I can't wait until five hundred years from now when some guy is talking about how he would have walked around wearing full SWAT gear and carrying a sniper rifle if he'd been alive in our time.
I'd like to disagree with Matt I've played Assassins Creed a historical game and you can run, swim, walk around town with a cloak, daggers on your wrists, a sabre, a tomahawk, a crossbow quiver of arrows and a blowgun all a the same time without being noticed or inconvenienced. You also get into fights every few minutes so being well armed always is very important.
***** Hoplon, or hopla, is (ancient?) greek for "weapon", so a hoplite was a literally a "man at arms". The shield was actually called aspis although it it sometimes referred as a hoplon. I don't know if this was done in ancient texts, but I'dd guess that if it was so, it didn't mean a "shield" per se, but the "thing that the hoplites carried".
THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO!!!!! To many folks assume that people in the middle ages went door to door picking fights and going on "adventures". They forget that then, as now, the weapons carried were for self defense rather than defending the Kingdom from hoards of Orcs. The weapons of choice had to be unobtrusive so that they can be carried every day. The same can be said of firearms here in the US. A hand gun is preferred over a Long gun due to its size, portability, and lack of the "Oh no he has a weapon" factor.
Yeah its true everybody makes asumotion based on their murdering hobos they played last time on their console 😃 But overlook the fact overwhelming majority of their ancestors werejust regular dudes who were happy to live in peace
Oh, so it's perfectly okay to open carry a .40 pistol on your hip, but when I bring my m60 machine gun out to the stores, suddenly there's a huge problem.
wanadeena The swat team and - in certain emergency situations (like riots) - they used de-armed APCs. It's a big metal box that won't explode when some guy throws a Molotov at it like tends to happen in riots. The use of the word "Tank" to refer to them has caused a lot of media stir in America, and we dislike when people do that. It's incorrect, and making a deal out of something all nations can/have done: Give their law enforcement the tools to deal with extreme situations.
The fuel economy of tanks is dreadful:Gallons per mile rather than miles to the gallon. Also cars are lots faster-so long as they're not blown away by some cop's tank first.
2bingtim No cops are given Tanks. They are sometimes given an APC without heavy weapons. Fuel economy is unimportant in this situation, because they are emergency vehicles.
An additional point about ease of carry that I think is often overlooked is that a set of weapons you are comfortable with is, shockingly, the set you are likely to actually be practiced and familiar with, with all that entails. Sword and Buckler was popular in civilian life that was also quite effective on the battlefield. While a full shield might be "better", if you have never held a large shield before, you will be much better off with the buckler you have practice with. It should be no surprise that so many cultures with swords around the globe tended to feature fairly substantial contingents of infantry armed with sword and buckler. For example, in contemporary Mediaeval European art as much as 1/3rd of the Infantry are depicted as armed with sword and buckler (where the rest are men armed with shield and spear).
Absolutely correct. In modern times, that would be like directly comparing the effectiveness of handguns vs rifles, and then asking why someone might carry a pistol in their belt rather than go about their day with a battle rifle slung across their chest because the rifle is clearly superior in every way.
The idea of a medieval concealed-carry law is hilarious. "Sirrah, I'm going to have to ask you to leave. You partisan is clearly visible through your breeches." "Uhhhh, what partisan? I see no partisan."
He can carry the pole as a walking staff, and the head concealed in his jacket. So when the time of need comes, he politelly ask: "Excuse-me, sir, do you have an anvil and vice here so I can rivet my... ehem... boots?" And he surreptitiously hammer down the pin of the partisan in the pole and promptly enter combat.
+Andrew Forrest I love how all of you think. You, each of you, are invited to my house to dine this evening. If you do not show up then you will have offended a lady's favor, and as each of you knows, a lady's favor is not to be treated with disrespect. There will be a plethora of assorted pizza and beer available for consumption as well as Netflix and chilling. =)
That's exactly what I thought. Here is the US, we have a term called "everyday carry", or EDC. It refers to utilitarian items, usually for defense or survival, that a person carries every day just in case they need it. These items are usually light and fairly small and comfortable to wear all the time. I never thought this concept was a new one and it makes sense that a buckler would be preferred over a shield for EDC reasons.
Why carry a buckler rather than a shield? LOL the answer is obvious. Bucklers have the largest parry window out of all the shields. Someone charging at me? Parry and Riposte that fucker with my super high crit damage mail breaker.
Wow, come on casul! Even though the Mail Breaker does indeed have 150 (I think) critical damage, a Chaos Rapier has a higher critical damage due to a higher base damage and Humanity scaling. And yes, I'm a nerd and proud of it.
Yup, life isn't a role playing game. You'd even have a hard time walking around with a targe, at about 2 feet across, in everyday life. You'd be constantly looking for a place to set it down. By way of comparison you could likely get along fairly well just hooking your buckler over the hilt of your regular sidearm and walking about. It's a *little* annoying, but the sort of thing you can get used to. And yet so many role players think nothing of walking around a town with longsword, dagger, kite shield, longbow and 40 arrows, and maybe a hand axe along with everything else that they own. I can't imagine loading up with a modern soldier's route march pack and then adding the miscellany of medieval cutlery, on top of it, and actually making my way through a day, let alone a pitched battle.
my god, can you imagine the back pain you'd get after all that, even HEMA has a considerable strain and even so that only lasts for a couple of hours, I don't think one would be able to stand after a full week of wearing all that, the hernias would be over 9000, plus how would you move with so much weight on you in the 1st place?
I agree. I mean I write fantasy, and for the purpose of the characters maintaining their badassery, well its just more 'fitting' to allow them some way to carry their equipment all the time. I try to make it somewhat reasonable (for instance, a shield, there is a small hook set on the back shoulder of the person's chest piece of their armor, and they simply let it hang from one of its handles or straps from there) its not perfect, but it COULD arguably work, maybe. I mean I openly admit and understand it is NOT a true accurate representation. But when magic, dragons, wizards and divine powers are involved, well to a point realism gets tossed out the window. But he makes a good point.
drizzt102 If you want a somewhat plausible method for someone to carry a small shield then I suppose you could have them sling it on their left shoulder, by the arm strap, then sort of shrug it down and pull the strap tight with his teeth, in a 'well practiced move', before going into battle. Still, having a two foot wide sail on your shoulder is less than ideal for simple things like going through doors. Living off the land somewhat limits how much someone would actually have to carry, and is in keeping with heroic fantasy. So is having a riding or pack animal but when it comes down to brass tacks, no one is going to want to go into battle with a refrigerator on his back (a term referring to a rather dubious event in my usual group's role playing past).
Heck, my D&D fighter wouldn't leave the house without 5 different weapons (different damage types), cold iron, silver and magic versions of all of them, at least 3 different ranged weapons, a normal and an enchanted shield, and probably a few more magic weapons with different enchantments to cover different scenarios. Your set of weapons is the kind of thing I'd expect a first level adventurer to bring.
Basically: "Why don't you carry around a shot gun everywhere you go if it is more powerful than a pistol? " ""Because the pistol is easy to carry, works well in tight quarters, and it isn't a pain in the ass. Also, people don't look at me like I am a crazy person with just a pistol."
Grossmesser and pitchfork. Messer is short for messen sax, which means dining knife, so it is clearly the intended use for it. Both were for commoners so they go together nicely.
Everyone is saying this is common sense, and that's true...But what I love about Matt's videos is that even if you know the answer, you can also be sure he'll bring a perspective you hadnt thought about to it that just makes you love history even more.
DocZom 1.) My point was not that people carry weapons, it was that you don't want to be walking around with a cannon when a pistol will, suffice. 2.) How are all people who want to defend themselves cowards? I don't know where you grew up, but for a lot of people, the streets are notsafe, and they need a form of defense. 3.) Being afraid of guns is more cowardly than being afraid of muggers/rapists/kidnappers. A gun is a tool. If you learn to use it properly, it will not hurt you.
