 years of training. With an expert opponent shield could be, in fact, a disadvantage, that can be exploited. And in the case of full-armored combat there is generally no contest, it's just a brutal stomping :)) P.S. But if you are going to fight in a narrow corridor, or (giggles) ship lower decks - take a shield with you and something shorter :)))
Your ancestors would have a hearty chuckle at hearing you say "dual-wielding" I'm sure, if they knew what you meant. It can only really be done with two small weapons or one long one short. You see it in rapier/main gauche, also in Eskrima with sticks and also sword/dagger combination. In other words, there's only so many ways to do it, and it wasn't that cool or effective. That said, an unbeaten Samurai duelist decided he was bored of winning sword fights with one katana and did manage to dual-wield katana effectively. This is a rare exception and the stuff of legends, some of it also probably isn't true.
@@Flyn_Valighn I'm not saying it doesn't exist (I gave a shout-out to a Japanese duelist who mastered 2 katana) but I do think to be skilled at "dual-wielding" is extraordinary. I know they can be same length but that means you need more skill than 1 long, 1 short weapon or 2 short weapons as they will tangle and cross. Cheers, I agree that Asia is pretty much the exception to this rule.
9:30 Actually, Shad, you can get past fullplate if you bladelock with the sword instead and use the dagger to stab into the openings. One other thought that came with this is, even if you have a dagger, you can still carry a buckler. Even if you succeed, but lose the dagger, you still have a defensive measure.
Eeeeeeeeh, this might be the first video of yours sir that I sort of disagree on. I have been doing HEMA for just over a year now, and I know that is not a lot at all, but I've been doing it with people who have been doing it for far longer and we've had this exact conversation multiple times before, between arming sword/buckler vs. longsword. It helps that these are two of the three main weapon systems that we practice in my club (along with Rapier). And the consensus is generally that even outside of armor, longsword wins. While it is true that longsword particularly dominates in armor, most of the treatisies that we read all deal with longsword combat outside of armor. You forget to mention the other very large advantage that a longsword has over a 1 handed sword when it comes to a duel, and that is control. Yes, you might have two different tools with which to act when using the sword and buckler, but try and have any sort of control in the bind with an arming sword vs. a longsword. You can't do it, unless you using the buckler to brace your arm-hand. If you can separate the two tools and get your longsword in-between the buckler and arming sword, you are at a major advantage. Yes, the buckler has some advantage, but because it is so small, it doesn't really act as a proper wall of defense. It's used more to catch and push your opponent's weapons rather than to hold it up and block like a shield. As such, it struggles against a weapon which allows a great deal of leverage and control, like a longsword. Now, obviously, the difference isn't enormous, and when we do mixed weapons sparring, the guy with the arming sword and buckler wins almost as often as he looses (although it is also evident that he struggles with it a bit). Now, obviously a full shield is an entirely different story. A full shield is a great, bloody wall in front of you and it cannot be pushed away or cut around anywhere nearly as effectively as a buckler can. A shield throws this entirely out of whack and makes a 1-handed sword MASSIVELY more useful than a 2-handed sword...but then you have to lug around a big shield wherever you go and that is just a pain... One other thing, you say that the longsword became popular due to the advancement of plate armor. And while I admit that my knowledge of the history of the development of these things is not the best, I was under the impression that the longsword's popularity was at it's peak during the 1200s and 1300s, while plate armor of the kind you are talking about, that protected your entire body, was not in use until the 1400s...which if true (and it might not be, considering that I checked that through google right now), really throws a wrench into what your are suggesting... So why DID the longsword go out of style? Well, I don't really know enough to answer that. But I can make a guess as to at least one element. Eventually, the Rapier took the place of the longsword as the dueling weapon, owing to the fact that it was just as long, but was also much more nimble and could be used with a dagger as well. Plus it had even more reach than a longsword because you could extend your arm much further than you can with a two-handed sword. The longsword still didn't go entirely out of style though. The Germans didn't like Rapiers and never really adopted the Rapier in their hearts (although they did use it and developed a style for it). The longsword continued to be the main weapon of choice there for a while. I would also argue that advancements in hand-protection (as in side-swords) helped to give those sorts of weapons more of an advantage, since you didn't have to be as careful of as many things and could have more options for how to use the weapon. Sabers also became very popular in war because unlike in a duel, where stabbing is really good, on the battlefield it is better to slash so that you don't have to waist time pulling a sword out of your enemy while another might be rushing you. Other than the Rapier thing though, most of that is my own speculation.
+Kyle Flanagan Well you were bound to disagree with me at some point ^_^ we humans being self determining beings and all with different points of view. Thanks heaps for all your insights and I totally agree that arming sword and buckler vs longsword is a MUCH closer match up compared to arming sword and shield vs longsword. My understanding is that Longswords didn't come into mainstream use until the fourteenth century which coincides with the development of more advanced armor. Matt Easton has a good video on this subject: czcams.com/video/bA4TxBZEOR8/video.html You're insights regarding the rapier are some great thoughts. Thanks again for everything you've shared!
+I am Shad I agree with Kyle in most points, I really think your logic here isn't complete. One thing that came to my mind all the time when listening to your explanation was technology. Longswords are a lot more difficult (and more expensive) to produce than shorter swords. This might also be a good reason why longswords weren't more widely distributed even after some time they had been developed! It is simply very difficult and expensive to produce such a large, thin blade without the risk that it migh easily break. Just because history shows us, that longswords weren't more common through times does therefore not at all imply that they are somehow less effective. I think the evolution from longswords to rapiers is another example that supports this idea. Rapiers are a really superior duelling weapon, but it simply wasn't possible, technologically, to produce them until the renaissance. You mentioned half-swording and I think this is another important point. One of the huge advantages of longswords are their immense versatility out (and yes of course :) ) *in* armour. You can turn a longsword around and use the crossguard and pommel as anti armour, you can halfsword against more powerful opponents or opponents with heavy weapons and to get a much more effective thrust, you can generally cut *and* thrust very well. You can even use it as a lever when wrestling in or out of armour. It is also in itself already a very effective defensive weapon because it is so long and nimble. Another important detail there: you said that there are exceptions where you can defend at the same time you attack with a longsword. Actually, this is not at all the exception but one of the most fundamental principles. You alsways attack in a way so that you are also well defended. And this is something that actually works quite well with a longsword after some practice. As Kyle mentioned, in sparrings today it does not at all seem that sword and buckler have an advantage over longsword. My conclusion is that in general the longsword is a mildly superiour sword at it's time because it is a very effective and probably the most versatile weapon both in and out of armour. The fact that other weapons, like sword and buckler, were more popular has other reasons than effectiveness, like technology, price, culture etc.
+I am Shad I would also like to point out that when considering longsword and sword in buckler outside of armor is that if two men are fighting outside of armor, then we're talking civilians most likely (being that the class that would wield the longsword would wear armor to war by and large), and if we're dealing with civilians, then most likely both men would be carrying single swords without off hand items. The buckler when pared with the single sword makes it much stronger, yes, but it's also a more militarized weapon set. So singlesword against singlesword, in other words pound for pound, the longsword takes the cake easily. A 12 inch buckler rattling around at your hip all day is quite a bit in the way. Also there is definitely evidence in several 15th century manuals, and a little bit in Fiore if I remember correctly, that shows sword and buckler techniques being done with a longsword and buckler, so clearly carrying a longsword doesn't exclude carrying a buckler, or dagger, which would have been quite likely, although there isn't much evidence of sword and dagger before the 16th century.
+I am Shad Aye, I really thought you would mention rapier as thing which really won 1h vs 2h in civil defense and was quite surprised you haven't even mentioned that weapon here. Because before rapier came, it was really a little bit too much close thing sometimes. I would also mention greatsword as weapon very usefull to fight multiple pikes which were very popular in its time, rather than thing with huge sweeping reach. You can hit even allies with huge slashes and thats certainly not something you would want to do, even if it still can happen all the time.
There are sword techniques with the longsword that take advantage of its reach, leverage and kinetic potential. Training and physical ability are a huge part of any martial art, including weapon based ones.
I realize I'm late to the discussion, but one other point in favor of the one handed sword. Even a coat or cloak held in the off hand is a big step up in defense. As knife fighters have known for centuries. It is less useful against a sword but can still, briefly, entangle a sword giving you a useful extra tempo.
if you've heard scholagladiatoria's favorite word, it's "context". You seem to understand that each weapon had it's uses, and I assume you know swords are side arms and yada yada... But even with as many examples you give, I can't help but feel you've undermined the importance of context. things like heat or cold could affect the fighter and their equipment's conditions. The skill of the fighters in their chosen weapon is hugely important as well. A skirmish between (presumably two, but it could be more) combatants is not solely a competition of weapons, it is much more a competition of opposing humans with skills and weaknesses. All in all, great video, those were just a few of my criticisms. I'll be subscribing now.
Thanks man, I love to get feedback! SO true that context is extremely important, something that many people miss. thanks for pointing that out. I flattered you like and thanks heaps for the sub!
Whats interesting is that the basket hilt is not just a fist protection, you also use it to befend your head, torso and arms by standing in different guards, so to a degree it also Shields you.
I'm quite a fan of the rapier with a parying dagger. Im good will the buckler too, but it's less convenient if you rave to quik draw. Against people with two handed swords I love the quartertaff. In general I managed to use any weapon quite well, at least in my swordplay group, and when I play larp I frequently use chainmail and two handed sword.
This is so helpful, but so many questions! I've done a bit of research, not a huge amount, but I was wondering, if a person with a one handed sword was close enough, (in their opponent's guard or close to it- wow I hope I'm using that term correctly) could they have an advantage? For example, if the person with the shorter sword didn't allow themselves to be pushed away, and kept in the guard of their opponent, might they have an easier time swinging than the person with the two handed sword? I'm really just trying to think of a scenario where a one handed sword (not accompanied by a shield or something like it) can beat a two handed sword. If this makes any difference the one handed word is a flamberge.
Interesting discussion, I don't know a lot about swords but I have a few observations that you didn't address which I'd like to know more about. First is that it may depend on your expected adversary. What are they armed with and what is their training? If it is a self defence situation vs a duel then convenience of carry and the speed which you can bring the sword to hand would be most important. You mentioned reach and speed of the long sword but I don't think it can be emphasised enough the advantage of keeping your opponent at bay with the point of a long sword and being able to pivot the point from your opponents thigh to his neck lightning fast with small movements of the wrists. Also the added control you could get with a two handed sword with a long hilt, it is a huge mechanical advantage.
