French Cuirassiers And Their Swords - a short lecture by Matt Easton of Easton Antique Arms and Schola Gladiatoria. www.antique-swords.co.uk / eastonantiquearms
Concerning melee combat: I read the memoirs of a Polish cavalry officer under Napoleon describing an one-on-one with an enemy hussar in battle. The hussar had his nimble pony whirling around him and was striking with his sabre, while the officer simply turned his horse all the time to face him and held his sword at ready for a thrust. When the hussar hit home at last, his blade turned in his hand and struck mostly sideways. The officer then ran him through. He actually used that as an example that a fine fiery horse is not always preferable to a more stoic one.
@@Tiger74147 Did cavalry soldiers in single combat generally try to harm their opponent's horse? They may not have done so for a few reasons, one because they regarded it as dishonourable to do so - there is an instinctive aversion to harming living creatures (including people) that soldiers need to overcome to be able to kill enemy soldiers, but overcoming it with regards to killing people doesn't mean you have done so with regards to other living creatures too, and cutting a horse that is right in front of you is not the same as cutting a man (or shooting at a horse to unhorse the soldier, at a distance) secondly because the horse is not your enemy and if you are spending time trying to hurt the horse you leave yourself open to attack from the rider who is trying to hurt you and thirdly because if you attack their horse, they may try to attack yours - while if you are both in general agreement "let's leave the horse out of it" then you are less likely to lose your mount in the middle of a mêlé, something that would leave you extremely exposed as a cavalry soldier
@@dzonbrodi514 there a story told by one of Napoleon cavalry officer. His horse received a spike from a infantry soldier bayonet. The horse bit the soldier in the face and run away. Horses can be fierce too 😱
@@dzonbrodi514 LMAO at thinking there is "honor" in combat. Plenty of horses were maimed in warfare by both missiles, polearms and swords. A horse is just as much as a threat as the rider, esp if you're an infantryman receiving a charge.
@@dzonbrodi514 I've ridden horses and I think it has everything to do with reach and armor (or lack thereof). You simply cannot consistently strike at a horse's vitals without a lance or spear and are limited to strikes at the neck, head, and upper rear haunches. If you ARE close enough to thrust at a horse's vitals (no room to swing for a cut) with a sword or sabre, then you are close enough to be cut down by that horse's rider. And you are only going to be in that position intentionally if you are heavily armored. Note the heavy armor that was worn by many knight's horses in the middle ages. I'm under the impression that as cavalry began to wear less and less armor, it made less sense to try to take out the opponent's horse and expose oneself to a lethal strike in the process. Probably more of an aversion to unnecessary risk than anything else.
This sword is beautifull. The french cuirassiers were very effective with it, but keep in mind that the cuirrassiers were big men by that time standards, and finely trained to use such a beast of a sword (in french this sword was also known as a "latte"). They were nicknamed "les gros frères" by the french infantry and light cavalry units, it means "the large brothers" , or "the big brothers", they were very respected.
Cuirassiers look awesome. The shining metal and the brilliant crests mounted on an enormous warhorse, charging in a long line of solid steel, flags and sabers held high to crush enemy lines. It's a fascinating picture
About whether the cuirasses were bullet proof or not, I read an interesting account by William Russel who was attached as a reporter to the Prussian army during the Franco Prussian War. After a battle, he observed a pile of French cuirasses and wrote, "But, curiously enough, although I looked closely I could not see a single cuirass pierced by a bullet. Some were dinted or indented deeply, and others were streaked or scarred, but neither through back-plate nor front did I see one bullet-hole clean through. The crown prince, to whom I remarked the circumstance, said, however, that he had observed one or two holes."
@@MariusThePaladin I believe the anecdote above took place during the 1871 Franco Prussian war. During Napoleonic times only Jager had rifles, but in 1871 all would have Dreyse rifle.
Thanks for doing this video. I have owned a replica of one of these for many years, but never really researched it. I had been assured by the company who sold it to me that it was a very accurate reproduction of the original Peninsular Wars Cuirassier Sword. And for years I have believed it was a horribly balanced, over weight, poor reproduction. Now, I feel bad for believing I had been sold a subpar sword. By the description you have given, it's spot on. Cheers
The full plate armours were abandoned basically at the end of the 16th century but armours - such as the three-quarter armour and half-armour - were not! The heavy cavalry (and some type of light cavalry) continued to wear these armours widely (as Matt says in the video) until the middle of the 17th century. After that they weared only the cuirass and the helmet and in several countries at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century it was also abadoned the helmet (some countries did not) and only the cuirass (or only the breastplate) weared until the end of the 18th century, when the cuirass and helm are popular again at the heavy cavalry. Even infantry (specially the melee) was wear helmets and cuirass as far as possible by the mid-17th century. Sorry, but my English is not perfect. :D Anyway the video is good as usual, Matt. :) Oh, and I like French cuirassiers, they looks good, just like their swords. :D
Ha, Wilhelm Muller had an interesting take on the armor of the French cuirassiers in 1811. He claimed that it did nothing more than tire the rider since it only protected the chest from small arms "but this the head and neck of the horse does also." the changing role of armor in the 16th-17th centuries is an interesting topic, in some ways around 1600s you see cavalry becoming much more common and much more heavily armored than they had been before. The cuirassers switched to wearing far more complete armor which protected everything except the lower legs while the light cavalry -the mounted harquebusiers- would wear a helmet and a cuirass. Towards the end of the 17th century however, it had shifted again and Sir James Turner was complaining that "our cuirassiers are now armed as 'harquebusiers' and our harquebusiers are now simply 'horsemen' wearing no armor at all."
Hi, I did wear the cuirass as a reenactor for a long time on horseback. I felt very comfortable and secure in it. Moving and riding were never a problem, in fact the cuirass makes you sit like a rock in your saddle. You only have to learn to mount your horse, for there is no way to lean your belly on the saddle, like normal. ( You just bounce and fall on your back)
A while ago I saw a very good doc explaining the dilemma of the British cavalry using the saber or the straight point sword. It appears that despite the usefulness of the saber, it did not kill but wound the adversary that often recover, unlike the thrust that mortally wounded most of the time.
Excellent video. Being hit with a cut from that sword would be like being hit with a wrecking bar. It may only have 80 degrees of edge, but all that momentum focussed on such a narrow impact would certainly come as a nasty surprise and spoil the rest of your day. In most wars, each man sees battle only a handful of times, and even in battle, direct contact with the enemy is rare. The first time you saw a unit of big beefy cuirassiers in shiny armour, charging towards you on big warhorses, and wielding swords several inches longer than your own, it would take enormous confidence and discipline to stand firm. If you break and run, you are out of the battle.