BC - Before Cars, people had to carry things around. Anyone who has gone hiking knows exactly why the buckler was popular. Almost as good as a shield, but WAY smaller and lighter. And its also easy to see why sword and dagger, sword alone, and dagger alone were popular too.
You should do a video on your favorite sword from your collection. And maybe one about your modern razor sharp go-to-in-case-of-home-invasion sword. Which one do you like best, personally, and which one would you grab if your life depended on it.
the same idea goes for a rifle or a pistol in modern life. a rifle is better in almost every way, but a pistol can be carried almost anywhere. rifles are for war or hunting. pistols are sidearms.
I'm new to weapons and such, and I have to say that this legitimately is something I didn't think about. I've always gone by what I saw (RPGs and Hollywood), but it's nice to learn new POVs.
We still see the same thing today. Even in the US where gun ownership is very common people don't walk around with AR-15's or AK-47's despite the fact it is legal to do so in many states. They instead choose to carry a pistol because it is lighter and more concealable. If you know you're going to be getting into a gunfight you bring a long gun and body armor. However it is simply too much of a pain in the ass the walk around everyday with 10 lbs of stuff strapped to your chest.
A good analogy for this would be Open Carry in some US states. You can legally open carry an AR15 or AK47 wearing body armor and magazines but people are going to look at you weird, call the police, cause you general trouble, and you're just not going to be comfortable in your daily life day in day out. The vast majority would just conceal carry a small single stack pistol because it fits in with their EDC.
+patio87 On the other hand, you can walk around with a hunting rifle in an area with lots of hunting without getting looks. In Japan since kendo is fairly common you can walk around with a katana as long as it's in a sword bag.
Liked allready for the explicit mention of "arse" ;-) Now serious, today several people by katana, big pistols and even rifles for SHTF, but the thing that they could carry around would be a pocket-knife or compact pistol.
Could just skip the boss and use wood only? I mean why do you absolutely have to have a boss of you can't afford the metal? just use wood, leather or rawhide, expesually if you already have a farm.
When I was a boy I tied a 2x4 to my arm with rope. We slang pvc pipes back and forth at each other. It wasn't too rare to shatter the pipes on each others pipes.
Something I've been thinking about recently is the idea of using a buckler as a self-defense tool in a modern context. I mean, it's small enough to fit in a handbag or a grocery bag, and it would allow you to defend against a knife-wielding attacker. At the same time, it's not really a weapon, so you'd probably have fewer legal issues than you would if you were to carry a knife or a club or something. Hell, I wonder if issuing bucklers to cops in the US would maybe stop them from feeling like they have to ventilate anyone who walks towards them with a knife.
MisdirectedSasha I have thought the same :-) Yes I think for anyone wanting an effective self-defence item to carry, a buckler could be a very interesting proposition... now couple it with a walking stick and I would say the knifeman is at a disadvantage in a straight out fight.
scholagladiatoria Buckler and an extendable baton... I would say you have a pretty good combination to kick the shit out of anyone who would try to attack you...
Extendable batons are illegal for civilian carry where I live (Canada), unfortunately, and in a lot of other places. Though you can get away with carrying a knife as long as it looks more like a tool than a weapon. I hadn't thought about a walking stick, but now that you mention it that would be a great combination. That or maybe a stick-type umbrella, or a big flashlight.
MisdirectedSasha Illegal? Why would they be illegal? Because you can attack someone with it? Well, you can attack him with a pipe, a stick, a knife... that law is retarded :D Can you at least carry pepper sprays or tasers? I am not even asking about guns...
Collapsible batons are legal to own, but not to carry. Pepper spray and tasers are just illegal. Knives are only legal to carry if they're carried as tools, and swtichblades, gravity knives, etc. are illegal. Basically you can't carry anything intended to be used as a weapon. But you can carry tools. What some self-defense instructors recommend is a really bright tactical flashlight, that you can use to blind somebody and then either run away or bludgeon them with it. Walking sticks and umbrellas are also fine (but no sword canes ): and sometimes bear spray if you can claim that you need it for bears (and this is Canada; I once found a bear in my garage in downtown Vancouver). Canadian law does allow force to defend yourself from harm, up to and including lethal force. You can perform a citizen's arrest if somebody is trespassing or stealing your property, and use appropriate force to detain them until the police arrive. If people steal your stuff you can attempt to retrieve it, but you can't use any force to do so. The crux is that self defense cases are very much at the courts' discretion. There are no hard and fast rules about what constitutes appropriate force, so you have to convince the judge and jury that you used the right amount to resolve the situation. Usually people who do use force in their defense will face some criminal charges, but juries will rarely convict you. Just don't stab someone 20 times for slapping you.
Apart from the practical issues, it should be noticed that all defensive or offensive weapons that we wouldn't carry in everyday life that you mentioned, are actually battlefield weapons. I mean: large shields, spears, halberds, zweihander, we can say are all mainly battlefield weapons. Also, I think it's very interesting to notice that there were laws that forbid everyone to carry weapons around (at least here in Italy, I know several cases), but from the chronicles we know that many times these laws were ignored (e.g. this is the case of "my" Genoa, a more violent city in the late 16th century than I imagined).
The distinction between civilian weapons (or sidearms) and primary battlefield weapons often gets heavily blurred in popular culture. Hence depictions of heroes going into battle with nothing but a sword (and slashing at fully armoured opponents with the edge), or walking around downtown with a battleaxe and shield. These pop culture depictions lead to many misconceptions among the general public when talking about actual historical weapon and armour use. In general, Hollywood movies and RPGs tend to ignore the fact that different weapon types were used under very different circumstances, and will depict choice of weapon, whether it's a sword, a spear, a mace or an axe, purely as a matter of aesthetics and personal taste. Practical concerns fall by the wayside.
I'm in a role playing group right now, where one of my friends' character has a two handed flamberge and a huge arbalest, which he somehow carries around exactly wherever he goes, of course always ready to draw and use instantly and cocked and loaded. I've told him this isn't very realistic, especially when you're climbing a tree or falling into a hole in the floor right into an underwater lake, then directly attacked by a pair of Onaquis, but a game is a game I guess.
If you have a good lantern you don't need extra oil on your person. I have a oil lamp which holds 2-3 days of fuel in it if you keep the wick maintained (that is check it twice a day) Spesificly I'm referring to a kerosine lantern build in the 1940-1950's, I've run it with Kerosine, lamp oil, olive oil and probably something else over the years. Olive oil doesn't burn that quickly either.
for having reenactec tewkesbury battle for 10 years,I can say that at the end of the battle going back to the camp with the helmet in one hand,the sword and that bloody shield that I either carry or attach to my belt so it can hurt my waist,is a real nightmare.Since I switched to longsword,wich I used as a short pike,a two hand sword or half sword,I can almost run back home with an easy to carry weapon in my hand and only that.As for "civilian" life,carrying sword and buckler is actually not a big deal and will anyway provide a nice amount of protection in case of bad encounter!Totally agree with you.
I 100% agree. Even in a LARP scenario that is not 100% combat (like you have a town). carrying a shield is a major annoyance. And in this case we only walk 5 min into "town" and the shields are only foam and super light and it is accepted to wear them. And the same with a halbert. Not the best thing in the tavern....
A D&D dwarf fighter character I like is occasionally even described as fighting with a buckler. So maybe a dwarf's "shield" would be a tall person's "buckler".
"You can eat your lunch with them" I understand what you were saying, but now I'm just imagining someone trying to cut their sandwich in half with a saber.
I'd suggest people think of it in terms of firearms. A handgun (sword, buckler, axe, dagger) is something you carry around for when you can't get to your longarm (rifle, shotgun, musket, spear, pike, halberd, etc.) A sidearm is a backup weapon. Your primary weapon as a solider would be your bow, pike, spear etc. Your sidearm is there for when your longarm breaks or you run out of ammo or you just can't get your primary weapon in time.
