Yep, some countries/languages/traditions don't use term "sabre" much. Crazy for me since I have a concept of "sword" (straight double-edged), "sabre" (curved single-edged), "palash/backsword"(straight, single-edged) etc. since probably early childhood.
Well, a lot of our known terminologies are quire "recent", most made up during the victorian age. Both an early crusader with a one handed sword, and a late crusader with a hand and a half sword would call their weapons plain "sword". And so on with other things.
In my country we use sword(Daab/ดาบ) for single edged sword and saber(Krabi/กระบี่) for double edged sword, mostly referred to Chinese's Jian. When I tell my fellow countrymen that saber need to be a bit curve and mostly single-edged they will disagree with me strongly without knowing that there are something lost in translation.
There’s Arabian straight swords and shortswords like the Ya’arubi and Andalusian swords and others. Not to mention the curve was first seen in Mesopotamia levant and ancient yemen so the semites including Arabs were capable with both curved and straight swords depending on the region, as for the spread of the curved blade: Arab Caliphates and mongol invasion to Damascus.
scholagladiatoria lol you got almost all of that bang on! Even the thrusts being dangerous during training. But in the school of indian swordsmanship i was taught there are techniques to block thrusts. And something that you might find interesting is that a thrusts is called a "hool"
Interesting, thanks. As noted in the video, I find that HEMA fencers are often bad at dealing with thrusts, even though there are lots of thrusts in what we do, simply because most people when fencing have an inclination to not thrust enough.
scholagladiatoria The techniques used in Punjab, specifically the Ranjit Akhara, are quite different to the rest of india. I think this is because of the location of Punjab, that is the reason there are more different strikes. To block a hool we do what in punjabi we call chuk the vaar, vaar meaning strike. Chak means to pick up, you use the sword pushed by the dhal and the thrust is almost pushed above from below. It can also be done in reverse by going from above to below.
scholagladiatoria But like I said I have never seen anyone else use this technique. Hools in general are almost never done unless using a sword such as a khirch. I remember once at our local temple a friend and I were practising, when I did a hool and he responded with a hool. Shortly after another friend watching us from far came towards us and made fun of us for using thrusts. Thrusts in indian swordsmanship are considered pointless and in the general community of swordsmen in india you'll seem as an idiot doing hools in a fight.
Thanks for this video Matt - my best friend is Indian, and - whilst I'm not Italian - we like to get each other weapons of the culture to which we martially aspire/appreciate. It certainly helps in our training and understanding of how Western and Eastern martial styles and cultures interacted. Also, thank you for pointing out the name of the Indian shield - the dhal: I have a rotella, rapier and gauche, so now I need to get my friend a dhal to accompany his talwar and katar dagger to complete our set! :D
That's cool - I like to experiment with the use of Indian weapons myself and we have looked at incorporating these into our training. The British did use Indian weapons sometimes and of course much of the 'British' army in the 19th and early 20th centuries was actually Indian. Though my main reason for being interested in Indian weapons is that they are awesome!
As a person of Scottish decent, my go to is broadsword, targe and dirk lol Though I am curious how the styles match up. I think it'd be a cool sparring match. Tulwar and dhal vs broadsword and targe, as well as the respective styles. Indian martial arts are very stunning to see.
In Polish 17th century fencing tradition, heavily influenced by duelling thrusts were frowned upon and considered somewhat of a dirty trick, as usually the expectation was that one, win or lose, would survive the duel. I remember some accounts of those fighting opponents with rapiers talking at length how difficult to defend but also unfair the thrusting techniques were.
I know a good sabrefencer, who is quicker than me, has better reactions and can take harder hits than me. However he trains an old austrian duelling system, where thrusting was prohibited and I can confuse him quite well by using the point.
Good video as always. When my Neyman jacket and gorget arrvied and we could do thrusts it just changed everything. I remember reading somewhere that it is the intelligent way of fighting, which while bieng a very broad term, i tend to agree with. It's like the straight punch in boxing compared to the hook. To hit in a curved or circular fashion you have to move closer to have proper effect, so right away your vulnerable to thrusts and ripostes and if they keep backtracking you have already swung and hit air, with a thrust you can just keep moving - under a guard - and run them through. I think by the end of the day i was riposting with a thrust about 80% of the time to great effect.