Perhaps this is why Cuirassiers were used to support Grenadiers in riot control; Whomping Big Horse, heavy poker, and severe club, all packaged in helmet and breastplate against a Mob ?
Actually, the mounted dragoon is the standard riot suppression unit. The British were notorious for deploying dragoon units to quell civil unrest. The carbines and the heavy horses are very effective against mobs armed with pitchforks and clubs.
I'm a buy cuirassier fan! The armée française used cuirassier during WW1! During the Napoléon war cuirassier user sometime 2 different sword! One on horse and one more like a sabre, the hussard to user to carry 2 models of sword one for the charge ans one for mêler combat!
My grandfather fought in France in WWI, as a private in a Canadian Infantry regiment. He reached France, as a 16 year old, in the spring of 1915. He related to me of the sight of an entire division of French cavalry, cuirassiers, dragoons, light cavalry all mixed together, and charging across an open field against German dug in positions defended by artillery and machine guns. The division was slaughtered, and when the attack stopped, the bodies of men and horses were stacked so high that men and horse could not fall down. All of the allies in WWI, and Germany, maintained cavalry units, but after that attack in 1915, even the French didn't use them in an attack on entrenched positions supported by machine guns. They were to be used as mobile breakout forces in order to flank the enemy.
Such scrutiny of historical arms I've been always dreaming about. I am so glad you're on CZcams. Also like the way you speak. You are a legend! Way to go!
Note that while 38.5 inches is a long blade by 18th/19th-century standards, it's not by 16th-century standards. For example, George Silver recommended 37-40in blades, depending on height, and he called that a "short sword" because of how common long rapiers & sundry were in circa-1600 England. I'm not sure exactly how Silver's short sword handled, but I imagine it was somewhat better balanced (and probably less stiff) than this sword.
Do you use ones with blades as long as Silver recommended and that can cut & thrust effectively? They should be nimble, but probably not as nimble as the light sabres many 18th/19th-century officers apparently preferred.
A rather famous cuirassier (though not French), was Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen, a.k.a. "Baron von Münchhausen", who was a rittmeister in the Brunswick Cuirassiers, an Imperial Russian Army cavalry regiment. For real. Not just one of his stories. By his contemporaries, the man was actually considered honest to a fault, by the way. His stories were never meant to be perceived as anything but fiction. His being remembered as the ultimate example of a compulsive liar is more than a little unfair.
Love the video. Please talk more about French Cavalry. I am very interested in the different types, their roles on the battlefield, and maybe uniform colors. Thanks, keep it up Matt.
In Italy our equivalent of the courassier is the corazziere and they are the guards of the president of the republic, but earlier they were just the same as the french counterparts, and we also use the word corazza for breastplates
Quick method to convert from inches to centimeters is to multiply it by 2.5 (double plus half). It should be 2.54, but 2.5 is good enough estimation, so 40 inches is roughly a meter (101.6 exactly)
I loved this format. A comment on a historical type of soldier, with a sort of "review" in there and some added information. I rank it 4.6 Skewered Prussians out of 5 Skewered Prussians.
Awesome presentation!!! Austrian Cuirassiers wore armor on the fronts, which during an 1809 cavalry engagement turned out to be a big disadvantage. I will be sharing and watching this one several times!
Thanks for showing that particular sword. I've been intrigued with them for a few years now, ever since seeing the reproduction available from Universal Swords. It's under $200, so I'm not expecting a masterpiece, but I still want to pick one up sometime soon.
I already visited the Cavaliers de la Garde Nationale near paris (im french) and their horses were the tallest i have ever ever seen... they are quite scary in fact.
I love your videos and the way you make an obscure subjet into a sexy intellectually chanlenging one. I always thought swords were a dull matter, you made me realise it was a significant and passionating one.
Haha wow that sword looks HEAVY. I've got an over-sized subarito that's somewhere in the two to three pound range and it is a beast that I have to use two-handed if I want any kind of control at all.
Great vid Matt.... nice to see some Froggy kit for a change. Personally I like them - I love the Mle1822 "Light" Cavalry sabre....but like the Cuirassiers sword its insanely long and, unlike the Bit ones of the same era, isnt really any use on foot and Im 6'5" tall. Its a better cutter though thanks to a more trad blade profile and being slighly curved. I dunno if mine is a "custom made for a really big bloke" officers own bought blade but its very long. My fave Post Napoleonic Froggy blade is my 1822 Mounted Artillery Sabre.....which you covered in a previous vid. I did eye with envy your quasi-spadroon Infantry blade tho....that was looooooovely. In terms of Napoleonic swords it would either be my ANXI Light Cavalry Trooper's Sabre or my Revolutionary period Hussar's Sabre (well....the Duellists....how could I resist?).
For your scales, a loop of string over the pan and through/around the guard would save some balancing. But then you'd have to mount the scales on something with clearance beneath, or hold them out arms-length.
Are there any mentions of cuirassiers [with their heavy boots and cuirass] fighting dismounted in the historical record? Did they employ half-swording? With their gauntlets and the possibility of only the distal edge and point being sharpened [I believe some units of the period did this to encourage mounted thrusting over cutting] could this have been a possibility?
Please compare it to the 1796 saber & heavy cavalry sword in a video. I'd also dearly love to see where the AN XI light cavalry saber fits in as well. My own interest is in how these blades would later influence American saber development but just having a comparison of these would be a delightful learning experience, I am sure.
The British Model 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword weiged 2 lb 12.5 oz in its 34 3/4" version. Some were a bit longer, while others had their point "hatcheted". A typical trooper's Pattern 1796 Light Cavalry Sabre weighed about 2# 2 oz.
Matt, I know you've talked a bit about this before, but your demonstration got me thinking. Can you cover what sorts of physical exercises or activities swordsmen and other fighters (pikemen, archers) would've done in various time periods? I'll leave the time periods themselves up to you, but personally, I'd like to see medieval and renaissance).
Dagnabbit! I'm gonna have to finish watching this later. I've gotta get somewhere shortly, but Paul MacDonald is on Mediaeval Dead (on the Yesterday channel) making various swords. (it's a repeat but always very interesting)
Heya Matt! Could you make a video talking of the different famous cavalry types (polish hussars, finnish hackapells, russian cossacks, egyptian mamelukes etc) from around the 17th to the 19th Century and why is it that they are remembered over the infantry, please?
Matt, to me the blade looks a lot like a much larger, single edged version of the blade on the French 1816 NCO sword you talked about in your "When spadroons are awesome" video. Is this just coincidental, or are the two swords related? I love the thick midrib and fullering on the two swords, it looks beautiful even if it limits their cutting ability. Also I'd love it if sometime you'd do a video about the Polish koncerz, a similarly long, thrust centric, estoc-like sword used by the Winged Hussars. I've become fascinated with the koncerz recently.