Excellent video. And very true. I mainly foght with a large viking round shield and it's excellent in battles, but when I'm out of combat amd wandering around the village or eating or anything like that its a massive pain. Its heavy and difficult and cumbersome. I'm usually trying to find a safe place to leave it rather than carrying it with me.
Yeah, the guy who gets on the tube in the morning carrying a pike certainly is getting some odd looks. But on the plus side he also gets a whole cart to himself and always gets a seat. Swings and roundabouts really, though those are even more of a hassle to carry around.
I’m a telephone repairman in the 4th most violent ghetto in America and in 19 years I’ve only needed my weapon twice but I’ve had to scrap, run, and escape about 5 times and this doesn’t include the daily bs. I found that a pistol is a hinderance and major responsibility while try to work and climb so I carry a knife and blackjack which is why I got into HEMA years ago as I’m proficient in empty handed and firearm engagement but the modern knife and impact weapon training seems to by rife with dangerous unrealistic nonsense so I went to a source that seemed to know about edged and impact weapon, like the majority of history.
Side arms! Just like pistols. Here in America, I sometimes walk around with my pistol at my side. It's a side arm. I do NOT walk around with a rifle or my shotgun all day because it's just too bulky and heavy. My Ruger .40 cal isn't a battlefield weapon, but I'm not expecting to get into a battle on my way to Walmart. However it is plenty of fire power in the off chance that someone attacks me, which does happen in this town some times. Probably I'll never have to use it, and I pray that that day never comes. Of course my long guns are better and more powerful, but I'm not lugging an AK-47 around all day.
In the Swedish larps I been at we tend to role play more then fight, so in the beginning me and my friends packed on armor and big tower shields but it was a pain in the butt to carry around so the armor got smaller and lighter and the shields where left at home.
i do love roleplaying games but i find it funny doing stupid tasks like collect flowers or help find a book whilst dressed in full plate with a shiled in one hand and a sword in the other, or better yet swimming in full plate
You can use the argument of "Well why is some people carrying around pistols and not assault rifles? Rifles is clearly better at pretty much everything". Kinda the same thing, not convenient.
4:23 "What are you doing? Like, why are you walking around with a pike?" I feel like I've said this at least three times on the New York Subway this year.
Using a shield as a sidearm to a sword is kinda like using a ballistic shield as a sidearm to a submachine gun. You can make it work, but it's not always practical.
Hey there, im looking at alot of your videos and you always come up with the "its impractical to carry around" and you do 90% video explaining why its impractical the same way you did in other videos. Not that its bad, I mean, many haven't watched those other videos- but i'd like you to cover more of the question asked. Sword & shield VS sword & buckler: who would have the advantage in an actual fight, why and in what aspects. This is more what i personally want to hear and less about how its impractical to walk around because I already know that since you always tell us! :P Other than that, good work. awesome presentation and nice teaching charisma. Will keep on following as ever.
I guess I was expecting more cover than simply the question. Rather than why its impractical to carry for the simple folks - in which situations would it be practical for others? I mean, as a solider would you walk around with shield or buckler? I bet its practical to carry for some people otherwise shields would not exist.
ShaggyLunchCake Shields exist because they're excellent combat tools. If you're say a guard, at a guard post, you might have a shield there. If you fight with one on the battlefield, you'd carry it to war (unless it was just carried in a baggage train, which is highly plausible. A soldier doesn't just 'walk around' with weapons then or now. Firstly because the professional class of soldiers is much more limited for most of the middle ages, and secondly because they're still cumbersome and inconvenient. If you're just walking through town to buy some food, why would you be geared up for combat? Fighting for a living doesn't mean you spend every day fighting. As a soldier, you'd pick a shield if you're fighting with a one-handed other weapon, such as a spear or sword. Then you have a free hand for a shield, and a shield is a better weapon than a buckler, particularly on a battlefield. One on one there's less in it, but a shield closes off multiple lines of attack much better, which is very helpful in group combat where you might be stabbed from the left while concentrating on an opponent to your right. However, if you fight with e.g. a halberd, you can't use that with a shield. So you won't have one as a primary weapon, and carrying and deploying one as a backup weapon is impractical. Hence if you decide to have a backup offhand item, it would be a dagger or buckler.
Matt, what weight were most historical bucklers? I see a lot of reproduction ones that are right around 5lbs... just wondering if that's a weight to be expected? Im interested in buying or possibly making one. I'd like something a little larger than most bucklers, but smaller than most swords... any tips / recommendations? Another great video btw. Keep it up man.
I've also heard that by the war of the roses period of history (I re-enact with them), armour had become good enough that huge shields were no longer needed, so shields got smaller as armour got better, until you were left with bucklers.
Fionn199 large shields were still in use in the late-medieval period, used by lighter armed soldiers. Using a buckler is not very normal for fully armoured guys, as it's generally more useful to have both hands free for something like a pollaxe or glaive.
He talked about this in another video. You're right that most men-at-arms who could afford full plate armour generally discarded the shield in the 15th century (jousts notwithstanding), but bear in mind that many common soldiers would have been less heavily armoured and therefore still found shields quite useful. Bucklers, as Matt suggests, were mostly used either in civilian life as well as by certain battlefield units like longbowmen, and coexisted with larger shields for quite a long time. Edit: Pre-empted!
Cops, and in my state, civilians can walk around with a rifle. Virtually none of either group do so despite rifles being far superior in almost every way to a handgun. Even during WWII the US had the M1 Carbine for troops not intended for front line combat - though even infantry used it as it was...lighter! Why this concept is so hard for people to understand in a medieval context is beyond me.
1: They're easy to carry. People didn't carry full battle shields all the time, they took them off their horse, for battle. You can actually walk around with a buckler buckled on. (Why they're called that.) 2: They're lighter, and faster to parry with. This is a little more significant against a slashy cutswords, like sabers, and cutlasses, but reaction speed is a thing, and heavy shields are heavy.
Since the video is about shields, I feel this is a good place to ask something related. I have been wondering if there was a period or region in Europe where shields or bucklers were used with basket hilted swords or other swords with large handguards that covered most of the sword hand. Your recent video about Indian swords seemed to suggest that the combination was used in Asia, but how common was it in Europe? My understanding has been that handguards grew in size and coverage when firearms started making heavy armor obsolete in battles, and as the use of heavy armor declined, so did the use of shields.
Torsti Kinnunen Yes, basket-hilted swords were used all in many parts of Europe with bucklers in the 16th and 17th centuries - George Silver talks about it in his treatise. The Highlanders of Scotland were still using baskethilt and targe (shield) in the 18th century.
+Scholagladiatoria When you said sidearms, a bell went off in my head. I've been working on a piece that explores the use of the handgun as a category of WMA. Since laws change sporadically while social mores remain relatively constant, was there ever a time when it was acceptable to walk around armed and if so what was the social context that made it acceptable?
Mark Suarez Soldiers sometimes routinely carry weapons. Samurai and knights would always bear arms (I think). In the renaissance though, it seems like it may have been fashionable for everyman to carry a sword. I think it depends on context. Chiefly, carrying a weapon where others have none, drastically changes the balance of power and this does not invite trust. I've been glared at for carrying a broomhandle in the supermarket! (I just needed a replacement broomhandle!)
Walking around with a larger than a buckler shield isn't really that much of a nuisence. Except that one time when I got pulled back when I went through a narrow doorway, forgot about it and it caught on the sides of the door. But that's my clumsyness.
Also people forget that sidearms are for self defense. It is difficult to bring oversized weapons ment for war to bear when trying to defend yourself in a pub or narrow street. If you cant bring it quickly in to play when you need it you would likely be dead.