I bought Swordsmanship of the British Empire on your recommendation a while back, and its exciting to recognize specific instances you may be referring to in videos. Specifically in this video the use of the point in India, its a great book and I can't thank you enough for recommending it. The foreword wasn't half bad either :p
Mark Misioura Why would you make those? The british empire has several examples of wars where swords were important and used frequently. Hitler and Stalin only came to power after the first world war when the relevance of the sword had already declined a lot and in WW2 it declined even more. I feel there are better empires to look at then those two. Swordmanship of the French Empire for example would probably have a lot more relevance and would be a more logical 'continuation of the series'.
This reminds me of leg attacks in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. So many people avoid training them and they are frowned upon by many schools. Those that use them against those that do not, have a huge advantage. Although the inverse can be true some people are really good at leg locks and suck at everything else and as soon as their leg locks are countered, they are in a bad way.
CaptChimponaut That is one reason, however there are many that look at them as cheap tricks that are not "real jiu jitsu" because they counter a lot of things that the sport guys do they leave their feet and legs vulnerable to attack.
Thats the main reason, The other is that its an illegal attack in most gi competition (more and more allow now tho). The development of US no-gi has really improved leg lock knowledge across the board tho. Guys like Ryan Hall, Eddie Cummings... a few others
Ease of injury was the main reason we never trained them when I was rolling with a few guys each weekend for fun at my gym years after I'd last gone to an actual BJJ club. The way it was explained to me was that you throw an arm in a hold of some kind and you've got a lot of leeway between when it starts to hurt and when you'd actually be seriously injured in order to either tough it out or tap. With leg locks, sometimes by the time you realize you're in pain and in trouble it's too late and your ligaments aren't going to have a good time. Like months of recovery required won't have a good time. So the margin for error was just extremely low and it wasn't worth fucking up our regular training just to include them since none of us were training seriously for competition or anything.
Vivi2372 We have been training with them and using them at our school since we were white belts, we tell people the dangers and how to avoid them, the only people that have been injured at our school are higher belts that should know better but let their pride get in the way instead of tapping they do something stupid like try and roll out of them. For white belts Straight ankle locks are IBJJF legal as long as they do not reap the knee. There is little danger at all to them. Also, leg attacks can be useful in self defense and other aspects of controlling people. Other instances you get knocked to the ground and use some ground entries to bring the person down, control their legs then move into a dominant top position. Depending on how they land, you can take their back or get into side control. I am not a leg lock guy but I know how to attack with and defend them, because it is applicable to do even if it just opens up attacks on the top of the body. If you only focus on attacking the top half of the body, that leaves the entire bottom half that people do not have to worry about. If they all of a sudden have their legs being attacked they can leave them selves vulnerable to all kinds of upper body attacks as they try and defend their lower half.
I feel as though the forward balance of curved swords would also factor against their use for thrusting, as it would make point control more difficult.
Ben Mullison The curved nature of the blade also makes it a bit more difficult to control the tip (mass outside of the sword's "axis") when compared to a similarly balanced blade.
Statistically, they were not. Bayonet-armed British troops won most engagements in the Sikh Wars and Indian Mutiny (and numerous other wars in Asia). The biggest problem with swordsmen was that they would would the bayoneteer after being run through by the bayonet first.
IIRC, in many of the cases were sword-users won it was in one-on-one or loose formations, while bayoneteers were successful in tight formations. I could be misremembering though.
Tananjoh I'd think that in a skirmish sword and shield will be in advantage, as long as it's not 1:1. On one on one there's the range advantage of the rifleman. In tight formations the sword-fighters will have problems closing in unless they can rely on shields or armor.
we can still thrust effectively with sabers! just like you can! and we also had a lot of straight swords, but that doesn't even matter because like I said before you can also thrust with sabers and we did, so we naturally also learned to parry an thrust!
Love this video, as all the rest. can you PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE some time talk on earlier middle eastern swords and fencing. it's like they didn't have swords n the middle east prior to the 18th-19th century, EVERY ONE who talks about swords in you tube is behaving as if it's only European swords from the early middle ages to the early modern age, and middle eastern swords it's only Ottoman swords, or 19th centenary central Asian swords, like nothing exited before that . but when Europeans used their viking swords, arming swords, or Long swords, in these periods oriental swords presumably existed, it's an extremely neglected subject EVERY ONE ignores.
They have addressed this in a video before. The reason they don't talk about eastern swords is because they are all part of the HEMA club. historical EUROPEAN martial arts. lol. By very definition, they restrict themselves to European for most topics.