I wonder if you could comment on how the cuirassiers in the front rank held their swords during a charge. I have seen illustrations of them holding the arm outstretched to the front up at a 45 degree angle with the sword blade angled down at about a 45 degree angle. This was said to prevent the cuirassier from breaking his wrist upon contacting an enemy horseman. Comments?
If the cuirassiers had a different back-up weapon, preferably a medium length sabre, then this serves as a perfect charging tool, it is effectively a really robust lance that would be great to spear down infantry and other cavalry at first contact. Then a backup sabre or brace of pistols should have been carried for prolonged melees.
if you want to improve your strength and stamina you should do some form of progressive resistance training; and since barbells didn't exist until the second half of the 19th century, using a slightly heavier object is the historically accurate way to do strength training. If you want to improve speed, most martial artists would recommend moving slowly and perfecting your form, and once again I would argue that training with a slightly heavier object is harder to control and forces you to move more efficiently. Note I said "slightly" heavier object, pushing your body too much is likely to result in injury.
Very good discussion, thanks for posting. The point (ahem, pun intended) of the cuirassier’s sword was in the charge, which after all, was the primary role of the heavy cavalry. The lance is even better for this purpose, arguably, it was a terrible weapon in close quarters combat such as the melee, so it is not unreasonable to regard this sword as a compromise between lance and the standard saber. I have a bit of experience in fencing from the dim dark and distant past (one class in college) with foil and rapier, enough to know that it takes enormous strength and stamina to use even a saber for more than minute or so. Add six inches and a full pound to it, and the physical requirements for fencing with this sword would be staggering. Then add to that the problem that you can’t use your legs to counter the sword’s long lever arm, because they’re fully occupied keeping you in the saddle! Thus all the musculature you have for working your sword is in your upper body; necessarily, then, the upper body strength of these cuirassiers would have to be formidable!
I'm not even an amateur expert in military weapons but just looking at the form of that sword it is clearly meant to be use primarily as a short lance. But as you say, even though the edge geometry isn't optimized for cutting/slicing, the force of that weapon impacting a limb or the juncture of the neck and shoulder, it's going to take out an adversary. Even if it impacts an adversary's helmet without cutting into it there is still going to be a knock out. As far as having to use it on foot in worse case scenario, I'd tend to use it with two hands like a short pike rather than try to outdo an adversary in formulized fencing applications. When you train, of course you try to train with proper form and such but when in battle, you sometimes have to revert to the inner caveman and just use a tool the best way it can be, form be damned.
There is, or was, an hour or so long video about some smiths and historians recreating a suit of plate they had the original from that was a knight in I think Henry the 8ths court. It was quite ornate, with gold inlay, and they heard an account of it being blue, seemed and they accomplished that as well, using heat to hurt the steel blue- not sure if that's like rust bluing of firearms, it was far more of a bright royal blue for instance. Anyway, they tested a like "man at arms" level breast plate against a matchlock long arm and it cut right through it. Now the fancy armor they remade? They remade it what looked nearly perfectly as the one they had in the musem, then they tested the same matchlock, and it did _not_ penetrate the armor. Granted that armor had like an extra, it looked sort of like a cummerbund, and it dented about half an inch in, but did _NO_ damage to the internal plate. I do not know from memory what the powder charge was save that it was black powder, or the caliber of the musket. But I believe they said that was the main musket used in that time period. So some of them would resist proper long arms- BUT by the time of the curassiers, even ignoring, possibly better powder, firearm construction and projectile design... the example I saw had to be custom made, for a member of a royal court- and was a full suit of plate. The armor may have turned some rounds of muskets.... however a full company firing is still liable to kill you if you take several shots at once, and that's ON the armor. More likely it would tear apart anything unarmored, or unhorse you can hurt you from the fall at speed. The best defense would be like the leopard tank right after WW2, maybe the 60s. Just don't get hit. I'm not saying definitely, but it seems that some armor could certainly take a few shots from a long arm... but when you get massed fire, it's kind of pointless anyway.
Do you have any information on German jaegers or chasseurs? I have researched some and found an ancestor of mine was one from near Brunswick sent to the revolutionary war. So I have been looking into them more, but haven’t found much and not sure of differences in 1776 vs Napoleonic chasseurs .
During the Revolutionary and Consular Periods, the 8th Cavalry wore the cuirass; they had been armored since 1666. In 1801 Napoleon started converting some Cavalerie regiments to cuirassiers.
Hi Matt would they have carried a secondary sword in cases of a close combat situation one possibly attached to the horse or saddle and the more wieldy attached to the man ?
The hilt was designed against the method of use. The cuirassier at the time at the charge, held the sword with the guard upward, level with the ground, with the forearm parallel to the ground and behind the hand and wrist, putting the elbow also behind the guard. The intent was to guard the hand and forearm from a counter-thrust or cut sliding under or over the guard into the elbow and upper arm.
In your next video with this ca;you show the point of balance? Im assuming the almost comically large hilt is to bring the balance closer to the hand for better tip control since it's not needed for cutting but i was hoping you would show exactly where it is
Could you make a video about "sword-breaker" daggers? I found them shortly ago in kult of athena and don't really know anything about those. And with that name, i'm quite curious...
Yesss ! I liked before even watching ! I knew it was a French cuirassier sword on your wall :D Weirdly, the older an XIII model is much easier to find than later patterns.
Also many later patterns (like the 1854 one) where so close to the an XIII one, that old sabres were simply re-ground to the appropriate length and fitted with new scabbards. Incidentally, the original an XIII pattern had a straight back, so all the spear-pointed blades we find are later modifications.
Were the large horses the solution to getting out of a swirling melee? Charge to contact, with the point, then use its weight and power to bull your way clear, disengage, turn, reform and charge again?
im not sure if u said hussars from poland but if u did , they were Heavy cavallery . I did not make really good research but watched video made by a pasionate guy who made quite of a research and he said it was like heavy roller on the battle field , and sometimes did chrages 4 to 5-6 in single battle so yes (and the wings was not a decoration more like of a back rest (harder to fell))
Is there a reason why those were used instead of a real lance (and a saber for backup)? Lances give you even more reach and I don't see much these swords could do better than lances, given that they can't really cut or be used on foot.
The French extensively used lancers as well. But they have different strengths and weaknesses - swords are much better in a melee and are possibly easier to extract after stabbing someone at speed. Also, very importantly, the lance cannot be worn - cuirassiers could put their sword in the scabbard while they used or reloaded their pistols. Lancers were sometimes also given firearms, but generally the lance makes it awkward to also make use of firearms.