Why carry a buckler rather than a shield? Because you are not going to be standing in a defensive formation, facing missile weapons or be trying to block weapon attacks with a lot of mass behind them. People carried shields for two reasons: to make up for a lack of body armour and to enable the bearer to stand in a shield wall or defensive formation on the field of battle. A shield covers a large portion of the body, can spread the force of a strike by a heavy weapon, and can protect against javelins, arrows and bolts. As body armour improves shields disappear because their additional protection is not needed and so you can wield a two handed weapon to deal with the heavier body armour. Bucklers are only of use if you are relying on mobility for defence. This makes them effective when facing light thrust & parry weapons. You can also punch with a buckler, giving you two offensive and one defensive weapon. You do see bucklers on the battlefield - the Spanish sword & buckler men who would roll under pikes to get inside enemy formations for example - but the buckler was of most use in fencing styles of combat. Bucklers were also carried by crossbow men and other non-melee soldiers as they were light and didn't get in the way while loading a crossbow for example.
also things like pikes, shields, armor...are useful for the battlefield, when men fight in formations shoulder to shoulder but are pretty useless in a civilian self defense context where nobody is gonna watch you back and nobody protects your flanks so you have to be able to move quickly and agile
Not on topic but a funny thing about cultural influence. I was really confused when Matt first showed a straight sword and called it a sabre. For us, Poles, sabres are curved - it's the first image that pops to our heads because that's the type of sabre that was used in Poland. To me it was unthinkable that a sabre might have a straight blade until I had gained some knowledge about English nomenclature regarding swords. Again, sabre is not a type of sword for Poles, whereas in English virtually every long bladed weapon is a sword. To visualise, google "szabla" (Polish for sabre) and then "sabre" and compare the amount of straight-bladed sabres.
Gilmaris It doesn't make much sense if you think in terms of English "sword" that encompasses almost every edged weapon longer than a dagger with single or double handed grip... But in Poland "sword" would be a "double-edged straight blade" only, sabre would be "single-edged curved blade (possibly with a small false edge". So, in English sabre is a type of a sword, while in Polish a sword and a sabre are distinct types of edged weapons.
jeddylajos it's "szabla" in Polish, (pronounce: translate.google.pl/?oe=utf-8&ie=UTF-8&hl=pl&client=tw-ob#en/pl/szabla) Also, "szabla", or sabre in Polish, generally means *Eastern-European* curved blade, but... This is where it gets muddy. I'm not a historian or specialist, and don't have any book on polish weapon nomenclature at hand, but... Keeping the definition I wrote in my previous post in mind... What is katana? If you asked almost anybody here (in Poland) you'd get "japoński miecz" - "japanese sword". That's the most popular answer, and save for a handful people you'd almost never get "japanese sabre" as an answer, although IIRC it was actually the term used in Second Polish Republic (1918-1939). It may be because it fits the definition, and at those times we we're still more under the (receding) cultural influence of France rather than of English-speaking "West". And while it's "japanese sword" in English, it's still "un sabre japonais" and not "une épée japonais" in French, although an actual French voice would be valuable here. ;) Nowadays we're under strong influence of English/American rather than French culture and language, so... ;) Also, an interesting side note - sword (miecz) is masculine noun in Polish, while it's feminine (une épée) in French, as opposed to sabre (szabla) is feminine noun in Polish, and masculine in French (un sabre). Huh. ;) About the nomenclature - looks like sword (miecz) in Polish really isn't an all encompassing category like it is in English (it still refers to different types of swords, but not as many), and thus sabre, sword, rapier, katana*, cutlass*, etc, would be considered different types of edged weapons. And yes, rapier wouldn't be considered a sword either. ;) Even Polish wiki categorizes sabres and swords in different buckets - see: pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bro%C5%84_bia%C5%82a - click on "Broń Biała" under the content of the page to toggle the category view. Throw that into the google translator to get somewhat readable form in English: translate.google.pl/translate?hl=pl&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBro%C5%84_bia%C5%82a *) debatable; could be considered a sabre, though not under "Easter-European" addendum ;)
Tomasz Wota What, then, about single edged straight blades, or swords which are neither curved nor straight (eg. kopesh. and arguably falcata, falx, seax etc.)? The English definitions are not peculiar, but pretty much how you find it in almost all languages. The Polish definition you offer, on the other hand, seems quite unique. And the funny thing is that the etymology is the same for both "sword" and "sabre" (or "szabla") - both stem from a word which simply means "cut".
John Silver's manuscript ranks buckler as beating shield in a duel. My experience in battlegaming (belegarth/amtgard) bears this out- when dueling w/shields, you want them to be smaller- offence is at a premium. You want the mobility and the shot angles.
I can't wait until five hundred years from now when some guy is talking about how he would have walked around wearing full SWAT gear and carrying a sniper rifle if he'd been alive in our time.
I'd like to disagree with Matt I've played Assassins Creed a historical game and you can run, swim, walk around town with a cloak, daggers on your wrists, a sabre, a tomahawk, a crossbow quiver of arrows and a blowgun all a the same time without being noticed or inconvenienced. You also get into fights every few minutes so being well armed always is very important.
grinningchicken Funny
+grinningchicken unsubscribed. He knows nothing about history.
+Kirin Kappa (Citation needed.)
+grinningchicken were you REALLY comparing a game to real combat or even reenactment combat..... Pleeeeeaaaaaassssee
Paul Nelson Calm yourself young Jedi. Its a joke
_"Why are people carrying around smartphones when a tower PC is clearly superior?"_
Ha!
***** Hoplon, or hopla, is (ancient?) greek for "weapon", so a hoplite was a literally a "man at arms". The shield was actually called aspis although it it sometimes referred as a hoplon. I don't know if this was done in ancient texts, but I'dd guess that if it was so, it didn't mean a "shield" per se, but the "thing that the hoplites carried".
Sourcery Stones in every hand. Summon forwarth the finest sword from the Orient and the Amazon.
Why not fight with a shield and a bare hand, like Captain America?
why didnt cap'n america used a buckler?
+Fernando Ramos Do you even humour bro?
+yamada San because his best friend is called Bucky?
+Sherratt Pemberton get out
interestingly the ancient greeks actually did this a lot.
THANK YOU FOR THIS VIDEO!!!!! To many folks assume that people in the middle ages went door to door picking fights and going on "adventures". They forget that then, as now, the weapons carried were for self defense rather than defending the Kingdom from hoards of Orcs. The weapons of choice had to be unobtrusive so that they can be carried every day. The same can be said of firearms here in the US. A hand gun is preferred over a Long gun due to its size, portability, and lack of the "Oh no he has a weapon" factor.
Yeah its true everybody makes asumotion based on their murdering hobos they played last time on their console 😃
But overlook the fact overwhelming majority of their ancestors werejust regular dudes who were happy to live in peace
Unless those people were mercenaries on never-ending war campaign.
Gew219
Yes,yes that is possibility......
Oh, so it's perfectly okay to open carry a .40 pistol on your hip, but when I bring my m60 machine gun out to the stores, suddenly there's a huge problem.
Indeed. Recent freedom-hating policy changes at Best Buy ad GameStop.
I carry a .40 cal pistol on my hip. But I ain't lugging my 12 gauge to pizza hut! lol
Nathan Key-No I heard they give out free pizza if u do tho
It's the difference between being politely dressed and heavily armed.
You went wrong when you picked the .40 S&W...
"Why do people carry a pistol every day when they could just carry a light machine gun?"
"Amateurs study tactics, Professionals, study logistics" -Sun Tsu
Why dont the police drive tanks instead of cars?
They do ... in Murica!
wanadeena Not tanks APC's
wanadeena The swat team and - in certain emergency situations (like riots) - they used de-armed APCs. It's a big metal box that won't explode when some guy throws a Molotov at it like tends to happen in riots.
The use of the word "Tank" to refer to them has caused a lot of media stir in America, and we dislike when people do that. It's incorrect, and making a deal out of something all nations can/have done: Give their law enforcement the tools to deal with extreme situations.