If it was easier to carry I'd probably take a buckler with a one hand axe, preferably one in the weapon/tool grey area, gives a bit more punch with the chop and has practical purposes as well.
Honestly my choice of weapons would be a bit new. I'd have an almost full length one handed sword in my right (dominant) and for my left I would switch depending on the situation. If i was fighting a sword or rapier user, I would hold a swordbreaker dagger in my left, otherwise i would use a slightly longer dagger sharpened on one side. Either way I'd hold it backstyle I think. I have no idea if this would be effective it's just the most attractive style to me.
And to answer your question; It would depend on what deadline I have before we start marching to war. Plate Armour wouldn't be put on quick because it didn't need to be, it could just be equipped hours before getting to the battlefield
So I was looking for a video with your thoughts of dual wielding and all I had to type in the search was "Shadiversity D" and CZcams filled in the rest "Dual Wielding", so apparently it is a searched term. :) I know you've mentioned it before in videos but if you haven't made a video on it specifically I'd love to see one.
You should make some videos on specialized anti-armour weapons (maces, warhammers etc) compared to the use of half-swording to fit your point into the gaps. Which is the best option against a full armoured guy?
In 1vs1, a sufficiently competent combatant could use his free hand to grapple and disarm the opponent. There are a wealth of techniques in 2handed or 1handed/free hand swordplay which blend offense with defense and vice-versa. However, in a mass conflict context, a shield/buckler would be the preffered companion.
Giuliano Bevisangue in Kenjustu training we often grap the enemys sword/lance handle, even with Tachi thats possible but with a shorter swords such close combat is easier, even more hard it become with spears, you have to strike each other with hand and leg, or take a dagger.
As many have already done, I'll bring my experience, and what I know from history: I study bolognese school of fencing and done many weapons combinations, I have not studied two-handed sword yet but done some sparring after learning some basics of german school (i don't remember the master tough), from what I've seen and tried with some technique 2h sword has an edge against most combinations, but I don't think it is always true: with sidesword and rotella, a good use of technique makes the difference and it seems quite an even match. It may seem that 2h sword is better to bring around but to me it is not true, while you might want to use it in duels, in a civilian context a dagger and a sword is a much better combination, streets were nasty, thieves and assassins tried to sneak up on you, also dealing with multiple opponents seems hard with a 2h weapon, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
That's why a longsword and a shield is good combo. Longswords are well balanced enough to wield with one hand as well as two. I own a longsword made by Albion and it's only 2lbs and 8 ounces, as much as an arming sword.
Man. It have a big question. There ar a lot of cases when a soldier using two-handed weapon, carries a (maybe, strapped) shield right above his wrist. Is this efficient?
If I were a hypothetical knight I would carry a round shield or kite shield paired with a German Messer sword being that those swords were amazing in general combat but not thrusting especially.
what about a hand and a half sword? it's longer, so it has better reach and can be used in one hand, but if you, for whatever reason, lost your off handed wepon, you can use both hads for more manoverabilaty. (I think...)
Wouldn't holding a shield with heavy armor make you near impenetrable. Your biggest weakness is plate armor bluntforce trauma like maces,warhammers,axes,ect. Can now be blocked by your shield. Your enemy can get to your eyeslits in the helmet because you can block their attack. So you can allow yourself to have bigger eyeslits, so better visibility. And now your only weakness is a hail of arro...
Maybe if one has a reach advantage already it would be good to use a weapon that increases it and if one has a strength advantage then the shorter weapon and shield become a better option.
Arming sword or Bastard sword for duel-wielding? Bastard sword can be used with both hands in case your other hand has its contents forcibly removed from it. Arming sword may be better in closer spaces, and perhaps easier for some to weild.
The big advantage of sword & dagger over sword & buckler is that anyone who carried a sword ALSO had a dagger - and so did quite a few people without swords. A dagger was almost universally carried. In contrast, someone with sword and buckler likely also had a dagger, therefore you're carrying slightly more weight around your daily routine. Standard carriage of the buckler by threading the sword hilt through the buckler handle is also noticeably less secure and more prone to dropping than a dagger in a proper sheathe. Not to mention the noise of carrying what is essentially a cymbal around banging against your sword, and needing to remove the buckler BEFORE being able to draw the sword... Having said that, the buckler is significantly better in strictly defensive operations than a dagger or even a main-gauche. The flip side of that is the most a buckler is likely to do offensively is the equivalent of a quick jab punch which rarely secures more than momentary advantage, where a good stab with a dagger can end the fight right there....
I was hoping you'd mention the hand-and-a-half sword. isn't that better to carry for defense than the Arming Sword? Isn't it basically an Arming Sword with a longer hilt so that you can use it with both one hand and two hands? How is that not better?
What do you think about home defense with a ballistic shield and a shortsword? I'm think of going this route. Maybe, use my pistol first, then rather than reloading, drop the gun and draw the sword.
Wouldn't holding a shield with heavy armor make you near impenetrable? Your biggest weakness is plate armor bluntforce trauma like maces,warhammers,axes,ect. Can now be blocked by your shield. Your enemy can get to your eyeslits in the helmet because you can block their attack. So you can allow yourself to have bigger eyeslits, so better visibility. And now your only weakness is a hail of arro... A good hit with a blunt weapon that you somehow didn't block with your massive kite shield.
Yes, and that's the whole problem. Your offensive capability against someone similarly armored is dismal. The longsword provides greater force at the point of impact than an arming sword, which is much more likely to do injury to the person inside, or even just knock them off balance. In practice you'd probably want to use a mace, pick, warhammer, or other such can-opener type weapon with a shield instead of an arming sword. And even then against heavy plate armor you'd struggle without the leverage of a two-handed weapon such as a halberd, polaxe, bec-de-corbin, and other such specialized two-handed can-openers.
So basically the need for a defensive weapon that can be wielded effectively without armor AND without having to carry a shield ultimately led to the creation of the rapier? A weapon that has the reach of a long sword, but allows for greater dexterity, and is just as effective at "stabby stabby" against unarmored opponents (as one would encounter during your day-to-day life).
I have to make a technical critique of your overall Philosophy of swordplay. Even without armor a longsword in the right hands can still be more deadly than an arming sword and secondary, because of synergy. What do I mean? Well the work you can do with both arms working together is more than the sum of your arms working independently, for example, with a weapon in each hand. Thus, the synergistic power is transferred into a single implement of the long sword, meaning you can move faster, make stronger attacks, be more agile, recover faster, and last longer in a fight because you are using your energy more efficiently. Is that to say then that you will automatically beat someone coming at you with say, two rappiers? Well, without armor you're right they have certain advantages. But even If you had just a chain shirt under your tunic I think a long sword would have the weight and leverage advantage even over 2 rapiers.
why not use the 2handed sword one handed and drop the shield, if you should find 2handing more useful. Or in general, why not use a larger weapon in 1 hand?
What is a katana good for? Like in what situation would a Katana be more useful compared to other swords? Its been said its good at cutting but in what situation is that the primary need?
Kaleb Smith katanas are best in light armour/ no armour encounters, because they are very fast due to being very thin and lightweight however, they are almost useless against full plate armour because they can't Pearce the armour and aren't heavy enough to do any really damage
Kaleb Smith nothing, why do you think guns were invented in Asia? Because the katana sucks! (Sarcasm) honestly though it's a case of cultural differences. In Europe armor was pretty easy to come by but in Asia you didn't have chainmail so if you weren't a Samurai you probably wouldn't have any armor and thus a cut would be effective. I'm not an expert in Asian history but I haven't heard of Chinese gambesons or Japanese Lorica Hamata.
none of the katanas I ever held were thin or lightweight, and they are two-handed swords, but their blade length puts them in the same ballpark as european one-handed swords. compared to longswords, which are also two-handed weapons, they are surprisingly heavy and short. I don't think they were ever intended to go against plate armor. but as far as I know, they were side arms in the samurai armory, with spears and bows being primary weapons of war.
I think this video fails to mention the fact that long swords were more expensive and much harder to carry around in daily life. and I think that is the reason they fell out of popularity. I acknowledge that long swords are disadvantaged against Shields if you are not wearing armor I don't think they're that disadvantaged against daggers or bucklers, but I know that's a matter of opinion.
What say you about a bastard sword and a buckler attached to hand? You can use the sword in 2 hands and gain power with your hands protected and in case of necessity you can release one hand and use it as a shield hand
I am unconvinced of your statement that the longsword came as a response to armor. As a practicer of HEMA and someone who does german styles from people like Lichtenauer, I find that most manuscripts written by him all depict fighters in nothing but maybe a gambeson. Not only that, but alot of the moves are obviously NOT designed for use against armor, actually most of them arent. I would argue that longsword was adapted for use with armor by using styles like Halfswording, which are much much more effective against armor. The traditional use for the longsword in my opinion is a reaction to chainmail. Smaller 1 handed swords in the past, say used by the vikings were rather wide, and were designed to be used in the cut and the thrust. With chainmail more available, I believe that the longsword came into use as a way to easily work in thrusts as well as still being a GREAT cutter. Also.. about the not being able to defend and attack at the same time.. just no. The longsword techniques I have done, all revolve around binding and locking the others sword while killing the opponent, and pulling out before a strike could be landed. It is very balanced.
Romeo Lopez Thanks for the input mate and I really appreciate the views of someone with practical experience on the matter. Now I'm not saying longsword was never used unarmored, it most certainly was, but that it's use fell out of practice because I feel it didn't offer enough defense as a single weapon when being used without armor. So I have to say that at the moment I stand by what I said, simply because if the longsword was so effective without armor it would have continued in use but we don't see that historically. Rapiers, broadswords, backswords and sidesword, became the predominant weapons used in unarmored combat, all one handed weapons and all combining with a secondary tool, being; dagger, buckler, targe or even gauntlet. As to why the longsord was developed, I still hold my opinion while knowing full well I could be wrong, as there's simply no way to prove either theory. All we can do is make our most educated guess, which is what I've done. I agree with you that you most certainly can defend and attack in the one movement but I feel you paint a perfect picture, every swordsman would hope to do this in every move but from my own study and research I have seen that these moves happen far less often, which exposes the weakness I explain in my video. Thanks again for the awesome feedback mate, I really do appreciate it.