Funnily enough Lancers were usually light cavalry. Lancers didn't need armour as much, they weren't tanks like the cuirassiers. The Carabinieri also wore armour though their main weapon was the carbine.
It seems the sword was more like a reusable lance plus the other advantages mentioned. The cuirassiers were used mainly to charge, skewer, and get out, then repeat. Thus possible breaking the line. Or out flanking.
"Cuir" only means leather nowadays, but it used to mean any sort of "tough skin". Rawhide is also "cuir". Any armor is a "tougher skin", so it is a "cuirass". It does NOT have anything to do with "leather armor". Perhaps unrelated, the act of cooking is "cuire". Not too sure if there really is an etymological link though.
That's not what the CNRTL (Centre National des Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales) says. According to them, "cuirasse" exists since 1266, and comes from a provençal word for "leather clothing" ;)
The thing with "cuir bouilli" is that it refers to any type of hide that is boiled in any sort of liquid. The boiled hide used for armoring was probably not the same product as leather boiled in water, which is indeed also refered to as "cuir bouilli". I agree that boiling leather in water does improve its resistance to cutting (and piercing, to a lesser extent), but it's not necessarily enough to make that a worthwhile material for armoring compared to other alternatives. Raw hide boiled in wax and oil yields an even better non-metallic alternative to steel, relative to its cost. Considering that leather in a pre-industrial economy is not cheap, the performance increase needs to be enough to compensate for the price, and to make it a viable alternative to fabric armor and other composites that were used. I have also heard of aboriginal americans using pots of boiling wax, resin and glue made from bison hooves, in order to reinforce the hide material used for certain things that require resistance to cutting and piercing, such as shields. There's a reason why they used a composite mixture instead of simply boiling the stuff in water, it yields better results. When I said that "cuir bouilli isn't leather", I should have specified "the cuir bouilli that was used for armoring", specifically. Evidently, any sort of boiled hide is cuir bouilli, including leather boiled in water. Boiled leather may have been used in decoration or supports for steel plates or other semi-flexible parts, but probably not as the primary protection when better alternatives existed. However, rawhide boiled in resin or wax is not flexible at all. Even in thinner gauges, it is hard as the plastic from modern construction helmets. They wouldn't even make shoe soles out of that stuff, which is one area where leather boiled in water is a useful material: it can have just the right balance of toughness and flexibility. My argument is not that boiling leather in water doesn't effectively harden it. My argument is that there are even better alternatives for making armor out of hide, and those alternatives were not more expensive than the tanning process. It follows that people probably figured out that boiling leather in water was not the optimal solution for making the primary components of armor.
As for the etymological argument, I'm guessing this sentence shows that you agree with my interpretation that "cuir" used to mean more than just "leather", but rather that it refered to any sort of hide : "The Latin word corium was used for both animal skin and leather (which is of course skin...) it has its origin in a word that means cut or scrape." As far as I know as a québécois who speaks French, "bouilli" by itself refers to anything that is boiled in any particular substance. The context of the phrase in which these words were used would give them a specific contextual meaning, if needed.
I do wish you'd make a video going into why armor switched from plate clad knights to basically cloth and a leather coat. You said it's more complicated than just guns, but I've been in conversations with people online who seemed to think that the plate used was able to stop rifle rounds (which you've dismissed in this video). Maybe you've already done all the explaining needed, I don't know. It just seems like a lot of people out there seem to just think that a suit of armor would stop a bullet, even a modern one. Which is just crazy.
I was always curious if training with a heavy sword is a good idea. I mean, it makes sense to build more muscle. On the other hand, you're training with a weapon that has different characteristics from what you intend to use, possibly hurting your weapon handling and muscle memory. Any thoughts?
Love your videos Matt, have you considered doing some video about Siege of Szigetvár in 1566? It is rather interesting theme, how Ottoman advance on Europe was stoped by croats and some hungarians, 3000 of soldiers broke Ottoman army led by none other than Suleiman the Magnificent of nearly 300.000 soldiers. Cheers from Croatia.
Concerning melee combat: I read the memoirs of a Polish cavalry officer under Napoleon describing an one-on-one with an enemy hussar in battle. The hussar had his nimble pony whirling around him and was striking with his sabre, while the officer simply turned his horse all the time to face him and held his sword at ready for a thrust. When the hussar hit home at last, his blade turned in his hand and struck mostly sideways. The officer then ran him through. He actually used that as an example that a fine fiery horse is not always preferable to a more stoic one.
What was he doing while the hussar was attacking? Why didn't the hussar attack the horse? Did he mention anything about these?
@@Tiger74147 Did cavalry soldiers in single combat generally try to harm their opponent's horse? They may not have done so for a few reasons,
one because they regarded it as dishonourable to do so - there is an instinctive aversion to harming living creatures (including people) that soldiers need to overcome to be able to kill enemy soldiers, but overcoming it with regards to killing people doesn't mean you have done so with regards to other living creatures too, and cutting a horse that is right in front of you is not the same as cutting a man (or shooting at a horse to unhorse the soldier, at a distance)
secondly because the horse is not your enemy and if you are spending time trying to hurt the horse you leave yourself open to attack from the rider who is trying to hurt you
and thirdly because if you attack their horse, they may try to attack yours - while if you are both in general agreement "let's leave the horse out of it" then you are less likely to lose your mount in the middle of a mêlé, something that would leave you extremely exposed as a cavalry soldier
@@dzonbrodi514 there a story told by one of Napoleon cavalry officer.
His horse received a spike from a infantry soldier bayonet.
The horse bit the soldier in the face and run away. Horses can be fierce too 😱
@@dzonbrodi514 LMAO at thinking there is "honor" in combat. Plenty of horses were maimed in warfare by both missiles, polearms and swords. A horse is just as much as a threat as the rider, esp if you're an infantryman receiving a charge.
@@dzonbrodi514 I've ridden horses and I think it has everything to do with reach and armor (or lack thereof). You simply cannot consistently strike at a horse's vitals without a lance or spear and are limited to strikes at the neck, head, and upper rear haunches. If you ARE close enough to thrust at a horse's vitals (no room to swing for a cut) with a sword or sabre, then you are close enough to be cut down by that horse's rider. And you are only going to be in that position intentionally if you are heavily armored. Note the heavy armor that was worn by many knight's horses in the middle ages. I'm under the impression that as cavalry began to wear less and less armor, it made less sense to try to take out the opponent's horse and expose oneself to a lethal strike in the process. Probably more of an aversion to unnecessary risk than anything else.
This sword is beautifull.
The french cuirassiers were very effective with it, but keep in mind that the cuirrassiers were big men by that time standards, and finely trained to use such a beast of a sword (in french this sword was also known as a "latte").