First of all Mat talks about Indian and central Asian fencing all the time, because it's historically relevant to Hema, it interacted with English fighting martial arts. near eastern fighting tradition is even more relevant for Hema, it interacted with European fighting traditions for much more significant period of time, and influenced European martial arts allot. the Spanish, the Italians, the Austrians and every one in the Balkan interacted with near eastern martial transitions, and later the French and English also adopted near eastern elements into their martial traditions. Egyptian Mameluke swords were pretty popular in the 19th century, to the extant they are still used as ceremonial swords in the US Marine corps today. Is there such a thing as HMDMA (Historical Middle Eastern Martial Arts)... not really. It's just that as westerners we have less exposure to middle east/near east fencing traditions. It should really be just Historical Martial Arts. I Think the European part is there to distinguish it from the more popular far eastern martial arts, which are not historical, but modern. really putting a Imaginary border between the Europe and the Near East is rather ridicules. There is no reason a person studying and practicing near eastern weapons and fighting methods can't be apart of the Hema community, despite the fact the fighting technics and weapons might originate from the western side of Asia.
Hey just for the two people who replied on this comment ... I searched the whole planet earth and didn't read the word hema in the comment I practice swordsman ship with my friends and not in a hema club
Adapted from the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer: Know your foe! Lacking European sophistication, the Indian basic soldier is a rather dull creature. Unaware of the deadly accuracy of your powerful rifle shot by a cultivated calculated and civilized mind like the glorious British infantryman, he will be an easy target. The few ones reaching your lines might have a long traditional history of swordfighting. But their often overcomplicated techniques might be effective in dealing with their own kind. However, a courages thrust to the heart will dispatch them quickly and cleanly clearly showing efficiency, glory and valour of civilization. :P
Regarding rapiers vs backswords in 16th century England, George Silver did write that in many fencing schools they didn't thrust with "swords" and didn't cut with rapiers. He thought this was bad since it would lead to people being bad at thrusting and defend against thrusts with swords, same for rapiers with thrusts. Considering the trouble some Indian and Middle Eastern people had with thrusts he may have been right.
my retort is, given most sabre treatises, very few cover closing distance, and i have used this to my advantage in sparring sessions using heavily curved trainers, by having a parry and repost with a thrust, where when they come in with a cut to my outside, i will close distance, and with their sword still bound on mine, i would use that curve and close distance to facilitate a thrust that was unexpected. while it is admittedly not a mainstream tactic, it has worked for me well.
In the 17th 18th and 19th century the Afghans wiped out entire British/ European soldiered units out completely without any survivors. The Afghans knew how to use the thalwar/ swords and the musket. British officers and soldiers refused to face the swordsmen in the North West Frontier and asked for a heavy bullet Webley.
I'd like to hear more about "natural hitters" and stuff like that. I always figured - before I found you and skall and lindy - that cutting was better than thrusting on the grounds that "this is what anyone will do if you give them a sword" I'm wondering what has been written about this, or said about this, or what thoughts you have on this. How does someone's natural reaction impact their choice of weapon. Should you be picking a weapon that strengthens your natural reactions, or the opposite, and go with one that forces you to learn how to fight in a way you don't normally think to? This is one of the things I've actually been very interested in for quite some time.
It's a big topic, but a good one to cover in videos, so I will. In terms of which weapon to focus on, I hate to say it but I think it depends on context! Partly what you want, but partly what you wanted to use a weapon for. Rapiers for example are awesome as one-on-one combat sidearms, but really not very good as melee weapons. Choosing weapons is a bit like rock, paper, scissors.
As for what to pick, depends on your personal context. If you're a "natural hitter" you can devote time and effort to train yourself into becoming a "thruster". Now, if you're in an hypothetical situation where you need a weapon now, go with what will work better for you. I'm a HEMA student, but it's been less than a year, but I've got a decade of medieval reenactment on my back. There thrusts are forbidden because they're unsafe (and we don't use rattan weapons like SCA in USA, but rather blunt steel weapons), so at HEMA sparrings I still find it hard to thrust even when I see a clear opening because I'm still "programmed" not to. Eventually I'll overcome that, but as you pointed out, if I needed to fight for my life today, I'd go for a shield and axe, rather than a longsword.
i will say that there is no natural thruster. The 5% of people that scholagladatoria found out were natural thrusters were just people that had learned through their life, from films or whatever, that thrusting is pretty good with a sword. The reason for this is when you pick up a long spear or staff. Your inclination is to poke with it because the length makes it unworldly to hit with. By comparison, a sword is shorter, or rather it is a desirable length that supports a good slashing/bashing technique. Same with a bat. Now lets look at a knife. It is too short to support a swing/bash. The tip doesn't build up enough speed to sufficiently bash something. So we stab. In summary, human's just learn at an early age to slash/bash with objects because most objects support that technique. And obviously our humans arms/muscles support bashing. There is no 'you are a natural thruster so you should hone that skill'. It just has to do with training and learning. And most people do not get the opportunity to learn/train with a thrusting weapon.