The fuel economy of tanks is dreadful:Gallons per mile rather than miles to the gallon. Also cars are lots faster-so long as they're not blown away by some cop's tank first.
2bingtim No cops are given Tanks. They are sometimes given an APC without heavy weapons. Fuel economy is unimportant in this situation, because they are emergency vehicles.
An additional point about ease of carry that I think is often overlooked is that a set of weapons you are comfortable with is, shockingly, the set you are likely to actually be practiced and familiar with, with all that entails. Sword and Buckler was popular in civilian life that was also quite effective on the battlefield. While a full shield might be "better", if you have never held a large shield before, you will be much better off with the buckler you have practice with. It should be no surprise that so many cultures with swords around the globe tended to feature fairly substantial contingents of infantry armed with sword and buckler. For example, in contemporary Mediaeval European art as much as 1/3rd of the Infantry are depicted as armed with sword and buckler (where the rest are men armed with shield and spear).
Absolutely correct. In modern times, that would be like directly comparing the effectiveness of handguns vs rifles, and then asking why someone might carry a pistol in their belt rather than go about their day with a battle rifle slung across their chest because the rifle is clearly superior in every way.
The idea of a medieval concealed-carry law is hilarious.
"Sirrah, I'm going to have to ask you to leave. You partisan is clearly visible through your breeches."
"Uhhhh, what partisan? I see no partisan."
That's not a partisan it's clearly a glaive-fauchard-bardiche-voulge.
He can carry the pole as a walking staff, and the head concealed in his jacket. So when the time of need comes, he politelly ask:
"Excuse-me, sir, do you have an anvil and vice here so I can rivet my... ehem... boots?"
And he surreptitiously hammer down the pin of the partisan in the pole and promptly enter combat.
+Andrew Forrest I love how all of you think. You, each of you, are invited to my house to dine this evening. If you do not show up then you will have offended a lady's favor, and as each of you knows, a lady's favor is not to be treated with disrespect. There will be a plethora of assorted pizza and beer available for consumption as well as Netflix and chilling. =)
+Andrew Forrest "Is that a partisan in your breeches, or are you just pleased to see me?"
@@guyjackson2062 tis just my IWB halberd.
That's exactly what I thought. Here is the US, we have a term called "everyday carry", or EDC. It refers to utilitarian items, usually for defense or survival, that a person carries every day just in case they need it. These items are usually light and fairly small and comfortable to wear all the time. I never thought this concept was a new one and it makes sense that a buckler would be preferred over a shield for EDC reasons.
This is Thrand! Very good points about shields and weapons of the battle field compared to side arms and small arms.
ThegnThrand Oh look, it's that guy who breaks things on CZcams.
For history!
Why carry a buckler rather than a shield? LOL the answer is obvious. Bucklers have the largest parry window out of all the shields. Someone charging at me? Parry and Riposte that fucker with my super high crit damage mail breaker.
Do you even hornet ring bro?
Wow, come on casul! Even though the Mail Breaker does indeed have 150 (I think) critical damage, a Chaos Rapier has a higher critical damage due to a higher base damage and Humanity scaling. And yes, I'm a nerd and proud of it.
Akatosh, Dragon-God of Time nerd
Yup, life isn't a role playing game. You'd even have a hard time walking around with a targe, at about 2 feet across, in everyday life. You'd be constantly looking for a place to set it down. By way of comparison you could likely get along fairly well just hooking your buckler over the hilt of your regular sidearm and walking about. It's a *little* annoying, but the sort of thing you can get used to.
And yet so many role players think nothing of walking around a town with longsword, dagger, kite shield, longbow and 40 arrows, and maybe a hand axe along with everything else that they own. I can't imagine loading up with a modern soldier's route march pack and then adding the miscellany of medieval cutlery, on top of it, and actually making my way through a day, let alone a pitched battle.
my god, can you imagine the back pain you'd get after all that, even HEMA has a considerable strain and even so that only lasts for a couple of hours, I don't think one would be able to stand after a full week of wearing all that, the hernias would be over 9000, plus how would you move with so much weight on you in the 1st place?
ZennXPaladin There's a reason why King Arthur had Patsy and his coconuts. It's called 'lower back pain.'
I agree. I mean I write fantasy, and for the purpose of the characters maintaining their badassery, well its just more 'fitting' to allow them some way to carry their equipment all the time. I try to make it somewhat reasonable (for instance, a shield, there is a small hook set on the back shoulder of the person's chest piece of their armor, and they simply let it hang from one of its handles or straps from there) its not perfect, but it COULD arguably work, maybe. I mean I openly admit and understand it is NOT a true accurate representation. But when magic, dragons, wizards and divine powers are involved, well to a point realism gets tossed out the window. But he makes a good point.
drizzt102 If you want a somewhat plausible method for someone to carry a small shield then I suppose you could have them sling it on their left shoulder, by the arm strap, then sort of shrug it down and pull the strap tight with his teeth, in a 'well practiced move', before going into battle. Still, having a two foot wide sail on your shoulder is less than ideal for simple things like going through doors.
Living off the land somewhat limits how much someone would actually have to carry, and is in keeping with heroic fantasy. So is having a riding or pack animal but when it comes down to brass tacks, no one is going to want to go into battle with a refrigerator on his back (a term referring to a rather dubious event in my usual group's role playing past).
Heck, my D&D fighter wouldn't leave the house without 5 different weapons (different damage types), cold iron, silver and magic versions of all of them, at least 3 different ranged weapons, a normal and an enchanted shield, and probably a few more magic weapons with different enchantments to cover different scenarios.
Your set of weapons is the kind of thing I'd expect a first level adventurer to bring.
Basically: "Why don't you carry around a shot gun everywhere you go if it is more powerful than a pistol? "
""Because the pistol is easy to carry, works well in tight quarters, and it isn't a pain in the ass. Also, people don't look at me like I am a crazy person with just a pistol."
Clearly the safest everyday life was: shield salesman
Who where probably masters of the Hidden School of the Turtle teaching how to fight with various combinations of shields , pavise and bucklers.
Knoloaify Dual wielding shields ftw.
Wiggum Esquilax
DW shielding never existed that I can find.
2h shields are a thing though...
2:40 did anyone else picture Matt eating his lunch with a sword and buckler used instead of knife and fork?
no one else did
I did
What's he gonna do with the buckler?
@@nathanhunt9105 shovel in a lot of Stew, chilly, Mac, etc.
Grossmesser and pitchfork. Messer is short for messen sax, which means dining knife, so it is clearly the intended use for it. Both were for commoners so they go together nicely.
Quarterstaff
Would you take away a man's walking stick?
quarterstaff are much higher than walking sticks though
Everyone is saying this is common sense, and that's true...But what I love about Matt's videos is that even if you know the answer, you can also be sure he'll bring a perspective you hadnt thought about to it that just makes you love history even more.
That's the reason why I watch any of his videos,even when I think I already know everything about it!
So, basically, it's the same reason most people carry a handgun for personal defense, instead of a machine gun.
Except most people don't carry any guns for personal defense, only professionals and cowards.
DocZom 1.) My point was not that people carry weapons, it was that you don't want to be walking around with a cannon when a pistol will, suffice. 2.) How are all people who want to defend themselves cowards? I don't know where you grew up, but for a lot of people, the streets are notsafe, and they need a form of defense. 3.) Being afraid of guns is more cowardly than being afraid of muggers/rapists/kidnappers. A gun is a tool. If you learn to use it properly, it will not hurt you.
jtfroh Exactly
BC - Before Cars, people had to carry things around. Anyone who has gone hiking knows exactly why the buckler was popular. Almost as good as a shield, but WAY smaller and lighter. And its also easy to see why sword and dagger, sword alone, and dagger alone were popular too.
I love it when an old video pops up in my queue
You should do a video on your favorite sword from your collection. And maybe one about your modern razor sharp go-to-in-case-of-home-invasion sword. Which one do you like best, personally, and which one would you grab if your life depended on it.
the same idea goes for a rifle or a pistol in modern life. a rifle is better in almost every way, but a pistol can be carried almost anywhere. rifles are for war or hunting. pistols are sidearms.