They were nicknamed "les gros frères" by the french infantry and light cavalry units, it means "the large brothers" , or "the big brothers", they were very respected.
Cuirassiers look awesome. The shining metal and the brilliant crests mounted on an enormous warhorse, charging in a long line of solid steel, flags and sabers held high to crush enemy lines. It's a fascinating picture
About whether the cuirasses were bullet proof or not, I read an interesting account by William Russel who was attached as a reporter to the Prussian army during the Franco Prussian War. After a battle, he observed a pile of French cuirasses and wrote, "But, curiously enough, although I looked closely I could not see a single cuirass pierced by a bullet. Some were dinted or indented deeply, and others were streaked or scarred, but neither through back-plate nor front did I see one bullet-hole clean through. The crown prince, to whom I remarked the circumstance, said, however, that he had observed one or two holes."
Long range, angle, and sloped shape of the armor probably play a lot of part in this. Musket balls were round, afterall.
@@MariusThePaladin The Prussians were all using rifles by this time.
@kvnrthr Not all. Only Jäger. They still have their line/light/heavy infantry armed with regular smoothbore musket.
@@MariusThePaladin I believe the anecdote above took place during the 1871 Franco Prussian war. During Napoleonic times only Jager had rifles, but in 1871 all would have Dreyse rifle.
@kvnrthr Good point.
That is a gorgeous sword.
And well pronounced
Thanks for doing this video. I have owned a replica of one of these for many years, but never really researched it. I had been assured by the company who sold it to me that it was a very accurate reproduction of the original Peninsular Wars Cuirassier Sword. And for years I have believed it was a horribly balanced, over weight, poor reproduction. Now, I feel bad for believing I had been sold a subpar sword. By the description you have given, it's spot on. Cheers
"An estoc-like stiff thrusting sword that is big and heavy." Matt Easton, World's Best Sword Debater 2018 11:08
The full plate armours were abandoned basically at the end of the 16th century but armours - such as the three-quarter armour and half-armour - were not! The heavy cavalry (and some type of light cavalry) continued to wear these armours widely (as Matt says in the video) until the middle of the 17th century. After that they weared only the cuirass and the helmet and in several countries at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century it was also abadoned the helmet (some countries did not) and only the cuirass (or only the breastplate) weared until the end of the 18th century, when the cuirass and helm are popular again at the heavy cavalry. Even infantry (specially the melee) was wear helmets and cuirass as far as possible by the mid-17th century. Sorry, but my English is not perfect. :D Anyway the video is good as usual, Matt. :) Oh, and I like French cuirassiers, they looks good, just like their swords. :D
And there was a man who wanted to mount such a weapon as a bayonette : Treuille de Beaulieu’s sabre-lance of Napoléon III’s cent-gardes.
A man among man if he really did manage to pull that off himself lol
He was right the musketoon is by then the cavalry primary weapon. Nevertheless 60 years later some of them were still carrying lances
Ha, Wilhelm Muller had an interesting take on the armor of the French cuirassiers in 1811. He claimed that it did nothing more than tire the rider since it only protected the chest from small arms "but this the head and neck of the horse does also."
the changing role of armor in the 16th-17th centuries is an interesting topic, in some ways around 1600s you see cavalry becoming much more common and much more heavily armored than they had been before. The cuirassers switched to wearing far more complete armor which protected everything except the lower legs while the light cavalry -the mounted harquebusiers- would wear a helmet and a cuirass. Towards the end of the 17th century however, it had shifted again and Sir James Turner was complaining that "our cuirassiers are now armed as 'harquebusiers' and our harquebusiers are now simply 'horsemen' wearing no armor at all."
Hi, I did wear the cuirass as a reenactor for a long time on horseback.
I felt very comfortable and secure in it. Moving and riding were never a problem, in fact the cuirass makes you sit like a rock in your saddle.
You only have to learn to mount your horse, for there is no way to lean your belly on the saddle, like normal. ( You just bounce and fall on your back)
M&B. It's almost harvesting season!!!!
Do you let other people hold it?
I will drink from your skull!
Bannerlord needs to hurry up and be done already. I can't take the wait.
A while ago I saw a very good doc explaining the dilemma of the British cavalry using the saber or the straight point sword. It appears that despite the usefulness of the saber, it did not kill but wound the adversary that often recover, unlike the thrust that mortally wounded most of the time.
Yes this was widely reported after Waterloo by various reports.
Love these videos, bought the Airfix Waterloo battle-set when I was a kid loved the French cavalry
The french army had some style
Excellent video. Being hit with a cut from that sword would be like being hit with a wrecking bar. It may only have 80 degrees of edge, but all that momentum focussed on such a narrow impact would certainly come as a nasty surprise and spoil the rest of your day. In most wars, each man sees battle only a handful of times, and even in battle, direct contact with the enemy is rare. The first time you saw a unit of big beefy cuirassiers in shiny armour, charging towards you on big warhorses, and wielding swords several inches longer than your own, it would take enormous confidence and discipline to stand firm. If you break and run, you are out of the battle.
My favourite video from you in a long time. Very in depth,, interesting, contextual and with actual demonstration. Very good!
Perhaps this is why Cuirassiers were used to support Grenadiers in riot control; Whomping Big Horse, heavy poker, and severe club, all packaged in helmet and breastplate against a Mob ?
Roderick Ballance look at the modern mounted police during a riot with full gear.
Actually, the mounted dragoon is the standard riot suppression unit. The British were notorious for deploying dragoon units to quell civil unrest. The carbines and the heavy horses are very effective against mobs armed with pitchforks and clubs.
I'm a buy cuirassier fan! The armée française used cuirassier during WW1! During the Napoléon war cuirassier user sometime 2 different sword! One on horse and one more like a sabre, the hussard to user to carry 2 models of sword one for the charge ans one for mêler combat!
My grandfather fought in France in WWI, as a private in a Canadian Infantry regiment. He reached France, as a 16 year old, in the spring of 1915. He related to me of the sight of an entire division of French cavalry, cuirassiers, dragoons, light cavalry all mixed together, and charging across an open field against German dug in positions defended by artillery and machine guns. The division was slaughtered, and when the attack stopped, the bodies of men and horses were stacked so high that men and horse could not fall down.
All of the allies in WWI, and Germany, maintained cavalry units, but after that attack in 1915, even the French didn't use them in an attack on entrenched positions supported by machine guns. They were to be used as mobile breakout forces in order to flank the enemy.
Such scrutiny of historical arms I've been always dreaming about. I am so glad you're on CZcams. Also like the way you speak. You are a legend! Way to go!