By watching completely inexperienced people handling one, most people would try to use a spear (not a pike, of course) as a quarterstaff with a blade at the end.
Training can be "incestuous" at times - they people we train against the most are the people we train with, but it's actually kind of useless, since the people we train with are probably the LAST people we will ever get into a fight with.
You know, nobody has done an experimental sparring series. I would love to see more of this. Think of the combinations. Messer vs Smallsword. Katana vs Talwar. Cutlass vs Arming sword. Falchion vs Sabre. Mambele vs Schwerd.Khopesh vs Wakizashi. Gladius vs Truong. Hanger vs Dao. Jian vs Kris. Spatha vs Shashka. Kilij vs Pata. Pulwar vs Takouba. Kaskara vs Estoc. I hope to see more of these odd pairings.
Great video as usual. I think it's great that you cover so many different regions of the world, not just Europe as tends to happen too often. The world's very large and fascinating after all.
Excellent as always. One aspect of the difference in cut and thrust technique not brooched, to my surprise is the prevelence in historical cutting swords of short grips meeting the requirements of cutting with a closed hand, as opposed to the evolution of point weapon grips that allows open handed and "finger control" of the sword. The tulwar you are holding and the Brit '96 LC are obvious examples of short gripped cutters. By 1802 the French line LC and HC swords had at least 4.5 inches of grip, facilitating presentation of the point. Favorite Nathan Bedford Forrest annecdote regarded a close fight where the general found himself surrounded by 5 federal cavalrymen, but managed to beat his way out of the predicament. Congratulated by his staff, for another martial feat, Forrest retort, " Hell. one of them damned fools had thought to thrust n that would of been tha end of Forrest." A propos. ;)
Hey there, Matt! Could you make a video comparing pollaxes, maces and warhammers and anti-armour swords (that is, the ones that are optimized for thrusting and half-swording) in fully armoured fighting? Which weapon is, in your opinion, the best against head-to-foot late medieval plate armour?Cheers! I'm a big fan of your vídeos, so keep it up!
Thrusts are also advantageous against shorter people (offensively and defensively) and when fighting in a battle line there aren't a lot of room for the shorter fellow to get out of the way. Average height of an Anglo man was about 5'6 in the 19th century and the average height of Indian men was probably closer to 5'0. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone, I'm also short by the way, I'm simply stating a possible answer as to why this may be.
I think long reach is generally an advantage with most weapons and yes it is certainly quite noticeable with thrusting swords, where an extra few inches of arm and leg reach count for a lot.
Hey Matt, great Channel! You often said that a helmet would be the first armour you'd take. What is the 2nd most important? Protection for hands and arms because that's where you get hit the most or something for your chest to protect the organs? Keep it up!
Teut Busnet - Sorry, I'm not Matt :) But in a document signed by Count Willem IV of the County of Holland in 1342 concerning the necessary equipment men had to bring when going to war, those who had assets between 50 and 100 Dutch Pounds had to account for a coat-of-mail (among other things) while those who had assets lower than 50 Dutch Pounds needed to bring a helmet, shoulder plates, gauntlets and only a woolen doublet/jerkin (among other things). Though this obviously has to do with the higher cost of a coat-of-mail as well, it's also likely they prioritised protection of the arms/hands/head over that of the torso.
I read an article years back that mentioned Sir Richard Francis Burton, the British explorer, as having killed over twenty people in personal duels. Supposedly, he was such an accomplished swordsman that he wrote a book on swordplay. Are you familiar with his book? Was he as good as I read in that article?
I know the book well. It is not a good manual in my opinion. He also wrote a manual on the bayonet, which was not very successful. My opinions on Burton are somewhat complex - he was certainly an extraordinary man, but I have grave doubts about some of the things he claimed to have done and that other people said he did.
@scholagladiatoria Would it be possible in future to make a video on Burton? I too had read quite a bit on him and the thought had crossed my mind that most of his most impressive feats were performed without any witnesses.
I have thought about doing a video about Burton... The problem is that when criticising a person I want to be 100% sure that I am correct. Perhaps I will pick one specific instance of where he was wrong (I know a couple of examples) and just focus on that point.