FIRST. The longsword has a hilt with a good enough size as to be used one-handed and two-handed interchangeably, hence it's alternative name "Hand-and-a-Half Sword". SECOND. Greatswords were used in combat. There are training manuals that are for two-handed combat and they would have more power. There's even recorded information about Men at Arms wielding greatswords
I wonder what the disadvantages of wearing full plate armor are because they could weigh up to 50 lbs. Maneuverability and endurance had to be a problem whereas someone with a shield and a one handed sword would be able to react more quickly. I would also think that full plate and long sword vs. full plate and long sword would lose the advantages of range. Personally, I would prefer to have half plate with a sword and shield. To me this optimizes protection of most of the exposed areas when using a one handed sword and a shield. You have better maneuverability and wouldn't be as exhausted during a fight.
yeah i would say if you are going into battle if you had the money you would most definitely be getting full armor and a weapon like a long sword or something with good reach but if your just living your day to day life you would most likely be carrying something smaller as it is much more convenient ( even if you had alot of money i don't think you would be carrying a long sword through the streets as it would annoy you ) i could put it this way compare to modern day weapons like guns your not going to walk around the streets with a rifle down your pants day to day (unless your not right in the head ) but you may have a hand gun for self defense ( mind you i live in Australia so i won't be carrying a gun of any type anywhere it is just an example
kult of athena I opted for a hanwei mercenary sword for exactly that reason. It's a heavy & durable longsword -- maybe something one handed and more convenient to carry would suit better though.
People in RPGs always wear their armor and carry a variety of weapons unlike in history where the castle guards don't wear their armor and carry their 9' skirmishing halberd when they go to the tavern.
Ok but what about this. You're in the vicinity of town, you're not wearing armor and you're not going to wear a shield of course, you're in your fancy noble clothes. What will you carry? An arming sword or a longsword. Your hand would be empty with an arming sword but you have nothing else to use.
what if you used a 1 handed sword and a Japanese Sai. i know this would not of been the case for obvious reasons but for rps sake and video games i thought it might be good.
Even without armor I would pick "reach" over "2 things to act independently with" any day. There are many angles you can't properly block from and attack at the same time with the latter. And when the enemy has the reach advantage you often are too far away to attack after the block anyway. That you can't necessarily block a powerful blow from a big weapon with only a dagger or a buckler is another problem. Bigger weapons simply became unpopular because of the pain in the ass to carry them around casually. Also I think the shield thing is more of a "big battle" thing. Against one enemy it is quite easy to get aroung a shield when you have a two handed weapon. Basically because of the huge reach advantage. Main advantage of the shield is the offered defence against projectiles and the component of passively shielding you even if the situation is unclear.
@Unnatural Atrophy I get the impression you haven't thought this entirely through. What large shield are we talking about for example. There has only been one shield in the history of shields who would have been up for the task of having a chance to properly help you to defend yourself against long range weapons like spears and halberds in a 1v1 context. The Roman Scutum. Not only would basically all other shields you only hold with the hand have a really tough time defending any high impact weapon to begin with, which includes many higher range weapons we talk about, every other shield would also make it extremely hard to prevent someone with higher range to simply attack your legs. If you are only working with a pure thrusting weapon a long norman shield might at least even the odds (as seen here czcams.com/video/afqhBODc_8U/video.html) but this also only works as long as nobody goes beyond thrusting. Not only are many higher range weapons capable of more than thrusting, this is also true for many forms of spears. This by the way also limits the context of your "go beyond the effective range" advice because this concept more or less revolves around thrusts. Cleaving the head of someone with a halberd who is standing rather close is not as big of a problem as trying to stab them. Where your "confined space" argument with time delay to draw a weapon comes from is something that makes no sense to begin with. You aren't running around with a halberd in your living room. And there is obviously nobody who has to "draw" a larger weapon to begin with, because you carry them in your hands, not in some magical World of Warcraft holster on your back xD
@Unnatural Atrophy "false and absurd thing to claim" Funny how you are saying that without being able to come up with a counter example. What shield thats not a scutum is supposed to shield you against a pole arm? If you cannot name any you made my argument for me. "Also I made it clear that range is good in mass combat e.g. pike wall" You might think that you did me a favor by acknowledgingthe relevance of range in another field, but I really don't care. I care about the validity of points. And the evidence is rather clear. Range also plays a role on the battlefield, but the results are much different. Someone with a short range weapon will lose 9 of 10 fights against someone with a halberd. In history there have been quite a few armed forces who dealt well with enemy forces that outranged them with their melee weapons. Range is always good. Yet the impact can obviously vary depending on the context. "It's overrated for 1v1, as is thrusting compared to chopping" I am sorry to say it the way it is, but to say that thrusting is overrated is delusional. The thrust is the most powerful action you can do with a melee weapon. Period. The only thing comparable, if you don't want to count it as "thrusting" is if you have a spike on your weapon, not uncommon with pole arms, which allows you to basically use the physics of a thrust with a massive swinging motion. A gambeson that is basically uncuttable and only "choppable" with significant effort can be thrusted through like butter. Thrusting is also, by far, the most reliable way to get through chainmail. And its the only way of ever penetrating proper plate armor in the first place. I shouldn't be required to explain to anyone that concentrating a force on a single point instead of a long edge will have more penetrative power. I would instead turn your statement completely around. Chopping is heavily overrated, because people watched too many fantasy movies where people are chopping through plate armor like butter. Its not realistic. A knight in late medieval full plate is as close to being an "unchoppable" target as it gets. Why you still try to go against the strawman of halberds indoors, a point nobody ever made, is something only you can answer I guess.
@Unnatural Atrophy Why are you splitting your answer? It makes you look kinda confused if you bring up new points over and over again you initially forgot. "Well considering that the Romans copied the scutum from Gaelic shields, and that the scutum existed hundreds of years before poleaems and was never used against polearms, and that the scutum was obsolete and was not used at the time poleaems were used, I'd say you have no idea what you're talking about." Impressive. Every single word you said is wrong. But instead of lecturing you about the actual usage and the origin of both the Scutum and pole arms let me clarify why your entire point goes nowhere anyway: Weither the Scutum was used in a certain time period has nothing to do with it being helpful for a certain task within another period. That from all the shield designs one is the most helpful in 1v1 against a pole arm is not going to force it into popularity if either the context demands something else or another, even better, option exists. The reality is, that if you have to fight someone competent with a pole arm the best equipment to choose against this would not be the least bad one of the options you like, which would be the only shield that can do anything against most pole arms in the first place, but instead the best option available, which more often than not was another pole arm. "Secondly you're claiming that you'd choose more range for the battlefield. I had no idea you were going into a medieval battle. I was under the impression that you were talking about the weapon you'd choose for yourself to use and carry today, for use in 1v1 or self defense situations, in which case range is grossly overrated as is thrusting compared to chopping. If you are going to battle with only medieval technology then I'd recommend you use a halberd, bill or poleaxe, with full plate mail. Good luck. " You cannot possibly be trying to weasel yourself out of your ludicrous mistakes by claiming that you thought this topic was about modern self defense. But even if we would accept this hilarious premise your point would make no sense. Because the laws of nature didn't change on the way from the medieval period to now. Weither you are using missiles, guns, a sword or your fists, range matters. And no amount of denial is going to change this. "though it's quite ironic that you have such praise for the scutum above all other types of shields (even though it's basically just a rectangular shield copied from Gaelic oval shields) when it was effectively used in conjunction with the gladius, a SHORT range weapon, which you think should lose 9 out of 10 times. I wonder what you think of the gladius then." Stop making things up. Nobody here "praised" the Scutum. It just doesn't suck as badly as other shields if you have the crackpot idea to rely on its ability to block a pole arm. The Gladius was a nice working weapon for a certain context. And if you are going against enemies that have yet to invent swords that don't bend while fighting its a great choice. But if you had to pick a Gladius against a longsword you would be going to have a really bad time. There is a reason why swords became longer, not shorter, when industry and metallurgy were able to support the demand properly.
@Unnatural Atrophy "you claimed that the scutum is the only shield which has ever existed which is effective against weapons with long reach such as spears, halberds and poleaems." "Effective" is a strong term. I said its the only one "up for the task of having a chance to properly help you to defend yourself against long range weapons like spears and halberds in a 1v1 context". I chose these words wisely, because the reality against a powerful weapon, like a proper pole arm, is that a "hard" defense like a shield is in principle nigh impossible. A scutum is one of the most massive shield designs out there. And its geometry allows to shield the legs. Thats why its better than most alternatives. But make no mistake, if I blast you with a pollaxe and you block it with a scutum you will have a hard time to even stay on your feet, even if the shield survives this. I am not necessarily interested in nitpicking, put since you are flip-flopping about your points, trying to diverge into retarded sideshopws I consider it important to make 100% clear what my position is. I mean you are already saying you didn't know that a discussion about halberds and shields was not about modern self defense.... "Firstly the scutum was copied from Gaelic oval shields" First off, no it wasn't as far as we know. Such shields have been in use in ancient Italy as long as we can follow its history. Secondly, even if it was, the changes the Romans would have made are very important. The Gaelic oval shields cannot block a powerful weapon. You couldn't hold the shield in place against a powerful blow with such a weapon, due to the handle, their geometry makes it close to impossible to shield the legs properly and they are too lightweight to do well against powerful blows in general. "many shields which are effective against weapons with a long reach have existed throughout history" Name them then. I already asked you to tell us which shields you are talking about 6 posts ago. Why are you playing hide the ball? If you have an argument stop hiding it. "if none other were then everyone would have used scutums and nothing else" This notion makes no sense, since those wouldn't have helped that much either as I already explained. If you brought a shield to a medieval battle it was not because of enemies with halberds, but more likely because of projectile weapons. You aren't just preparing your entire army against a single weapon type after all. But if you wanted to prepare for halberds there was obviously the alternative I already explained as well. Simply not using a shield: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Schlacht_bei_Dorneck.jpg "halberds and polearms didn't even exist at the time scutums were used" This my friend is a historical depiction of a Falx. One of the many pole arms that existed at the time of the Roman Empire. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/AdamclisiMetope37.jpg For increased comical value I chose a depiction that also has a Scutum in it. "For some reason you just really worship scutums and dislike all other types of shields" Not really. I just made a very simple statement about the Scutum you don't want to accept. And since you try to deny the correctness of this statement, me debunking that denial might seem as if I would "defend" the Scutum or something. I am not. Any shield sucks balls against a proper pole arm. You are simply not going to be able to "block" a blow of what effectively comes down to a bigger sledge hammer. Period. No matter what kind of plate you have in your hand you try to block it with. But the Scutum sucks the least badly and is at least able to prevent an opponent from simply scything your feet away in 1v1. "Even the Persian soldiers used shields pretty much the same as scutums way before the Romans ever made such a shield." Did work really well against Greek pole arms, didn't it? "In fact do you even have one example of scutums being used to defend against halberds and polearms to back up your claim?" Funny that I already provided a historical depiction with exactly that xD But I will explain my point further, since I think you simply had no chance to understand my conclusion yet, because instead of questioning my reasoning you were instantly blocked by feeling offended by my conclusion. Lets make a thought experiment. Imagine your opponent has an average round shield and any short weapon in his hands and you have a lucerne hammer thats 2 meters long. First things first you will obviously not hold back. You can of course just try to hit anything, since the shield will not really "block" anything in the real sense of the word. But it will still have a reduced effect since getting hit by your own shield that has been hit be a heavy weapon is still favourable to being hit by said weapon itself. So I would prefer to simply go for the legs. A clear wide swing for the knees. What is your opponent going to do? Jump over it? Try to kneel quickly so his shield is low enough to even catch your weapon? Bullocks. Unless he is far enough away to dodge his knees are mush and the fight is over. No armor on earth could save him from that either. What if he had a longer shield? Well, that solves your opponents problem of having to kneel to even catch the hammer with his shield in the first place. But if he had a Norman shield or the Gaelic oval shield you seem to like, is that really solving the problem? Of course not. He just hasn't the leverage to block the blow with the far end of his shield. The fact that those shields are basically flat and the way the handle is attached will also create the huge risk that the blow turns the shield into an even worse position. The shields are still effectively doing dick about the blow. What if he has a Scutum? Well, first off its twice as heavy, which is obviously better if you try to stop a heavy attack. But the main advantage I focus on is the non-flat geometry and how low its position is. The opponent doesn't even have to do anything for his shield to protect his knees. And due to the geometry of the edges of the Scutum and the way its handle works the risk of the shield unintentionally turning into a worse position is much smaller. The Scutum is designed to make it easy to protect yourself. And thats what it does here. Its less flexible than other shield designs but fancy shield movement is not your concern when you are about to get whacked with a more evil version of a sledgehammer. Its about surviving long enough to even advance. Getting hit still sucks as hell, but at least our imaginary opponent is not dropping because of a single attack he cannot possibly do anything against.