Mike Mac Yep :-)
I'm new to weapons and such, and I have to say that this legitimately is something I didn't think about. I've always gone by what I saw (RPGs and Hollywood), but it's nice to learn new POVs.
Turtles don't seem to mind
We still see the same thing today. Even in the US where gun ownership is very common people don't walk around with AR-15's or AK-47's despite the fact it is legal to do so in many states. They instead choose to carry a pistol because it is lighter and more concealable. If you know you're going to be getting into a gunfight you bring a long gun and body armor. However it is simply too much of a pain in the ass the walk around everyday with 10 lbs of stuff strapped to your chest.
Regarding eating lunch, I've seen a guy fence with a dinner plate in his off hand (using it to parry). It made me smile.
I'm sure it was a last ditch evert to survive. Because I'm pretty sure all the food fell of when he used it to parry the oncoming attack. :-P
A good analogy for this would be Open Carry in some US states. You can legally open carry an AR15 or AK47 wearing body armor and magazines but people are going to look at you weird, call the police, cause you general trouble, and you're just not going to be comfortable in your daily life day in day out. The vast majority would just conceal carry a small single stack pistol because it fits in with their EDC.
+patio87 On the other hand, you can walk around with a hunting rifle in an area with lots of hunting without getting looks. In Japan since kendo is fairly common you can walk around with a katana as long as it's in a sword bag.
Matt is the bane of every over eager D&D Player ;)
I think Lindybeige would be proud of you pointing out how Brits say ass
You meant >> arse
Ass = donkey.
Arse = bottom.
Arkantos So was Bottom an arse or an ass?
"Errm, why are you walking around with a pike?" People ask me all the time.
"Because crawling around with it is impractical." I always answer.
Liked allready for the explicit mention of "arse" ;-)
Now serious, today several people by katana, big pistols and even rifles for SHTF, but the thing that they could carry around would be a pocket-knife or compact pistol.
"This isn't Skyrim." The weather outside would dispute that claim. XD
Wish I had seen this before I asked about the buckler vs shield thing for a soldier the other day. But thanks for the reply on your other video.
I'd also like to add that bucklers were (and are) probably way cheaper than a full sized shield making it more accessible to the average person.
Could just skip the boss and use wood only? I mean why do you absolutely have to have a boss of you can't afford the metal? just use wood, leather or rawhide, expesually if you already have a farm.
When I was a boy I tied a 2x4 to my arm with rope.
We slang pvc pipes back and forth at each other. It wasn't too rare to shatter the pipes on each others pipes.
Something I've been thinking about recently is the idea of using a buckler as a self-defense tool in a modern context. I mean, it's small enough to fit in a handbag or a grocery bag, and it would allow you to defend against a knife-wielding attacker. At the same time, it's not really a weapon, so you'd probably have fewer legal issues than you would if you were to carry a knife or a club or something.
Hell, I wonder if issuing bucklers to cops in the US would maybe stop them from feeling like they have to ventilate anyone who walks towards them with a knife.
MisdirectedSasha I have thought the same :-) Yes I think for anyone wanting an effective self-defence item to carry, a buckler could be a very interesting proposition... now couple it with a walking stick and I would say the knifeman is at a disadvantage in a straight out fight.
scholagladiatoria Buckler and an extendable baton... I would say you have a pretty good combination to kick the shit out of anyone who would try to attack you...
Extendable batons are illegal for civilian carry where I live (Canada), unfortunately, and in a lot of other places. Though you can get away with carrying a knife as long as it looks more like a tool than a weapon.
I hadn't thought about a walking stick, but now that you mention it that would be a great combination. That or maybe a stick-type umbrella, or a big flashlight.
MisdirectedSasha Illegal? Why would they be illegal? Because you can attack someone with it? Well, you can attack him with a pipe, a stick, a knife... that law is retarded :D Can you at least carry pepper sprays or tasers? I am not even asking about guns...
Collapsible batons are legal to own, but not to carry. Pepper spray and tasers are just illegal. Knives are only legal to carry if they're carried as tools, and swtichblades, gravity knives, etc. are illegal. Basically you can't carry anything intended to be used as a weapon. But you can carry tools.
What some self-defense instructors recommend is a really bright tactical flashlight, that you can use to blind somebody and then either run away or bludgeon them with it. Walking sticks and umbrellas are also fine (but no sword canes ): and sometimes bear spray if you can claim that you need it for bears (and this is Canada; I once found a bear in my garage in downtown Vancouver).
Canadian law does allow force to defend yourself from harm, up to and including lethal force. You can perform a citizen's arrest if somebody is trespassing or stealing your property, and use appropriate force to detain them until the police arrive. If people steal your stuff you can attempt to retrieve it, but you can't use any force to do so.
The crux is that self defense cases are very much at the courts' discretion. There are no hard and fast rules about what constitutes appropriate force, so you have to convince the judge and jury that you used the right amount to resolve the situation. Usually people who do use force in their defense will face some criminal charges, but juries will rarely convict you. Just don't stab someone 20 times for slapping you.
Apart from the practical issues, it should be noticed that all defensive or offensive weapons that we wouldn't carry in everyday life that you mentioned, are actually battlefield weapons. I mean: large shields, spears, halberds, zweihander, we can say are all mainly battlefield weapons.
Also, I think it's very interesting to notice that there were laws that forbid everyone to carry weapons around (at least here in Italy, I know several cases), but from the chronicles we know that many times these laws were ignored (e.g. this is the case of "my" Genoa, a more violent city in the late 16th century than I imagined).
The distinction between civilian weapons (or sidearms) and primary battlefield weapons often gets heavily blurred in popular culture. Hence depictions of heroes going into battle with nothing but a sword (and slashing at fully armoured opponents with the edge), or walking around downtown with a battleaxe and shield. These pop culture depictions lead to many misconceptions among the general public when talking about actual historical weapon and armour use.
In general, Hollywood movies and RPGs tend to ignore the fact that different weapon types were used under very different circumstances, and will depict choice of weapon, whether it's a sword, a spear, a mace or an axe, purely as a matter of aesthetics and personal taste. Practical concerns fall by the wayside.
Great stuff man.
I'm in a role playing group right now, where one of my friends' character has a two handed flamberge and a huge arbalest, which he somehow carries around exactly wherever he goes, of course always ready to draw and use instantly and cocked and loaded. I've told him this isn't very realistic, especially when you're climbing a tree or falling into a hole in the floor right into an underwater lake, then directly attacked by a pair of Onaquis, but a game is a game I guess.
Lanterns aren't weird. I pretty much carry the modern day equivalent, which is pistol and flashlight.
David Li a lantern would probably be the weight of two-three flashlights, not including any extra oil you might be carrying.
If you have a good lantern you don't need extra oil on your person. I have a oil lamp which holds 2-3 days of fuel in it if you keep the wick maintained (that is check it twice a day) Spesificly I'm referring to a kerosine lantern build in the 1940-1950's, I've run it with Kerosine, lamp oil, olive oil and probably something else over the years. Olive oil doesn't burn that quickly either.
Music Guy that's interesting, thank you for the info!
for having reenactec tewkesbury battle for 10 years,I can say that at the end of the battle going back to the camp with the helmet in one hand,the sword and that bloody shield that I either carry or attach to my belt so it can hurt my waist,is a real nightmare.Since I switched to longsword,wich I used as a short pike,a two hand sword or half sword,I can almost run back home with an easy to carry weapon in my hand and only that.As for "civilian" life,carrying sword and buckler is actually not a big deal and will anyway provide a nice amount of protection in case of bad encounter!Totally agree with you.