Note that while 38.5 inches is a long blade by 18th/19th-century standards, it's not by 16th-century standards. For example, George Silver recommended 37-40in blades, depending on height, and he called that a "short sword" because of how common long rapiers & sundry were in circa-1600 England. I'm not sure exactly how Silver's short sword handled, but I imagine it was somewhat better balanced (and probably less stiff) than this sword.
Benjamin Abbott English backswords are quite nimble in my experience.
Do you use ones with blades as long as Silver recommended and that can cut & thrust effectively? They should be nimble, but probably not as nimble as the light sabres many 18th/19th-century officers apparently preferred.
Honestly, strange though it sounds, I've never handled a 19th century saber. The swords we used in the class were as Silver described
I came across your channel a few years ago while researching "curassier swords". Finally you have a video dedicated to it. Thanks!
Words can't express my gratitude to you . I have always waited to see you talking about this type of sword
A rather famous cuirassier (though not French), was Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen, a.k.a. "Baron von Münchhausen", who was a rittmeister in the Brunswick Cuirassiers, an Imperial Russian Army cavalry regiment. For real. Not just one of his stories. By his contemporaries, the man was actually considered honest to a fault, by the way. His stories were never meant to be perceived as anything but fiction. His being remembered as the ultimate example of a compulsive liar is more than a little unfair.
Love the video. Please talk more about French Cavalry. I am very interested in the different types, their roles on the battlefield, and maybe uniform colors. Thanks, keep it up Matt.
Good video Matt. Keep it up!
Real nice *shwing* sound when you use this sword.
In Italy our equivalent of the courassier is the corazziere and they are the guards of the president of the republic, but earlier they were just the same as the french counterparts, and we also use the word corazza for breastplates
Quick method to convert from inches to centimeters is to multiply it by 2.5 (double plus half).
It should be 2.54, but 2.5 is good enough estimation, so 40 inches is roughly a meter (101.6 exactly)
I find the best method though is to convert it from inches to centimeters once and then just use centimeters from then on out. ;)
Huh Huh Huh Huh...
The French knew that HEMAites would be making practice swords with oversized guards in the future, so they kindly did the job for us.
Shutendoji They knew we'd have to accommodate those massive gloves the kids arw wearing these days.
This was one of the best reviews of sword that you have done in my opinion. It has all specs history and adition of how it moves was realy grate.
Recently got my hands on one of the earlier style versions with the same type of blade! Stoked!
Thanks for the video on this topic!
Your videos keep getting Cuirassier and Cuirassier.
Ouch! lol
_Long, stiff and hard..._ Those are words I like to hear Matt. Please, continue:)
Yeah I bet you do
Very enjoyable watch.
I loved this format. A comment on a historical type of soldier, with a sort of "review" in there and some added information.
I rank it 4.6 Skewered Prussians out of 5 Skewered Prussians.
i haven't watched in a while...I've missed you, Matt!
Awesome presentation!!! Austrian Cuirassiers wore armor on the fronts, which during an 1809 cavalry engagement turned out to be a big disadvantage. I will be sharing and watching this one several times!
Thanks for showing that particular sword. I've been intrigued with them for a few years now, ever since seeing the reproduction available from Universal Swords. It's under $200, so I'm not expecting a masterpiece, but I still want to pick one up sometime soon.
A good lecture about the heavy 19th century cavalry , Regards and more please
Love this analysis! Could we get more analysis or videos on the Napoleonic period like cavalry melee, infantry bayonet fighting, musketry and so on?
Became interested in Cuirassiers as 9 yr old in 1972 when I purchased a set o HO Scale Airfix miniatures and became fascinated by them.
I already visited the Cavaliers de la Garde Nationale near paris (im french) and their horses were the tallest i have ever ever seen... they are quite scary in fact.
Cool vid, Matt! I'm getting very interested in various mounted fighters like cuirassiers and dragoons and such.
Thanks for the video. This sword looks nice, and that must count for something. I can see buying one as a wall-hanger with genuine history.
I love your videos and the way you make an obscure subjet into a sexy intellectually chanlenging one. I always thought swords were a dull matter, you made me realise it was a significant and passionating one.
It'd be nice to see a video on the Polish winged hussars, the other notable example of a heavy cavalry unit to persist for a good while.
I have been waiting for this video. Such an important sword of the Napoleonic era.
Interesting video, I have a Napoleonic one dated 1811. Exactly as you say a real beast not really the best in close combat, but very iconic!
I'd love to see a video talking about why armor fell out of favor.
The french medium cavalery (dragoons) were using a very similar sword too
Yeah I wonder how much different they were in their specifications to allow the different use.
3:17 I can't get over how much class and style some people had back then
Fascinating. It would be cool to do a split screen of that and a saber executing the same moves more or less starting in sync.
That was extremely interesting
Watching the Sharpe videos brought me here.
Haha wow that sword looks HEAVY. I've got an over-sized subarito that's somewhere in the two to three pound range and it is a beast that I have to use two-handed if I want any kind of control at all.
Great vid Matt.... nice to see some Froggy kit for a change. Personally I like them - I love the Mle1822 "Light" Cavalry sabre....but like the Cuirassiers sword its insanely long and, unlike the Bit ones of the same era, isnt really any use on foot and Im 6'5" tall. Its a better cutter though thanks to a more trad blade profile and being slighly curved. I dunno if mine is a "custom made for a really big bloke" officers own bought blade but its very long.
My fave Post Napoleonic Froggy blade is my 1822 Mounted Artillery Sabre.....which you covered in a previous vid.
I did eye with envy your quasi-spadroon Infantry blade tho....that was looooooovely.
In terms of Napoleonic swords it would either be my ANXI Light Cavalry Trooper's Sabre or my Revolutionary period Hussar's Sabre (well....the Duellists....how could I resist?).
Cuirassiers are one of the coolest military units from any point in history and any geographical location.
Oh that sword is Beautiful!!
For your scales, a loop of string over the pan and through/around the guard would save some balancing. But then you'd have to mount the scales on something with clearance beneath, or hold them out arms-length.
Are there any mentions of cuirassiers [with their heavy boots and cuirass] fighting dismounted in the historical record? Did they employ half-swording? With their gauntlets and the possibility of only the distal edge and point being sharpened [I believe some units of the period did this to encourage mounted thrusting over cutting] could this have been a possibility?
There were. Apparently they just used their carbines.
Please compare it to the 1796 saber & heavy cavalry sword in a video. I'd also dearly love to see where the AN XI light cavalry saber fits in as well. My own interest is in how these blades would later influence American saber development but just having a comparison of these would be a delightful learning experience, I am sure.
Damn, now I want one!
4:14 but I heard that in the era of the Napoleonic wars, the behave of the bullets was really imprecise!