In terms of reach, definitely longsword But then again, since you have an offhand with a one-handed sword, you could do grappling and wrestling once you manage to get in close, so it's largely up to what the user wants
If I remember rightly, a riposte is actually a counter-attack made just after a parry. It's a lot easier to do with a rapier or other one-handed duelling sword than a two-hander.
if stuck to European weapons, i would pick a single handed sword and an axe in the off hand, for an axe can drag down a shield, or catch a sword and pushing/pulling it out out of the way, and then attacking with the sword once the defense/offense is out of the way and i know from a mock battle that it is both effective and fun to use.
+Nathan Freeman but axes have no guard, it would be pretty easy for the opponent to attack your hand, especially since it's the non dominant one and thus both the less responsive and the one you aren't focusing on.
Enaluxeme that is true but you first of all do not see many later axe users without gauntlet though it will not stop all that is going to your hand it will certainly help second i am talking about the type of axe where it has the axe head over hangs the handle in a semi circler way with that angling it down you can chatch the sword there, thirdly i would not go onto the battlefield without training first, fourthly you can still block with your sword and just use your axe to pull down the enemy's sheild, also this is so you are mainly on the attacking and blocking when need be, finally since i only did one mock battle i am not completely sure on everything about the mock battle and the style and most of what i am doing is theory crafting. So thanks for the comment and challenging my idea that was a good Point and forced me to think about the concept more.
I'd have to agree with u on one arming sword and shield even in a everyday kinda thing I love pushing my limits so I'd build up the stamina to be able to carry a shield with me. u should make a video on how worriers involved strikes with there hands - shields and feet into there fighting style to gain a advantage I haven't watched a video on this much yet and I don't believe you have covered it much that I know of.
So your match-up is longsword and full plate armor vs. arming sword & shield and no armor? If you want to match these weapons you should at least pick two fighters who both have full plate armor. And yes there are depictions of people wearing full plate with shield and one handed weapons.
+Portgas D Ace Depends on the force of the blow you're trying to block but generally you'd want to do it with either your shield or whatever other off-hand weapon you have. If not that, then with your main weapon somewhere near the guard. The further away from the guard you try to block an attack, the weaker you're gonna be in your attempt.
Yes, only talking about swords in this video as I actually wouldn't pick a sword as my primary battlefield weapon, yet I’d have a longsword as my backup hanging on my side as most people did, that’s the great convenience about swords (covered in my video, why swords are awesome). The spear is a huge contender for the weapon I would pick. In my opinion, the spear is one of the most underestimated weapons now days. They are a far better battlefield weapon than the sword, but the sword is FAR better than the spear for self defense, mainly due to convenience and versatility.
What is a "Rapier" sword exactly, is it a long sword ??? AND If we are talking about swords, what about the curved sword "the Sabre or Saber" like, Scimitars, Shamshir, the Japanese sword Katana and Wakizashi, the Chinese swords Dadao, Dao and Jian or the Hook sword, or even yet the Egyptian Khopesh ???
Great questions! I am going to do a video on later period swords (sidesword, broadsword, backsword and rapier) The rapier really is in a sword class unto itself as it’s too dissimilar to the arming sword or longsword, unlike sidesword, broadsword and backsword which are all very much later versions of the arming sword. So to answer, what is a rapier? A rapier is a rapier like a normal arming sword is an arming sword. It’s in it’s own class even though it did essentially evolve from the arming sword and sidesword. The rapier is the specialized sword for the one on one duel and really is the best sword for it. There’s a few misconception about the rapier, their weight for one, they weighed as much as an arming sword, but I’ll go into the whys and hows of this in my video. Curved swords are another bag of fish and there’s some very important points to cover, so I’ll do it in another video as well, but rest assured, they’re not forgotten. I’m going to dedicate two detailed videos for the Katana, been planning that one for a while, not because katana is better than other swords, but because there’s SO many misconceptions about it.
CyART ™ A rapier is a one handed sword with a long blade which while specialised for thrusting, could still cut if required. I'd imagine it developed from some of the more thrust centric arming swords, but I don't know for certain. A rapier blade was typically around 40" long (about the same length as a typical longsword). The sabre was developed from the back sword - a type of sword similar to an arming sword except that the back edge was typically only sharp for a few inches rather than being sharp all the way down. As to swords from other continents, well, the thing with swords is that they are essentially a sharp metal bar - by and large, you either cut with it, in which case you want to cut in the same way as you use a steak knife with meat (either pushing or pulling as you strike) or you thrust with it. Curved blades tend to be better at cutting, while straight blades tend to be better at thrusting. Either way, the things stated here are still largely true. To use Japan as an example, you had two swords which typically saw battlefield use - the tachi, which was similar to a katana but better suited to battlefield conditions, and the no dachi, which was essentially a great sword. The tachi was most commonly used as either a cavalry weapon or as a side arm for archers, while the no dachi was most commonly used for the same things - and in the same way - as a great sword. The typical foot soldier throughout Japanese history (at least, until someone introduced them to firearms) carried a long spear or a long bow - the shield pretty much never happened, meaning that in that context, a katana would be a better choice than a wakizashi in a fight. Also, note how a wakizashi has a two handed hilt - suggesting that in spite of its short size, that may well have been how it was intended to be used (presumably indoors, where a katana might be too long to fight with easily). Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about bronze age weaponry to talk about those, other than to point out that bronze age weapons were typically the length of later short swords, with arming sword length weapons not really being created until the invention of steel. As such, bronze age swords were almost certainly used alongside a shield - and would probably have similar advantages over a two handed weapon as an arming sword. What I do know about Chinese swords is that the one handed sword forms typically show the off hand being used to control the opponent's weapon hand, which while more dangerous than using a shield or a dagger, is certainly effective if you know how to do it. Hook swords and butterfly swords, meanwhile, are typically used in pairs.
I would carry a two-handed shield
T rex that was the joke buddy
T rex czcams.com/video/oXp8Th41rBs/video.html
@@Trex-or6cd Shield bash. Shields are a defensive weapon.
Totally accurate battle simulator has that lol
T rex disappeared oh god
When you think about it, spears are just eight handed knives
Where did the 6 other hands come from
*From the hands of everyone the eight-handed knife had stabbed*
If "swashbuckler" comes from the way people walk with a sword+buckler, does "swagger" comes from sword+dagger?
+bbaattttlleemmooddee Good observation. The word "swagger" was supposedly first used by William Shakespeare in one of his plays.
Fake ethymology. Linguistics are more tough then you might think. You can't just correctly guess about it
You can, guesses can be lucky.
You probably can't RELIABLY correctly guess though.
Leyrann just like German, if you say an English word with a German accent you do have a chance of getting it right, of course some words are vastly different too, like gift.
@@Gr3nadgr3gory nah. In both cases a gift is typically given to someone else.
Metatron wears armor every day.
"When you defend you cant attack and when you attack you cant defend"... literally the opposite of what the martial sword arts are.
But that's where the art comes in, it's difficult to both attack and defend effectively simultaneously. Any peasant could pick up a sword and do one at a time to some degree
I've been practicing with sword since i was 13 (my grandpa presented me his old cavalry sabre at that age, and showed me the basics ) , since then i went around trying different styles and different weapons, made it a hobby. 27 years past since then, so i had quite a lot of practice with both one-handed weapons and two-handed. (well and 'hand-and-a-half' ofc)
In my opinion even without armor, provided you have enough space to maneuver it's fairly easy to beat a shields-man using a 2h weapon, your attacks are both faster (not by much, thou) stronger, more accurate, and as you mentioned in the video - you do have a better reach. But for a less experienced fighter, I would recommend a short sword + shield combo myself, since 2h sword fighting is in a great part about coordination of the movements, and I, personally, began to really grasp main concepts after ~5 years of training.
With an expert opponent shield could be, in fact, a disadvantage, that can be exploited.
And in the case of full-armored combat there is generally no contest, it's just a brutal stomping :))
P.S. But if you are going to fight in a narrow corridor, or (giggles) ship lower decks - take a shield with you and something shorter :)))
4:40 but i do it all the time in skyrim XD
You should do Single wielding vs Dual wielding
Both lose to sword and shield
Your ancestors would have a hearty chuckle at hearing you say "dual-wielding" I'm sure, if they knew what you meant.
It can only really be done with two small weapons or one long one short. You see it in rapier/main gauche, also in Eskrima with sticks and also sword/dagger combination.
In other words, there's only so many ways to do it, and it wasn't that cool or effective. That said, an unbeaten Samurai duelist decided he was bored of winning sword fights with one katana and did manage to dual-wield katana effectively. This is a rare exception and the stuff of legends, some of it also probably isn't true.