I 100% agree. Even in a LARP scenario that is not 100% combat (like you have a town). carrying a shield is a major annoyance. And in this case we only walk 5 min into "town" and the shields are only foam and super light and it is accepted to wear them. And the same with a halbert. Not the best thing in the tavern....
Imagine having lunch at a café or somewhere and having a RPG next to you
Or beeping the alarm to your army tank out in the parking lot.
Some bucklers can be up to 18 inches in diameter so it can double as a shield potentially and can still be used much like a smaller buckler.
A D&D dwarf fighter character I like is occasionally even described as fighting with a buckler. So maybe a dwarf's "shield" would be a tall person's "buckler".
Same reason people today walk around with a concealed carry handgun instead of a 12 gauge
2:35 "You can eat your lunch with them" LOLOLOl
OK, so it all fits under the description SIDEARMS. Interessting. The last minute was the most interessting.
"You can eat your lunch with them"
I understand what you were saying, but now I'm just imagining someone trying to cut their sandwich in half with a saber.
I'd suggest people think of it in terms of firearms. A handgun (sword, buckler, axe, dagger) is something you carry around for when you can't get to your longarm (rifle, shotgun, musket, spear, pike, halberd, etc.) A sidearm is a backup weapon. Your primary weapon as a solider would be your bow, pike, spear etc. Your sidearm is there for when your longarm breaks or you run out of ammo or you just can't get your primary weapon in time.
Excellent video. And very true. I mainly foght with a large viking round shield and it's excellent in battles, but when I'm out of combat amd wandering around the village or eating or anything like that its a massive pain. Its heavy and difficult and cumbersome. I'm usually trying to find a safe place to leave it rather than carrying it with me.
Yeah, the guy who gets on the tube in the morning carrying a pike certainly is getting some odd looks. But on the plus side he also gets a whole cart to himself and always gets a seat.
Swings and roundabouts really, though those are even more of a hassle to carry around.
I love your t-shirt! :)
"You can eat your lunch with them"
Eating knife, left-hand dagger... same difference.
And you could possibly use a buckler as a sort of plate.
Hey Matt I love ur channel and all these videos "emm okay"
I’m a telephone repairman in the 4th most violent ghetto in America and in 19 years I’ve only needed my weapon twice but I’ve had to scrap, run, and escape about 5 times and this doesn’t include the daily bs. I found that a pistol is a hinderance and major responsibility while try to work and climb so I carry a knife and blackjack which is why I got into HEMA years ago as I’m proficient in empty handed and firearm engagement but the modern knife and impact weapon training seems to by rife with dangerous unrealistic nonsense so I went to a source that seemed to know about edged and impact weapon, like the majority of history.
Side arms! Just like pistols. Here in America, I sometimes walk around with my pistol at my side. It's a side arm. I do NOT walk around with a rifle or my shotgun all day because it's just too bulky and heavy. My Ruger .40 cal isn't a battlefield weapon, but I'm not expecting to get into a battle on my way to Walmart. However it is plenty of fire power in the off chance that someone attacks me, which does happen in this town some times. Probably I'll never have to use it, and I pray that that day never comes. Of course my long guns are better and more powerful, but I'm not lugging an AK-47 around all day.
In the Swedish larps I been at we tend to role play more then fight, so in the beginning me and my friends packed on armor and big tower shields but it was a pain in the butt to carry around so the armor got smaller and lighter and the shields where left at home.
i do love roleplaying games but i find it funny doing stupid tasks like collect flowers or help find a book whilst dressed in full plate with a shiled in one hand and a sword in the other, or better yet swimming in full plate
"this is not Skyrim" I died XD
That condescending look at the end like "No, it just doesn't work that way"
She sells shell shields by the seashore.
"You can eat your lunch with them." [sidearms]
Dinner with my dagger.
Sword and buckler forever together.
Sidearms
You can use the argument of "Well why is some people carrying around pistols and not assault rifles? Rifles is clearly better at pretty much everything". Kinda the same thing, not convenient.
Ha!!!
I love this video, you are so correct..large shields ARE a pain in the arse!
Give me a Buckler or a Targe any day...
4:23 "What are you doing? Like, why are you walking around with a pike?" I feel like I've said this at least three times on the New York Subway this year.
that lag before he said lanters tho lol
I've always wondered that!
Well, I’d have to ask my shield bearer, really.
that is also why the Rapier is king lite and works well and it is nice looking it adds to not making you look like a Armory of a fool.
Nice shirt, and nice video too.
Using a shield as a sidearm to a sword is kinda like using a ballistic shield as a sidearm to a submachine gun. You can make it work, but it's not always practical.
Hey there, im looking at alot of your videos and you always come up with the "its impractical to carry around" and you do 90% video explaining why its impractical the same way you did in other videos. Not that its bad, I mean, many haven't watched those other videos- but i'd like you to cover more of the question asked. Sword & shield VS sword & buckler: who would have the advantage in an actual fight, why and in what aspects. This is more what i personally want to hear and less about how its impractical to walk around because I already know that since you always tell us! :P
Other than that, good work. awesome presentation and nice teaching charisma. Will keep on following as ever.
I guess I was expecting more cover than simply the question. Rather than why its impractical to carry for the simple folks - in which situations would it be practical for others? I mean, as a solider would you walk around with shield or buckler? I bet its practical to carry for some people otherwise shields would not exist.
ShaggyLunchCake Shields exist because they're excellent combat tools. If you're say a guard, at a guard post, you might have a shield there. If you fight with one on the battlefield, you'd carry it to war (unless it was just carried in a baggage train, which is highly plausible.
A soldier doesn't just 'walk around' with weapons then or now. Firstly because the professional class of soldiers is much more limited for most of the middle ages, and secondly because they're still cumbersome and inconvenient. If you're just walking through town to buy some food, why would you be geared up for combat? Fighting for a living doesn't mean you spend every day fighting.
As a soldier, you'd pick a shield if you're fighting with a one-handed other weapon, such as a spear or sword. Then you have a free hand for a shield, and a shield is a better weapon than a buckler, particularly on a battlefield. One on one there's less in it, but a shield closes off multiple lines of attack much better, which is very helpful in group combat where you might be stabbed from the left while concentrating on an opponent to your right.
However, if you fight with e.g. a halberd, you can't use that with a shield. So you won't have one as a primary weapon, and carrying and deploying one as a backup weapon is impractical. Hence if you decide to have a backup offhand item, it would be a dagger or buckler.
Haha I like this guy's way of thinking.
Can you post a video demonstrating wearing a buckler ? And holding a shield ? ...
I would love show my Grandson.
Matt, what weight were most historical bucklers? I see a lot of reproduction ones that are right around 5lbs... just wondering if that's a weight to be expected? Im interested in buying or possibly making one. I'd like something a little larger than most bucklers, but smaller than most swords... any tips / recommendations?
Another great video btw. Keep it up man.
I've also heard that by the war of the roses period of history (I re-enact with them), armour had become good enough that huge shields were no longer needed, so shields got smaller as armour got better, until you were left with bucklers.
I think bucklers were around in Europe since the 12th century though, so they would have co-existed with other large shields for centuries.
Fionn199 large shields were still in use in the late-medieval period, used by lighter armed soldiers. Using a buckler is not very normal for fully armoured guys, as it's generally more useful to have both hands free for something like a pollaxe or glaive.
He talked about this in another video. You're right that most men-at-arms who could afford full plate armour generally discarded the shield in the 15th century (jousts notwithstanding), but bear in mind that many common soldiers would have been less heavily armoured and therefore still found shields quite useful. Bucklers, as Matt suggests, were mostly used either in civilian life as well as by certain battlefield units like longbowmen, and coexisted with larger shields for quite a long time.
Edit: Pre-empted!
Cops, and in my state, civilians can walk around with a rifle. Virtually none of either group do so despite rifles being far superior in almost every way to a handgun. Even during WWII the US had the M1 Carbine for troops not intended for front line combat - though even infantry used it as it was...lighter! Why this concept is so hard for people to understand in a medieval context is beyond me.