There are many cuirases with numerous dents, above 100 meters it was pretty effective especially considering angling
The British Model 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword weiged 2 lb 12.5 oz
in its 34 3/4" version. Some were a bit longer, while others had their point "hatcheted". A typical trooper's Pattern 1796 Light Cavalry Sabre weighed about 2# 2 oz.
Awesome.
Matt,
I know you've talked a bit about this before, but your demonstration got me thinking. Can you cover what sorts of physical exercises or activities swordsmen and other fighters (pikemen, archers) would've done in various time periods? I'll leave the time periods themselves up to you, but personally, I'd like to see medieval and renaissance).
Speaking of Mount and Blade, I'd love to see another video on the game.
Dagnabbit!
I'm gonna have to finish watching this later.
I've gotta get somewhere shortly, but Paul MacDonald is on Mediaeval Dead (on the Yesterday channel) making various swords.
(it's a repeat but always very interesting)
Heya Matt! Could you make a video talking of the different famous cavalry types (polish hussars, finnish hackapells, russian cossacks, egyptian mamelukes etc) from around the 17th to the 19th Century and why is it that they are remembered over the infantry, please?
Matt, to me the blade looks a lot like a much larger, single edged version of the blade on the French 1816 NCO sword you talked about in your "When spadroons are awesome" video. Is this just coincidental, or are the two swords related? I love the thick midrib and fullering on the two swords, it looks beautiful even if it limits their cutting ability.
Also I'd love it if sometime you'd do a video about the Polish koncerz, a similarly long, thrust centric, estoc-like sword used by the Winged Hussars. I've become fascinated with the koncerz recently.
I wonder if you could comment on how the cuirassiers in the front rank held their swords during a charge. I have seen illustrations of them holding the arm outstretched to the front up at a 45 degree angle with the sword blade angled down at about a 45 degree angle. This was said to prevent the cuirassier from breaking his wrist upon contacting an enemy horseman. Comments?
Thank you for being metric, Matt
If the cuirassiers had a different back-up weapon, preferably a medium length sabre, then this serves as a perfect charging tool, it is effectively a really robust lance that would be great to spear down infantry and other cavalry at first contact. Then a backup sabre or brace of pistols should have been carried for prolonged melees.
17:10 the good old debate comes back, should you train with a heavier than usual weapon?
if you want to improve your strength and stamina you should do some form of progressive resistance training; and since barbells didn't exist until the second half of the 19th century, using a slightly heavier object is the historically accurate way to do strength training. If you want to improve speed, most martial artists would recommend moving slowly and perfecting your form, and once again I would argue that training with a slightly heavier object is harder to control and forces you to move more efficiently. Note I said "slightly" heavier object, pushing your body too much is likely to result in injury.
Very good discussion, thanks for posting. The point (ahem, pun intended) of the cuirassier’s sword was in the charge, which after all, was the primary role of the heavy cavalry. The lance is even better for this purpose, arguably, it was a terrible weapon in close quarters combat such as the melee, so it is not unreasonable to regard this sword as a compromise between lance and the standard saber. I have a bit of experience in fencing from the dim dark and distant past (one class in college) with foil and rapier, enough to know that it takes enormous strength and stamina to use even a saber for more than minute or so. Add six inches and a full pound to it, and the physical requirements for fencing with this sword would be staggering. Then add to that the problem that you can’t use your legs to counter the sword’s long lever arm, because they’re fully occupied keeping you in the saddle! Thus all the musculature you have for working your sword is in your upper body; necessarily, then, the upper body strength of these cuirassiers would have to be formidable!
I'm not even an amateur expert in military weapons but just looking at the form of that sword it is clearly meant to be use primarily as a short lance. But as you say, even though the edge geometry isn't optimized for cutting/slicing, the force of that weapon impacting a limb or the juncture of the neck and shoulder, it's going to take out an adversary. Even if it impacts an adversary's helmet without cutting into it there is still going to be a knock out. As far as having to use it on foot in worse case scenario, I'd tend to use it with two hands like a short pike rather than try to outdo an adversary in formulized fencing applications. When you train, of course you try to train with proper form and such but when in battle, you sometimes have to revert to the inner caveman and just use a tool the best way it can be, form be damned.
There is, or was, an hour or so long video about some smiths and historians recreating a suit of plate they had the original from that was a knight in I think Henry the 8ths court.
It was quite ornate, with gold inlay, and they heard an account of it being blue, seemed and they accomplished that as well, using heat to hurt the steel blue- not sure if that's like rust bluing of firearms, it was far more of a bright royal blue for instance.
Anyway, they tested a like "man at arms" level breast plate against a matchlock long arm and it cut right through it.
Now the fancy armor they remade? They remade it what looked nearly perfectly as the one they had in the musem, then they tested the same matchlock, and it did _not_ penetrate the armor.
Granted that armor had like an extra, it looked sort of like a cummerbund, and it dented about half an inch in, but did _NO_ damage to the internal plate.
I do not know from memory what the powder charge was save that it was black powder, or the caliber of the musket. But I believe they said that was the main musket used in that time period.
So some of them would resist proper long arms- BUT by the time of the curassiers, even ignoring, possibly better powder, firearm construction and projectile design... the example I saw had to be custom made, for a member of a royal court- and was a full suit of plate. The armor may have turned some rounds of muskets.... however a full company firing is still liable to kill you if you take several shots at once, and that's ON the armor. More likely it would tear apart anything unarmored, or unhorse you can hurt you from the fall at speed. The best defense would be like the leopard tank right after WW2, maybe the 60s. Just don't get hit.
I'm not saying definitely, but it seems that some armor could certainly take a few shots from a long arm... but when you get massed fire, it's kind of pointless anyway.
Do you have any information on German jaegers or chasseurs? I have researched some and found an ancestor of mine was one from near Brunswick sent to the revolutionary war. So I have been looking into them more, but haven’t found much and not sure of differences in 1776 vs Napoleonic chasseurs .
During the Revolutionary and Consular Periods, the 8th Cavalry wore the cuirass; they had been armored since 1666. In 1801 Napoleon started converting some Cavalerie regiments to cuirassiers.
Do you have any list of the pictures you used to illustrate the video?
Hi Matt would they have carried a secondary sword in cases of a close combat situation one possibly attached to the horse or saddle and the more wieldy attached to the man ?
The hilt was designed against the method of use. The cuirassier at the time at the charge, held the sword with the guard upward, level with the ground, with the forearm parallel to the ground and behind the hand and wrist, putting the elbow also behind the guard. The intent was to guard the hand and forearm from a counter-thrust or cut sliding under or over the guard into the elbow and upper arm.