@@airchompz Tell that to the Chinese martial arts which has several dual wielding weapons about the same length as an arming sword.
Sword + extra slapping hand
@@Flyn_Valighn I'm not saying it doesn't exist (I gave a shout-out to a Japanese duelist who mastered 2 katana) but I do think to be skilled at "dual-wielding" is extraordinary. I know they can be same length but that means you need more skill than 1 long, 1 short weapon or 2 short weapons as they will tangle and cross.
Cheers, I agree that Asia is pretty much the exception to this rule.
I love shields.
I mean:
I LOVE SHIELDS!!
Thank you for clarifying up the classification the Broadsword
One-handed and shield for the foot soldiers, two-handed and plate armor for the commander
9:30 Actually, Shad, you can get past fullplate if you bladelock with the sword instead and use the dagger to stab into the openings.
One other thought that came with this is, even if you have a dagger, you can still carry a buckler. Even if you succeed, but lose the dagger, you still have a defensive measure.
I double my poleaxe as a walking stick
Why would you wear a suit jacket and pants, with a tshirt? Can that be your next video topic?
+Michaelkayslay is the world ready for that?
Please do it!!!
Swag
we're not ready
😂
This channel is amazing, thank you for sharing your knowledge
Eeeeeeeeh, this might be the first video of yours sir that I sort of disagree on. I have been doing HEMA for just over a year now, and I know that is not a lot at all, but I've been doing it with people who have been doing it for far longer and we've had this exact conversation multiple times before, between arming sword/buckler vs. longsword. It helps that these are two of the three main weapon systems that we practice in my club (along with Rapier). And the consensus is generally that even outside of armor, longsword wins. While it is true that longsword particularly dominates in armor, most of the treatisies that we read all deal with longsword combat outside of armor.
You forget to mention the other very large advantage that a longsword has over a 1 handed sword when it comes to a duel, and that is control. Yes, you might have two different tools with which to act when using the sword and buckler, but try and have any sort of control in the bind with an arming sword vs. a longsword. You can't do it, unless you using the buckler to brace your arm-hand. If you can separate the two tools and get your longsword in-between the buckler and arming sword, you are at a major advantage. Yes, the buckler has some advantage, but because it is so small, it doesn't really act as a proper wall of defense. It's used more to catch and push your opponent's weapons rather than to hold it up and block like a shield. As such, it struggles against a weapon which allows a great deal of leverage and control, like a longsword.
Now, obviously, the difference isn't enormous, and when we do mixed weapons sparring, the guy with the arming sword and buckler wins almost as often as he looses (although it is also evident that he struggles with it a bit).
Now, obviously a full shield is an entirely different story. A full shield is a great, bloody wall in front of you and it cannot be pushed away or cut around anywhere nearly as effectively as a buckler can. A shield throws this entirely out of whack and makes a 1-handed sword MASSIVELY more useful than a 2-handed sword...but then you have to lug around a big shield wherever you go and that is just a pain...
One other thing, you say that the longsword became popular due to the advancement of plate armor. And while I admit that my knowledge of the history of the development of these things is not the best, I was under the impression that the longsword's popularity was at it's peak during the 1200s and 1300s, while plate armor of the kind you are talking about, that protected your entire body, was not in use until the 1400s...which if true (and it might not be, considering that I checked that through google right now), really throws a wrench into what your are suggesting...
So why DID the longsword go out of style? Well, I don't really know enough to answer that. But I can make a guess as to at least one element. Eventually, the Rapier took the place of the longsword as the dueling weapon, owing to the fact that it was just as long, but was also much more nimble and could be used with a dagger as well. Plus it had even more reach than a longsword because you could extend your arm much further than you can with a two-handed sword. The longsword still didn't go entirely out of style though. The Germans didn't like Rapiers and never really adopted the Rapier in their hearts (although they did use it and developed a style for it). The longsword continued to be the main weapon of choice there for a while. I would also argue that advancements in hand-protection (as in side-swords) helped to give those sorts of weapons more of an advantage, since you didn't have to be as careful of as many things and could have more options for how to use the weapon. Sabers also became very popular in war because unlike in a duel, where stabbing is really good, on the battlefield it is better to slash so that you don't have to waist time pulling a sword out of your enemy while another might be rushing you.
Other than the Rapier thing though, most of that is my own speculation.
+Kyle Flanagan Well you were bound to disagree with me at some point ^_^ we humans being self determining beings and all with different points of view.
Thanks heaps for all your insights and I totally agree that arming sword and buckler vs longsword is a MUCH closer match up compared to arming sword and shield vs longsword. My understanding is that Longswords didn't come into mainstream use until the fourteenth century which coincides with the development of more advanced armor. Matt Easton has a good video on this subject:
czcams.com/video/bA4TxBZEOR8/video.html
You're insights regarding the rapier are some great thoughts. Thanks again for everything you've shared!
+I am Shad I agree with Kyle in most points, I really think your logic here isn't complete. One thing that came to my mind all the time when listening to your explanation was technology. Longswords are a lot more difficult (and more expensive) to produce than shorter swords. This might also be a good reason why longswords weren't more widely distributed even after some time they had been developed! It is simply very difficult and expensive to produce such a large, thin blade without the risk that it migh easily break.
Just because history shows us, that longswords weren't more common through times does therefore not at all imply that they are somehow less effective.
I think the evolution from longswords to rapiers is another example that supports this idea. Rapiers are a really superior duelling weapon, but it simply wasn't possible, technologically, to produce them until the renaissance.
You mentioned half-swording and I think this is another important point. One of the huge advantages of longswords are their immense versatility out (and yes of course :) ) *in* armour. You can turn a longsword around and use the crossguard and pommel as anti armour, you can halfsword against more powerful opponents or opponents with heavy weapons and to get a much more effective thrust, you can generally cut *and* thrust very well. You can even use it as a lever when wrestling in or out of armour.
It is also in itself already a very effective defensive weapon because it is so long and nimble. Another important detail there: you said that there are exceptions where you can defend at the same time you attack with a longsword. Actually, this is not at all the exception but one of the most fundamental principles. You alsways attack in a way so that you are also well defended. And this is something that actually works quite well with a longsword after some practice.
As Kyle mentioned, in sparrings today it does not at all seem that sword and buckler have an advantage over longsword.
My conclusion is that in general the longsword is a mildly superiour sword at it's time because it is a very effective and probably the most versatile weapon both in and out of armour. The fact that other weapons, like sword and buckler, were more popular has other reasons than effectiveness, like technology, price, culture etc.
+I am Shad I would also like to point out that when considering longsword and sword in buckler outside of armor is that if two men are fighting outside of armor, then we're talking civilians most likely (being that the class that would wield the longsword would wear armor to war by and large), and if we're dealing with civilians, then most likely both men would be carrying single swords without off hand items. The buckler when pared with the single sword makes it much stronger, yes, but it's also a more militarized weapon set. So singlesword against singlesword, in other words pound for pound, the longsword takes the cake easily. A 12 inch buckler rattling around at your hip all day is quite a bit in the way. Also there is definitely evidence in several 15th century manuals, and a little bit in Fiore if I remember correctly, that shows sword and buckler techniques being done with a longsword and buckler, so clearly carrying a longsword doesn't exclude carrying a buckler, or dagger, which would have been quite likely, although there isn't much evidence of sword and dagger before the 16th century.
+I am Shad Aye, I really thought you would mention rapier as thing which really won 1h vs 2h in civil defense and was quite surprised you haven't even mentioned that weapon here. Because before rapier came, it was really a little bit too much close thing sometimes. I would also mention greatsword as weapon very usefull to fight multiple pikes which were very popular in its time, rather than thing with huge sweeping reach. You can hit even allies with huge slashes and thats certainly not something you would want to do, even if it still can happen all the time.
+I am Shad i also have to agree more so with kyle.
There are sword techniques with the longsword that take advantage of its reach, leverage and kinetic potential. Training and physical ability are a huge part of any martial art, including weapon based ones.
I realize I'm late to the discussion, but one other point in favor of the one handed sword. Even a coat or cloak held in the off hand is a big step up in defense. As knife fighters have known for centuries. It is less useful against a sword but can still, briefly, entangle a sword giving you a useful extra tempo.
Can you please consider doing a video on daggers and short swords. Thank you for your channel. Keep up the good work.
I swear I have had to subscribe to you three times already.
if you've heard scholagladiatoria's favorite word, it's "context". You seem to understand that each weapon had it's uses, and I assume you know swords are side arms and yada yada... But even with as many examples you give, I can't help but feel you've undermined the importance of context. things like heat or cold could affect the fighter and their equipment's conditions. The skill of the fighters in their chosen weapon is hugely important as well. A skirmish between (presumably two, but it could be more) combatants is not solely a competition of weapons, it is much more a competition of opposing humans with skills and weaknesses.
All in all, great video, those were just a few of my criticisms. I'll be subscribing now.
Thanks man, I love to get feedback!
SO true that context is extremely important, something that many people miss. thanks for pointing that out.
I flattered you like and thanks heaps for the sub!
Whats interesting is that the basket hilt is not just a fist protection, you also use it to befend your head, torso and arms by standing in different guards, so to a degree it also Shields you.
I'm quite a fan of the rapier with a parying dagger. Im good will the buckler too, but it's less convenient if you rave to quik draw.
Against people with two handed swords I love the quartertaff.
In general I managed to use any weapon quite well, at least in my swordplay group, and when I play larp I frequently use chainmail and two handed sword.
This is so helpful, but so many questions! I've done a bit of research, not a huge amount, but I was wondering, if a person with a one handed sword was close enough, (in their opponent's guard or close to it- wow I hope I'm using that term correctly) could they have an advantage? For example, if the person with the shorter sword didn't allow themselves to be pushed away, and kept in the guard of their opponent, might they have an easier time swinging than the person with the two handed sword?
I'm really just trying to think of a scenario where a one handed sword (not accompanied by a shield or something like it) can beat a two handed sword. If this makes any difference the one handed word is a flamberge.
He just explained with the Roman Gladius was in use for 800 years.
”you can’t attack and defend at the same time”
Master cuts: *Am I a joke to you?*
The funny thing is you can use a one-handed sword with two by cupping your sword hand and a two-hander with one hand if its grip supports that.
Interesting discussion, I don't know a lot about swords but I have a few observations that you didn't address which I'd like to know more about.
First is that it may depend on your expected adversary. What are they armed with and what is their training?
If it is a self defence situation vs a duel then convenience of carry and the speed which you can bring the sword to hand would be most important.