It's like why not always wear a full plate armor if we already could wear our cloth.
lmao! great vid
* goes to the pub with sword and buckler. someone calls cops. "officer, Mr. Easton told me I could go to the pub with them...."
"I sawr it on the internet so it must be true..."
Ponchos for stuff used on the left hand, although I guess it's really a type of cloak.
1: They're easy to carry. People didn't carry full battle shields all the time, they took them off their horse, for battle. You can actually walk around with a buckler buckled on. (Why they're called that.)
2: They're lighter, and faster to parry with. This is a little more significant against a slashy cutswords, like sabers, and cutlasses, but reaction speed is a thing, and heavy shields are heavy.
So, I suppose the modern equivalent would be "why carry a pistol over a rifle".
I've felt the weight of Viking shields, I'd have a hard time battling for an hour with one let along carrying it all day.
Since the video is about shields, I feel this is a good place to ask something related.
I have been wondering if there was a period or region in Europe where shields or bucklers were used with basket hilted swords or other swords with large handguards that covered most of the sword hand. Your recent video about Indian swords seemed to suggest that the combination was used in Asia, but how common was it in Europe?
My understanding has been that handguards grew in size and coverage when firearms started making heavy armor obsolete in battles, and as the use of heavy armor declined, so did the use of shields.
Torsti Kinnunen Yes, basket-hilted swords were used all in many parts of Europe with bucklers in the 16th and 17th centuries - George Silver talks about it in his treatise. The Highlanders of Scotland were still using baskethilt and targe (shield) in the 18th century.
Pain in the oss.
Could you make a video around using 2 parrying daggers in duels?
+Scholagladiatoria When you said sidearms, a bell went off in my head. I've been working on a piece that explores the use of the handgun as a category of WMA. Since laws change sporadically while social mores remain relatively constant, was there ever a time when it was acceptable to walk around armed and if so what was the social context that made it acceptable?
Mark Suarez Soldiers sometimes routinely carry weapons. Samurai and knights would always bear arms (I think). In the renaissance though, it seems like it may have been fashionable for everyman to carry a sword.
I think it depends on context. Chiefly, carrying a weapon where others have none, drastically changes the balance of power and this does not invite trust. I've been glared at for carrying a broomhandle in the supermarket! (I just needed a replacement broomhandle!)
Walking around with a larger than a buckler shield isn't really that much of a nuisence. Except that one time when I got pulled back when I went through a narrow doorway, forgot about it and it caught on the sides of the door. But that's my clumsyness.
agree completly
Also people forget that sidearms are for self defense. It is difficult to bring oversized weapons ment for war to bear when trying to defend yourself in a pub or narrow street. If you cant bring it quickly in to play when you need it you would likely be dead.
For the parry frames
Why carry a buckler rather than a shield?
Because you are not going to be standing in a defensive formation, facing missile weapons or be trying to block weapon attacks with a lot of mass behind them.
People carried shields for two reasons: to make up for a lack of body armour and to enable the bearer to stand in a shield wall or defensive formation on the field of battle. A shield covers a large portion of the body, can spread the force of a strike by a heavy weapon, and can protect against javelins, arrows and bolts. As body armour improves shields disappear because their additional protection is not needed and so you can wield a two handed weapon to deal with the heavier body armour.
Bucklers are only of use if you are relying on mobility for defence. This makes them effective when facing light thrust & parry weapons. You can also punch with a buckler, giving you two offensive and one defensive weapon. You do see bucklers on the battlefield - the Spanish sword & buckler men who would roll under pikes to get inside enemy formations for example - but the buckler was of most use in fencing styles of combat. Bucklers were also carried by crossbow men and other non-melee soldiers as they were light and didn't get in the way while loading a crossbow for example.
Roland Warzecha seems like the Buckler-god to me :D
Dont fight armingsword/buckler myself but I will surely at some point :)
also things like pikes, shields, armor...are useful for the battlefield, when men fight in formations shoulder to shoulder but are pretty useless in a civilian self defense context where nobody is gonna watch you back and nobody protects your flanks so you have to be able to move quickly and agile
Not on topic but a funny thing about cultural influence. I was really confused when Matt first showed a straight sword and called it a sabre. For us, Poles, sabres are curved - it's the first image that pops to our heads because that's the type of sabre that was used in Poland. To me it was unthinkable that a sabre might have a straight blade until I had gained some knowledge about English nomenclature regarding swords. Again, sabre is not a type of sword for Poles, whereas in English virtually every long bladed weapon is a sword. To visualise, google "szabla" (Polish for sabre) and then "sabre" and compare the amount of straight-bladed sabres.
If sabre is not a type of sword for Poles, what is it a type of, then?
Gilmaris It doesn't make much sense if you think in terms of English "sword" that encompasses almost every edged weapon longer than a dagger with single or double handed grip...
But in Poland "sword" would be a "double-edged straight blade" only, sabre would be "single-edged curved blade (possibly with a small false edge".
So, in English sabre is a type of a sword, while in Polish a sword and a sabre are distinct types of edged weapons.
Our word for sabre (Hungarian) most be pretty close to yours. :) Szablya (something like "sabia" in English pronounciation).
jeddylajos it's "szabla" in Polish, (pronounce: translate.google.pl/?oe=utf-8&ie=UTF-8&hl=pl&client=tw-ob#en/pl/szabla)
Also, "szabla", or sabre in Polish, generally means *Eastern-European* curved blade, but... This is where it gets muddy. I'm not a historian or specialist, and don't have any book on polish weapon nomenclature at hand, but...
Keeping the definition I wrote in my previous post in mind... What is katana?
If you asked almost anybody here (in Poland) you'd get "japoński miecz" - "japanese sword". That's the most popular answer, and save for a handful people you'd almost never get "japanese sabre" as an answer, although IIRC it was actually the term used in Second Polish Republic (1918-1939).
It may be because it fits the definition, and at those times we we're still more under the (receding) cultural influence of France rather than of English-speaking "West". And while it's "japanese sword" in English, it's still "un sabre japonais" and not "une épée japonais" in French, although an actual French voice would be valuable here. ;)
Nowadays we're under strong influence of English/American rather than French culture and language, so... ;)
Also, an interesting side note - sword (miecz) is masculine noun in Polish, while it's feminine (une épée) in French, as opposed to sabre (szabla) is feminine noun in Polish, and masculine in French (un sabre). Huh. ;)
About the nomenclature - looks like sword (miecz) in Polish really isn't an all encompassing category like it is in English (it still refers to different types of swords, but not as many), and thus sabre, sword, rapier, katana*, cutlass*, etc, would be considered different types of edged weapons. And yes, rapier wouldn't be considered a sword either. ;)
Even Polish wiki categorizes sabres and swords in different buckets - see: pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bro%C5%84_bia%C5%82a - click on "Broń Biała" under the content of the page to toggle the category view. Throw that into the google translator to get somewhat readable form in English: translate.google.pl/translate?hl=pl&sl=pl&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBro%C5%84_bia%C5%82a
*) debatable; could be considered a sabre, though not under "Easter-European" addendum ;)
Tomasz Wota What, then, about single edged straight blades, or swords which are neither curved nor straight (eg. kopesh. and arguably falcata, falx, seax etc.)? The English definitions are not peculiar, but pretty much how you find it in almost all languages. The Polish definition you offer, on the other hand, seems quite unique. And the funny thing is that the etymology is the same for both "sword" and "sabre" (or "szabla") - both stem from a word which simply means "cut".
John Silver's manuscript ranks buckler as beating shield in a duel. My experience in battlegaming (belegarth/amtgard) bears this out- when dueling w/shields, you want them to be smaller- offence is at a premium. You want the mobility and the shot angles.
Question: What gloves do you use for sword and buckler? Both on the sword and buckler hand? I ask because a lot of gloves won't fit in the buckler...