Do Finnish Hakkapeliittas! :)
That tree stump looks like a dorky, loveable woodland spirit
In your next video with this ca;you show the point of balance? Im assuming the almost comically large hilt is to bring the balance closer to the hand for better tip control since it's not needed for cutting but i was hoping you would show exactly where it is
The French army state still had cuirassier heavy cavalry in 1914 in the beginning of the Great War.
PLeaaaaase do a comparaison video about this and the 1908. Thanx in advance
Could you make a video about "sword-breaker" daggers? I found them shortly ago in kult of athena and don't really know anything about those. And with that name, i'm quite curious...
Yesss ! I liked before even watching ! I knew it was a French cuirassier sword on your wall :D
Weirdly, the older an XIII model is much easier to find than later patterns.
Made in greater numbers I should think - I would imagine that after 1815 the French Army reduced in size a lot. The British Army certainly did.
Also many later patterns (like the 1854 one) where so close to the an XIII one, that old sabres were simply re-ground to the appropriate length and fitted with new scabbards. Incidentally, the original an XIII pattern had a straight back, so all the spear-pointed blades we find are later modifications.
What is your opinion regarding effectiveness of modern class 2 or 3 body armor against swords, axes or other pole weapons?
Were the large horses the solution to getting out of a swirling melee? Charge to contact, with the point, then use its weight and power to bull your way clear, disengage, turn, reform and charge again?
im not sure if u said hussars from poland but if u did , they were Heavy cavallery . I did not make really good research but watched video made by a pasionate guy who made quite of a research and he said it was like heavy roller on the battle field , and sometimes did chrages 4 to 5-6 in single battle so yes (and the wings was not a decoration more like of a back rest (harder to fell))
Can I suggest, maybe using a fishing scale? Depending on make, you should be able to find something with a suitable range.
Is this considered and "epee du combat" and if so how does it relate to the sport fencing epee?
Is there a reason why those were used instead of a real lance (and a saber for backup)? Lances give you even more reach and I don't see much these swords could do better than lances, given that they can't really cut or be used on foot.
TlsGrz french even used lancers
You can put a sword in a scabbard and use it easily, unlike the lance.
The French extensively used lancers as well. But they have different strengths and weaknesses - swords are much better in a melee and are possibly easier to extract after stabbing someone at speed. Also, very importantly, the lance cannot be worn - cuirassiers could put their sword in the scabbard while they used or reloaded their pistols. Lancers were sometimes also given firearms, but generally the lance makes it awkward to also make use of firearms.
Funnily enough Lancers were usually light cavalry. Lancers didn't need armour as much, they weren't tanks like the cuirassiers. The Carabinieri also wore armour though their main weapon was the carbine.
It seems the sword was more like a reusable lance plus the other advantages mentioned. The cuirassiers were used mainly to charge, skewer, and get out, then repeat. Thus possible breaking the line. Or out flanking.
"Cuir" only means leather nowadays, but it used to mean any sort of "tough skin". Rawhide is also "cuir". Any armor is a "tougher skin", so it is a "cuirass".
It does NOT have anything to do with "leather armor".
Perhaps unrelated, the act of cooking is "cuire". Not too sure if there really is an etymological link though.
cooking is "cuire"
Cuir meant the thick skin of an animal, so... leather too!
And cuir / cuire are two totally différent words both ethymologically and in meaning :)
That's not what the CNRTL (Centre National des Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales) says. According to them, "cuirasse" exists since 1266, and comes from a provençal word for "leather clothing" ;)
The thing with "cuir bouilli" is that it refers to any type of hide that is boiled in any sort of liquid. The boiled hide used for armoring was probably not the same product as leather boiled in water, which is indeed also refered to as "cuir bouilli". I agree that boiling leather in water does improve its resistance to cutting (and piercing, to a lesser extent), but it's not necessarily enough to make that a worthwhile material for armoring compared to other alternatives. Raw hide boiled in wax and oil yields an even better non-metallic alternative to steel, relative to its cost. Considering that leather in a pre-industrial economy is not cheap, the performance increase needs to be enough to compensate for the price, and to make it a viable alternative to fabric armor and other composites that were used. I have also heard of aboriginal americans using pots of boiling wax, resin and glue made from bison hooves, in order to reinforce the hide material used for certain things that require resistance to cutting and piercing, such as shields. There's a reason why they used a composite mixture instead of simply boiling the stuff in water, it yields better results.
When I said that "cuir bouilli isn't leather", I should have specified "the cuir bouilli that was used for armoring", specifically. Evidently, any sort of boiled hide is cuir bouilli, including leather boiled in water. Boiled leather may have been used in decoration or supports for steel plates or other semi-flexible parts, but probably not as the primary protection when better alternatives existed. However, rawhide boiled in resin or wax is not flexible at all. Even in thinner gauges, it is hard as the plastic from modern construction helmets. They wouldn't even make shoe soles out of that stuff, which is one area where leather boiled in water is a useful material: it can have just the right balance of toughness and flexibility.
My argument is not that boiling leather in water doesn't effectively harden it. My argument is that there are even better alternatives for making armor out of hide, and those alternatives were not more expensive than the tanning process. It follows that people probably figured out that boiling leather in water was not the optimal solution for making the primary components of armor.
As for the etymological argument, I'm guessing this sentence shows that you agree with my interpretation that "cuir" used to mean more than just "leather", but rather that it refered to any sort of hide : "The Latin word corium was used for both animal skin and leather (which is of course skin...) it has its origin in a word that means cut or scrape."
As far as I know as a québécois who speaks French, "bouilli" by itself refers to anything that is boiled in any particular substance. The context of the phrase in which these words were used would give them a specific contextual meaning, if needed.
I do wish you'd make a video going into why armor switched from plate clad knights to basically cloth and a leather coat. You said it's more complicated than just guns, but I've been in conversations with people online who seemed to think that the plate used was able to stop rifle rounds (which you've dismissed in this video). Maybe you've already done all the explaining needed, I don't know. It just seems like a lot of people out there seem to just think that a suit of armor would stop a bullet, even a modern one. Which is just crazy.
I was always curious if training with a heavy sword is a good idea. I mean, it makes sense to build more muscle. On the other hand, you're training with a weapon that has different characteristics from what you intend to use, possibly hurting your weapon handling and muscle memory. Any thoughts?
Love your videos Matt, have you considered doing some video about Siege of Szigetvár in 1566? It is rather interesting theme, how Ottoman advance on Europe was stoped by croats and some hungarians, 3000 of soldiers broke Ottoman army led by none other than Suleiman the Magnificent of nearly 300.000 soldiers. Cheers from Croatia.
Is that a sword with the scholar gladiators emblem on the guard on the wall behind you?
Can you linin the original picture of the thumbnail?