You mentioned reach and speed of the long sword but I don't think it can be emphasised enough the advantage of keeping your opponent at bay with the point of a long sword and being able to pivot the point from your opponents thigh to his neck lightning fast with small movements of the wrists.
Also the added control you could get with a two handed sword with a long hilt, it is a huge mechanical advantage.
If it was easier to carry I'd probably take a buckler with a one hand axe, preferably one in the weapon/tool grey area, gives a bit more punch with the chop and has practical purposes as well.
Dalton Cook I'd imagine a lot of fighting peasants might have had similar ideas
What sword and dagger would you choose? Do you have a video on it?
you are like a Brandon Sanderson for Medival Weapons/Armor ... i like you :)
Honestly my choice of weapons would be a bit new. I'd have an almost full length one handed sword in my right (dominant) and for my left I would switch depending on the situation. If i was fighting a sword or rapier user, I would hold a swordbreaker dagger in my left, otherwise i would use a slightly longer dagger sharpened on one side. Either way I'd hold it backstyle I think.
I have no idea if this would be effective it's just the most attractive style to me.
And to answer your question; It would depend on what deadline I have before we start marching to war. Plate Armour wouldn't be put on quick because it didn't need to be, it could just be equipped hours before getting to the battlefield
So I was looking for a video with your thoughts of dual wielding and all I had to type in the search was "Shadiversity D" and CZcams filled in the rest "Dual Wielding", so apparently it is a searched term. :)
I know you've mentioned it before in videos but if you haven't made a video on it specifically I'd love to see one.
You should make some videos on specialized anti-armour weapons (maces, warhammers etc) compared to the use of half-swording to fit your point into the gaps. Which is the best option against a full armoured guy?
Paolo Morresi Thanks a great suggestion, I've put it on my videos to do list!
Shields are definitely cumbersome, but a heater shield can't be much worse than a purse. Those get pretty damn heavy.
Great video!
SchmoopyHD Thanks!
In 1vs1, a sufficiently competent combatant could use his free hand to grapple and disarm the opponent. There are a wealth of techniques in 2handed or 1handed/free hand swordplay which blend offense with defense and vice-versa. However, in a mass conflict context, a shield/buckler would be the preffered companion.
Giuliano Bevisangue I agree completely.
Giuliano Bevisangue in Kenjustu training we often grap the enemys sword/lance handle, even with Tachi thats possible but with a shorter swords such close combat is easier, even more hard it become with spears, you have to strike each other with hand and leg, or take a dagger.
As many have already done, I'll bring my experience, and what I know from history: I study bolognese school of fencing and done many weapons combinations, I have not studied two-handed sword yet but done some sparring after learning some basics of german school (i don't remember the master tough), from what I've seen and tried with some technique 2h sword has an edge against most combinations, but I don't think it is always true: with sidesword and rotella, a good use of technique makes the difference and it seems quite an even match. It may seem that 2h sword is better to bring around but to me it is not true, while you might want to use it in duels, in a civilian context a dagger and a sword is a much better combination, streets were nasty, thieves and assassins tried to sneak up on you, also dealing with multiple opponents seems hard with a 2h weapon, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
What are the wooden swords that are in the background did you buy them? Edit: and can you put a link if you did thanks
Shad's video game switch between short sword to kite shield
That's why a longsword and a shield is good combo. Longswords are well balanced enough to wield with one hand as well as two. I own a longsword made by Albion and it's only 2lbs and 8 ounces, as much as an arming sword.
Man. It have a big question. There ar a lot of cases when a soldier using two-handed weapon, carries a (maybe, strapped) shield right above his wrist. Is this efficient?
If I were a hypothetical knight I would carry a round shield or kite shield paired with a German Messer sword being that those swords were amazing in general combat but not thrusting especially.
what about a hand and a half sword? it's longer, so it has better reach and can be used in one hand, but if you, for whatever reason, lost your off handed wepon, you can use both hads for more manoverabilaty. (I think...)
Wouldn't holding a shield with heavy armor make you near impenetrable. Your biggest weakness is plate armor bluntforce trauma like maces,warhammers,axes,ect. Can now be blocked by your shield. Your enemy can get to your eyeslits in the helmet because you can block their attack. So you can allow yourself to have bigger eyeslits, so better visibility. And now your only weakness is a hail of arro...
very entertaining video :D
Actualy there is record of a French knight that only removed his armor to pee, poo and sleep and that man was puting it on as soon as he woke up.
I can see the logic behind your logic, sir!
+gregg4 I am thankful to be able to give thanks for your support!
Could you wear armour use a sword and still have a parry dagger or sword breaker or is that not necessary??
Maybe if one has a reach advantage already it would be good to use a weapon that increases it and if one has a strength advantage then the shorter weapon and shield become a better option.
Arming sword or Bastard sword for duel-wielding?
Bastard sword can be used with both hands in case your other hand has its contents forcibly removed from it.
Arming sword may be better in closer spaces, and perhaps easier for some to weild.
The big advantage of sword & dagger over sword & buckler is that anyone who carried a sword ALSO had a dagger - and so did quite a few people without swords. A dagger was almost universally carried. In contrast, someone with sword and buckler likely also had a dagger, therefore you're carrying slightly more weight around your daily routine. Standard carriage of the buckler by threading the sword hilt through the buckler handle is also noticeably less secure and more prone to dropping than a dagger in a proper sheathe.
Not to mention the noise of carrying what is essentially a cymbal around banging against your sword, and needing to remove the buckler BEFORE being able to draw the sword...
Having said that, the buckler is significantly better in strictly defensive operations than a dagger or even a main-gauche. The flip side of that is the most a buckler is likely to do offensively is the equivalent of a quick jab punch which rarely secures more than momentary advantage, where a good stab with a dagger can end the fight right there....
the best intro
Holy HELL! EIGHT years ago!
I was hoping you'd mention the hand-and-a-half sword. isn't that better to carry for defense than the Arming Sword? Isn't it basically an Arming Sword with a longer hilt so that you can use it with both one hand and two hands? How is that not better?
Would the longsword still be useless if you're wearing gambeson while fighting self-defense?
What do you think about home defense with a ballistic shield and a shortsword? I'm think of going this route. Maybe, use my pistol first, then rather than reloading, drop the gun and draw the sword.
Use a magazine with higher capacity.
Wouldn't holding a shield with heavy armor make you near impenetrable? Your biggest weakness is plate armor bluntforce trauma like maces,warhammers,axes,ect. Can now be blocked by your shield. Your enemy can get to your eyeslits in the helmet because you can block their attack. So you can allow yourself to have bigger eyeslits, so better visibility. And now your only weakness is a hail of arro... A good hit with a blunt weapon that you somehow didn't block with your massive kite shield.
Yes, and that's the whole problem. Your offensive capability against someone similarly armored is dismal. The longsword provides greater force at the point of impact than an arming sword, which is much more likely to do injury to the person inside, or even just knock them off balance.
In practice you'd probably want to use a mace, pick, warhammer, or other such can-opener type weapon with a shield instead of an arming sword. And even then against heavy plate armor you'd struggle without the leverage of a two-handed weapon such as a halberd, polaxe, bec-de-corbin, and other such specialized two-handed can-openers.
So basically the need for a defensive weapon that can be wielded effectively without armor AND without having to carry a shield ultimately led to the creation of the rapier? A weapon that has the reach of a long sword, but allows for greater dexterity, and is just as effective at "stabby stabby" against unarmored opponents (as one would encounter during your day-to-day life).
I have to make a technical critique of your overall Philosophy of swordplay. Even without armor a longsword in the right hands can still be more deadly than an arming sword and secondary, because of synergy. What do I mean?
Well the work you can do with both arms working together is more than the sum of your arms working independently, for example, with a weapon in each hand. Thus, the synergistic power is transferred into a single implement of the long sword, meaning you can move faster, make stronger attacks, be more agile, recover faster, and last longer in a fight because you are using your energy more efficiently.
Is that to say then that you will automatically beat someone coming at you with say, two rappiers? Well, without armor you're right they have certain advantages. But even If you had just a chain shirt under your tunic I think a long sword would have the weight and leverage advantage even over 2 rapiers.
why not use the 2handed sword one handed and drop the shield, if you should find 2handing more useful.
Or in general, why not use a larger weapon in 1 hand?
Difference between arming sword and short sword?
What is a katana good for? Like in what situation would a Katana be more useful compared to other swords? Its been said its good at cutting but in what situation is that the primary need?
Kaleb Smith katanas are best in light armour/ no armour encounters, because they are very fast due to being very thin and lightweight however, they are almost useless against full plate armour because they can't Pearce the armour and aren't heavy enough to do any really damage
Kaleb Smith nothing, why do you think guns were invented in Asia? Because the katana sucks! (Sarcasm) honestly though it's a case of cultural differences. In Europe armor was pretty easy to come by but in Asia you didn't have chainmail so if you weren't a Samurai you probably wouldn't have any armor and thus a cut would be effective. I'm not an expert in Asian history but I haven't heard of Chinese gambesons or Japanese Lorica Hamata.
none of the katanas I ever held were thin or lightweight, and they are two-handed swords, but their blade length puts them in the same ballpark as european one-handed swords. compared to longswords, which are also two-handed weapons, they are surprisingly heavy and short.
I don't think they were ever intended to go against plate armor. but as far as I know, they were side arms in the samurai armory, with spears and bows being primary weapons of war.
My only criticism is with the font of your subtitles
I think this video fails to mention the fact that long swords were more expensive and much harder to carry around in daily life. and I think that is the reason they fell out of popularity. I acknowledge that long swords are disadvantaged against Shields if you are not wearing armor I don't think they're that disadvantaged against daggers or bucklers, but I know that's a matter of opinion.
What say you about a bastard sword and a buckler attached to hand? You can use the sword in 2 hands and gain power with your hands protected and in case of necessity you can release one hand and use it as a shield hand
Interresting most of the whole Liechtenauer Tradition is Blossfechten, but go on.
I am unconvinced of your statement that the longsword came as a response to armor. As a practicer of HEMA and someone who does german styles from people like Lichtenauer, I find that most manuscripts written by him all depict fighters in nothing but maybe a gambeson. Not only that, but alot of the moves are obviously NOT designed for use against armor, actually most of them arent. I would argue that longsword was adapted for use with armor by using styles like Halfswording, which are much much more effective against armor. The traditional use for the longsword in my opinion is a reaction to chainmail. Smaller 1 handed swords in the past, say used by the vikings were rather wide, and were designed to be used in the cut and the thrust. With chainmail more available, I believe that the longsword came into use as a way to easily work in thrusts as well as still being a GREAT cutter. Also.. about the not being able to defend and attack at the same time.. just no. The longsword techniques I have done, all revolve around binding and locking the others sword while killing the opponent, and pulling out before a strike could be landed. It is very balanced.
Romeo Lopez Thanks for the input mate and I really appreciate the views of someone with practical experience on the matter. Now I'm not saying longsword was never used unarmored, it most certainly was, but that it's use fell out of practice because I feel it didn't offer enough defense as a single weapon when being used without armor. So I have to say that at the moment I stand by what I said, simply because if the longsword was so effective without armor it would have continued in use but we don't see that historically. Rapiers, broadswords, backswords and sidesword, became the predominant weapons used in unarmored combat, all one handed weapons and all combining with a secondary tool, being; dagger, buckler, targe or even gauntlet. As to why the longsord was developed, I still hold my opinion while knowing full well I could be wrong, as there's simply no way to prove either theory. All we can do is make our most educated guess, which is what I've done.
I agree with you that you most certainly can defend and attack in the one movement but I feel you paint a perfect picture, every swordsman would hope to do this in every move but from my own study and research I have seen that these moves happen far less often, which exposes the weakness I explain in my video.
Thanks again for the awesome feedback mate, I really do appreciate it.
FIRST. The longsword has a hilt with a good enough size as to be used one-handed and two-handed interchangeably, hence it's alternative name "Hand-and-a-Half Sword". SECOND. Greatswords were used in combat. There are training manuals that are for two-handed combat and they would have more power. There's even recorded information about Men at Arms wielding greatswords
I wonder what the disadvantages of wearing full plate armor are because they could weigh up to 50 lbs. Maneuverability and endurance had to be a problem whereas someone with a shield and a one handed sword would be able to react more quickly. I would also think that full plate and long sword vs. full plate and long sword would lose the advantages of range.
Personally, I would prefer to have half plate with a sword and shield. To me this optimizes protection of most of the exposed areas when using a one handed sword and a shield. You have better maneuverability and wouldn't be as exhausted during a fight.
Curious about dual wielding short swords
strap shield? (a small one)
yeah i would say if you are going into battle if you had the money you would most definitely be getting full armor and a weapon like a long sword or something with good reach but if your just living your day to day life you would most likely be carrying something smaller as it is much more convenient ( even if you had alot of money i don't think you would be carrying a long sword through the streets as it would annoy you )
i could put it this way compare to modern day weapons like guns your not going to walk around the streets with a rifle down your pants day to day (unless your not right in the head ) but you may have a hand gun for self defense ( mind you i live in Australia so i won't be carrying a gun of any type anywhere it is just an example
In tribal societies where raids could happen any time men do carry around things like spears and shields or bows constantly.
Wheres a good spot to buy battle ready swords for SHTF?
kult of athena
I opted for a hanwei mercenary sword for exactly that reason. It's a heavy & durable longsword -- maybe something one handed and more convenient to carry would suit better though.
Small sword and parrying dagger if I were to wear a sword with me on a regular basis, for now I'm going to have stick to my tomahawk and belt knife.
People in RPGs always wear their armor and carry a variety of weapons unlike in history where the castle guards don't wear their armor and carry their 9' skirmishing halberd when they go to the tavern.
Ok but what about this. You're in the vicinity of town, you're not wearing armor and you're not going to wear a shield of course, you're in your fancy noble clothes. What will you carry? An arming sword or a longsword. Your hand would be empty with an arming sword but you have nothing else to use.
i would learn how to use a greatsword with one hand and duel-weild two of them
Is it possible for someone to use a two handed sword while on horseback?
and a buckler or something of that sort.
what if you used a 1 handed sword and a Japanese Sai. i know this would not of been the case for obvious reasons but for rps sake and video games i thought it might be good.
I think I would go for shield and axe.
Even without armor I would pick "reach" over "2 things to act independently with" any day.
There are many angles you can't properly block from and attack at the same time with the latter.
And when the enemy has the reach advantage you often are too far away to attack after the block anyway.
That you can't necessarily block a powerful blow from a big weapon with only a dagger or a buckler is another problem.
Bigger weapons simply became unpopular because of the pain in the ass to carry them around casually.
Also I think the shield thing is more of a "big battle" thing.
Against one enemy it is quite easy to get aroung a shield when you have a two handed weapon. Basically because of the huge reach advantage.
Main advantage of the shield is the offered defence against projectiles and the component of passively shielding you even if the situation is unclear.
@Unnatural Atrophy I get the impression you haven't thought this entirely through.
What large shield are we talking about for example. There has only been one shield in the history of shields who would have been up for the task of having a chance to properly help you to defend yourself against long range weapons like spears and halberds in a 1v1 context. The Roman Scutum. Not only would basically all other shields you only hold with the hand have a really tough time defending any high impact weapon to begin with, which includes many higher range weapons we talk about, every other shield would also make it extremely hard to prevent someone with higher range to simply attack your legs. If you are only working with a pure thrusting weapon a long norman shield might at least even the odds (as seen here czcams.com/video/afqhBODc_8U/video.html) but this also only works as long as nobody goes beyond thrusting.
Not only are many higher range weapons capable of more than thrusting, this is also true for many forms of spears. This by the way also limits the context of your "go beyond the effective range" advice because this concept more or less revolves around thrusts. Cleaving the head of someone with a halberd who is standing rather close is not as big of a problem as trying to stab them.
Where your "confined space" argument with time delay to draw a weapon comes from is something that makes no sense to begin with. You aren't running around with a halberd in your living room. And there is obviously nobody who has to "draw" a larger weapon to begin with, because you carry them in your hands, not in some magical World of Warcraft holster on your back xD
@Unnatural Atrophy "false and absurd thing to claim"
Funny how you are saying that without being able to come up with a counter example. What shield thats not a scutum is supposed to shield you against a pole arm?
If you cannot name any you made my argument for me.
"Also I made it clear that range is good in mass combat e.g. pike wall"
You might think that you did me a favor by acknowledgingthe relevance of range in another field, but I really don't care. I care about the validity of points. And the evidence is rather clear. Range also plays a role on the battlefield, but the results are much different. Someone with a short range weapon will lose 9 of 10 fights against someone with a halberd. In history there have been quite a few armed forces who dealt well with enemy forces that outranged them with their melee weapons. Range is always good. Yet the impact can obviously vary depending on the context.
"It's overrated for 1v1, as is thrusting compared to chopping"
I am sorry to say it the way it is, but to say that thrusting is overrated is delusional. The thrust is the most powerful action you can do with a melee weapon. Period.
The only thing comparable, if you don't want to count it as "thrusting" is if you have a spike on your weapon, not uncommon with pole arms, which allows you to basically use the physics of a thrust with a massive swinging motion.
A gambeson that is basically uncuttable and only "choppable" with significant effort can be thrusted through like butter.
Thrusting is also, by far, the most reliable way to get through chainmail. And its the only way of ever penetrating proper plate armor in the first place.
I shouldn't be required to explain to anyone that concentrating a force on a single point instead of a long edge will have more penetrative power.
I would instead turn your statement completely around. Chopping is heavily overrated, because people watched too many fantasy movies where people are chopping through plate armor like butter. Its not realistic. A knight in late medieval full plate is as close to being an "unchoppable" target as it gets.
Why you still try to go against the strawman of halberds indoors, a point nobody ever made, is something only you can answer I guess.
@Unnatural Atrophy Why are you splitting your answer? It makes you look kinda confused if you bring up new points over and over again you initially forgot.
"Well considering that the Romans copied the scutum from Gaelic shields, and that the scutum existed hundreds of years before poleaems and was never used against polearms, and that the scutum was obsolete and was not used at the time poleaems were used, I'd say you have no idea what you're talking about."
Impressive. Every single word you said is wrong.
But instead of lecturing you about the actual usage and the origin of both the Scutum and pole arms let me clarify why your entire point goes nowhere anyway:
Weither the Scutum was used in a certain time period has nothing to do with it being helpful for a certain task within another period. That from all the shield designs one is the most helpful in 1v1 against a pole arm is not going to force it into popularity if either the context demands something else or another, even better, option exists. The reality is, that if you have to fight someone competent with a pole arm the best equipment to choose against this would not be the least bad one of the options you like, which would be the only shield that can do anything against most pole arms in the first place, but instead the best option available, which more often than not was another pole arm.
"Secondly you're claiming that you'd choose more range for the battlefield. I had no idea you were going into a medieval battle. I was under the impression that you were talking about the weapon you'd choose for yourself to use and carry today, for use in 1v1 or self defense situations, in which case range is grossly overrated as is thrusting compared to chopping. If you are going to battle with only medieval technology then I'd recommend you use a halberd, bill or poleaxe, with full plate mail. Good luck.
"
You cannot possibly be trying to weasel yourself out of your ludicrous mistakes by
claiming that you thought this topic was about modern self defense.
But even if we would accept this hilarious premise your point would make no sense. Because the laws of nature didn't change on the way from the medieval period to now.
Weither you are using missiles, guns, a sword or your fists, range matters. And no amount of denial is going to change this.
"though it's quite ironic that you have such praise for the scutum above all other types of shields (even though it's basically just a rectangular shield copied from Gaelic oval shields) when it was effectively used in conjunction with the gladius, a SHORT range weapon, which you think should lose 9 out of 10 times. I wonder what you think of the gladius then."
Stop making things up. Nobody here "praised" the Scutum. It just doesn't suck as badly as other shields if you have the crackpot idea to rely on its ability to block a pole arm.
The Gladius was a nice working weapon for a certain context. And if you are going against enemies that have yet to invent swords that don't bend while fighting its a great choice.
But if you had to pick a Gladius against a longsword you would be going to have a really bad time. There is a reason why swords became longer, not shorter, when industry and metallurgy were able to support the demand properly.
@Unnatural Atrophy "you claimed that the scutum is the only shield which has ever existed which is effective against weapons with long reach such as spears, halberds and poleaems."
"Effective" is a strong term. I said its the only one "up for the task of having a chance to properly help you to defend yourself against long range weapons like spears and halberds in a 1v1 context". I chose these words wisely, because the reality against a powerful weapon, like a proper pole arm, is that a "hard" defense like a shield is in principle nigh impossible. A scutum is one of the most massive shield designs out there. And its geometry allows to shield the legs. Thats why its better than most alternatives.
But make no mistake, if I blast you with a pollaxe and you block it with a scutum you will have a hard time to even stay on your feet, even if the shield survives this.
I am not necessarily interested in nitpicking, put since you are flip-flopping about your points, trying to diverge into retarded sideshopws I consider it important to make 100% clear what my position is. I mean you are already saying you didn't know that a discussion about halberds and shields was not about modern self defense....
"Firstly the scutum was copied from Gaelic oval shields"
First off, no it wasn't as far as we know. Such shields have been in use in ancient Italy as long as we can follow its history. Secondly, even if it was, the changes the Romans would have made are very important. The Gaelic oval shields cannot block a powerful weapon. You couldn't hold the shield in place against a powerful blow with such a weapon, due to the handle, their geometry makes it close to impossible to shield the legs properly and they are too lightweight to do well against powerful blows in general.
"many shields which are effective against weapons with a long reach have existed throughout history"
Name them then. I already asked you to tell us which shields you are talking about 6 posts ago. Why are you playing hide the ball?
If you have an argument stop hiding it.
"if none other were then everyone would have used scutums and nothing else"
This notion makes no sense, since those wouldn't have helped that much either as I already explained. If you brought a shield to a medieval battle it was not because of enemies with halberds, but more likely because of projectile weapons. You aren't just preparing your entire army against a single weapon type after all.
But if you wanted to prepare for halberds there was obviously the alternative I already explained as well.
Simply not using a shield: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Schlacht_bei_Dorneck.jpg
"halberds and polearms didn't even exist at the time scutums were used"
This my friend is a historical depiction of a Falx. One of the many pole arms that existed at the time of the Roman Empire.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/AdamclisiMetope37.jpg
For increased comical value I chose a depiction that also has a Scutum in it.
"For some reason you just really worship scutums and dislike all other types of shields"
Not really. I just made a very simple statement about the Scutum you don't want to accept. And since you try to deny the correctness of this statement, me debunking that denial might seem as if I would "defend" the Scutum or something. I am not. Any shield sucks balls against a proper pole arm. You are simply not going to be able to "block" a blow of what effectively comes down to a bigger sledge hammer. Period. No matter what kind of plate you have in your hand you try to block it with.
But the Scutum sucks the least badly and is at least able to prevent an opponent from simply scything your feet away in 1v1.
"Even the Persian soldiers used shields pretty much the same as scutums way before the Romans ever made such a shield."
Did work really well against Greek pole arms, didn't it?
"In fact do you even have one example of scutums being used to defend against halberds and polearms to back up your claim?"
Funny that I already provided a historical depiction with exactly that xD
But I will explain my point further, since I think you simply had no chance to understand my conclusion yet, because instead of questioning my reasoning you were instantly blocked by feeling offended by my conclusion.
Lets make a thought experiment.
Imagine your opponent has an average round shield and any short weapon in his hands and you have a lucerne hammer thats 2 meters long.
First things first you will obviously not hold back. You can of course just try to hit anything, since the shield will not really "block" anything in the real sense of the word. But it will still have a reduced effect since getting hit by your own shield that has been hit be a heavy weapon is still favourable to being hit by said weapon itself.
So I would prefer to simply go for the legs. A clear wide swing for the knees. What is your opponent going to do? Jump over it? Try to kneel quickly so his shield is low enough to even catch your weapon? Bullocks. Unless he is far enough away to dodge his knees are mush and the fight is over. No armor on earth could save him from that either.
What if he had a longer shield? Well, that solves your opponents problem of having to kneel to even catch the hammer with his shield in the first place.
But if he had a Norman shield or the Gaelic oval shield you seem to like, is that really solving the problem? Of course not. He just hasn't the leverage to block the blow with the far end of his shield. The fact that those shields are basically flat and the way the handle is attached will also create the huge risk that the blow turns the shield into an even worse position. The shields are still effectively doing dick about the blow. What if he has a Scutum? Well, first off its twice as heavy, which is obviously better if you try to stop a heavy attack. But the main advantage I focus on is the non-flat geometry and how low its position is. The opponent doesn't even have to do anything for his shield to protect his knees. And due to the geometry of the edges of the Scutum and the way its handle works the risk of the shield unintentionally turning into a worse position is much smaller.
The Scutum is designed to make it easy to protect yourself. And thats what it does here. Its less flexible than other shield designs but fancy shield movement is not your concern when you are about to get whacked with a more evil version of a sledgehammer. Its about surviving long enough to even advance.
Getting hit still sucks as hell, but at least our imaginary opponent is not dropping because of a single attack he cannot possibly do anything against.
But which one is better on its own? No armor, shield or offhanded items.
In terms of reach, definitely longsword
But then again, since you have an offhand with a one-handed sword, you could do grappling and wrestling once you manage to get in close, so it's largely up to what the user wants
If I remember rightly, a riposte is actually a counter-attack made just after a parry. It's a lot easier to do with a rapier or other one-handed duelling sword than a two-hander.
Why are cross guards so common European swords.?
if stuck to European weapons, i would pick a single handed sword and an axe in the off hand, for an axe can drag down a shield, or catch a sword and pushing/pulling it out out of the way, and then attacking with the sword once the defense/offense is out of the way and i know from a mock battle that it is both effective and fun to use.
+Nathan Freeman but axes have no guard, it would be pretty easy for the opponent to attack your hand, especially since it's the non dominant one and thus both the less responsive and the one you aren't focusing on.
Enaluxeme that is true but you first of all do not see many later axe users without gauntlet though it will not stop all that is going to your hand it will certainly help second i am talking about the type of axe where it has the axe head over hangs the handle in a semi circler way with that angling it down you can chatch the sword there, thirdly i would not go onto the battlefield without training first, fourthly you can still block with your sword and just use your axe to pull down the enemy's sheild, also this is so you are mainly on the attacking and blocking when need be, finally since i only did one mock battle i am not completely sure on everything about the mock battle and the style and most of what i am doing is theory crafting. So thanks for the comment and challenging my idea that was a good
Point and forced me to think about the concept more.
Continuing the rewatch journey of full view, like, and comment for channel engagement.
I'd have to agree with u on one arming sword and shield even in a everyday kinda thing I love pushing my limits so I'd build up the stamina to be able to carry a shield with me. u should make a video on how worriers involved strikes with there hands - shields and feet into there fighting style to gain a advantage I haven't watched a video on this much yet and I don't believe you have covered it much that I know of.
Then there was the use of the rapier
Arming sword or Bastard sword and shield 🗡🛡
So your match-up is longsword and full plate armor vs. arming sword & shield and no armor? If you want to match these weapons you should at least pick two fighters who both have full plate armor. And yes there are depictions of people wearing full plate with shield and one handed weapons.
That's a lot of sword. Would Maidens judge You by the size of Your blade or how big Your pommel is?
my questio is can you really block a long sword hit with 2 medium sword i mean with one hand u have less strenght nop ?
+Portgas D Ace Depends on the force of the blow you're trying to block but generally you'd want to do it with either your shield or whatever other off-hand weapon you have. If not that, then with your main weapon somewhere near the guard. The further away from the guard you try to block an attack, the weaker you're gonna be in your attempt.
What about a spear? It has long range plus you can use it in one hand. Or are you only talking about swords?
Yes, only talking about swords in this video as I actually wouldn't pick a sword as my primary battlefield weapon, yet I’d have a longsword as my backup hanging on my side as most people did, that’s the great convenience about swords (covered in my video, why swords are awesome). The spear is a huge contender for the weapon I would pick.
In my opinion, the spear is one of the most underestimated weapons now days. They are a far better battlefield weapon than the sword, but the sword is FAR better than the spear for self defense, mainly due to convenience and versatility.
Shad, my choise is one hand and a half.
What is a "Rapier" sword exactly, is it a long sword ??? AND If we are talking about swords, what about the curved sword "the Sabre or Saber" like, Scimitars, Shamshir, the Japanese sword Katana and Wakizashi, the Chinese swords Dadao, Dao and Jian or the Hook sword, or even yet the Egyptian Khopesh ???
Great questions!
I am going to do a video on later period swords (sidesword, broadsword, backsword and rapier)
The rapier really is in a sword class unto itself as it’s too dissimilar to the arming sword or longsword, unlike sidesword, broadsword and backsword which are all very much later versions of the arming sword.
So to answer, what is a rapier? A rapier is a rapier like a normal arming sword is an arming sword. It’s in it’s own class even though it did essentially evolve from the arming sword and sidesword.
The rapier is the specialized sword for the one on one duel and really is the best sword for it. There’s a few misconception about the rapier, their weight for one, they weighed as much as an arming sword, but I’ll go into the whys and hows of this in my video.
Curved swords are another bag of fish and there’s some very important points to cover, so I’ll do it in another video as well, but rest assured, they’re not forgotten. I’m going to dedicate two detailed videos for the Katana, been planning that one for a while, not because katana is better than other swords, but because there’s SO many misconceptions about it.
CyART ™ A rapier is a one handed sword with a long blade which while specialised for thrusting, could still cut if required. I'd imagine it developed from some of the more thrust centric arming swords, but I don't know for certain. A rapier blade was typically around 40" long (about the same length as a typical longsword). The sabre was developed from the back sword - a type of sword similar to an arming sword except that the back edge was typically only sharp for a few inches rather than being sharp all the way down.
As to swords from other continents, well, the thing with swords is that they are essentially a sharp metal bar - by and large, you either cut with it, in which case you want to cut in the same way as you use a steak knife with meat (either pushing or pulling as you strike) or you thrust with it. Curved blades tend to be better at cutting, while straight blades tend to be better at thrusting. Either way, the things stated here are still largely true.
To use Japan as an example, you had two swords which typically saw battlefield use - the tachi, which was similar to a katana but better suited to battlefield conditions, and the no dachi, which was essentially a great sword. The tachi was most commonly used as either a cavalry weapon or as a side arm for archers, while the no dachi was most commonly used for the same things - and in the same way - as a great sword. The typical foot soldier throughout Japanese history (at least, until someone introduced them to firearms) carried a long spear or a long bow - the shield pretty much never happened, meaning that in that context, a katana would be a better choice than a wakizashi in a fight. Also, note how a wakizashi has a two handed hilt - suggesting that in spite of its short size, that may well have been how it was intended to be used (presumably indoors, where a katana might be too long to fight with easily).
Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about bronze age weaponry to talk about those, other than to point out that bronze age weapons were typically the length of later short swords, with arming sword length weapons not really being created until the invention of steel. As such, bronze age swords were almost certainly used alongside a shield - and would probably have similar advantages over a two handed weapon as an arming sword.
What I do know about Chinese swords is that the one handed sword forms typically show the off hand being used to control the opponent's weapon hand, which while more dangerous than using a shield or a dagger, is certainly effective if you know how to do it. Hook swords and butterfly swords, meanwhile, are typically used in pairs.
I prefer a Hand and a half sword! :)