There is a reasonable recent modern republication of that (1884) book. (Richard F. Burton; The Book of the Sword; Dover Publications Inc, New York. 1987. ISBN 0-486-25434--8). The book is supposed to be a complete history of the sword - it is actually part 1 of what would have been 3 parts, if Burton would have lived longer. I found it pretty disorganized. And where it want to tell the history of the sword through the ages, it often is somewhat suspect. Victorian gentlemen didn't know as much about history as they thought they did, and they are prone to mix facts and (personal) theories without telling you which is which.
Excellent discussion! Maybe the issue of range might be prudent to delve into some more? It's not easy to just switch perception of range once you've trained a certain amount of time. While thrusts may be a well known type of attack, you'd be used to having to deal with them at a much shorter range due to the curvature of the sword, and therefore straight thrusts coming from the "wrong" distance would indeed be hard to adjust to.
This still happens very often in modern sabre. It's often quite easy to tell the difference between people who took the old-fashioned ("classical?") route of starting with foil before picking up other weapons and the ones who only did sabre from the start -- the ones who started with foil tend to mix in thrusts and cuts and the pure sabreurs often get stymied by thrusts. Of course this is not universal, and people at the highest (say, international or even national) competitive levels tend to be the ones who have some way to practice defending against thrusts anyway, but it's still rather easily observed in local or regional meets.
Indeed, there are lots of people doing sabre and backsword who use the thrust way too little. As mentioned, I think most people simply find it more natural to hit, unless taught to do otherwise.
I should also add, there are lots of people thrusting really really badly as well. For a thrust to be safe it has to be done in the correct way, it's not just a poke with the point :-)
Hello , Matt. Interesting video, as usual. However, on another topic, I have a request for one of your movie reviews of "Alatriste", with Viggo Mortensen, which I watched last night. There are some impressive duels toward the end. It is based on the novels of Arturo Perez-Riverte about a Spanish soldier of the 1620s who makes his living as a private sword for hire in Madrid when not actually at war against the "heretics" of Flanders. If you haven't read these, they are quite diverting, in the warm-blooded manner of the Sharpe novels, only about an era some 200 years earlier. Another novel, also by Perez-Riverte, that you might find interesting is "The Fencing Master", about a past master in the declining years of both his life and his art, insofar as they can be separated. Pistols and politics have about taken over for the purpose of settling disputes in Spain, circa 1866. Very well translated from the Spanish, I believe, though I am not in a position to judge the fencing. Quite convincing to a non-expert, however.
Thanks, v enjoyable! Interesting to spar sabre v historic replica weapons like these though perhaps a challenge to unlearn sabre techniques (eg thrusting) to simulate?
two questions off of this. on the flip side of things how effective are point oriented swords at dealing with heavy cutting oriented swords (lets just say a rapier vs. that indian sword you have or any polish sabre type weapon) is a rapier at a huge disadvantage from dealing with a heavier blow that another rapier would not produce? (ive sort of had this argument with an eppee guy as i used to be foil fencing). second is would you prefer a sword and buckler or a sword and dagger? /in which situations would a sword dagger be more beneficial than a buckler or vise versa. cheers
Hmm, interesting. Richard Marsden shows on example of polish sabre that thrusts with curved blade should be done from binding. What's your take on that?
just as a matter of curiosity; as a member of an Historic Arms society I have seen quite a number of 'Indian" straight swords cf www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=1699 , so just what percentage of their swords ie Khandas, were straight ?
I would argue that restrictions on armor (since metal is never cheap in those areas and by the time it could be mass produced guns took over) and the availability of cavalry (notice how even back when Alexander fought Poru the Indian cavalry was made up of the poorer nobles and the middle classes while the Macedonian cavalry was almost entirely nobility, so there was a disparity with armor that the Macedonians exploited by engaging in close-quarters combat, or the fact that the Turkish army only began to rely on Infantry when the Jannisary corps was armed with muskets) is another reason why sabers were so big. Did the European armies have similar problems dealing with slashes in turn? And while we're on the topic of British conquests in Asia, why was the 1796 smallsword so awful when pitted against tulwar if the thrust had that inherent advantage?
The 1796 Spadroon (not a smallsword, the smallsword has no ability to cut, and a spadroon has a very slight one) was a very light, usually very flimsy sword, and in such wouldn't have been very good in defending against much of anything other than other Spadroons or smallswords. It's blade wasn't hefty or wide enough to deliver good cuts, and was usually to flexible to be a good thruster. Many officers who served when that sword was in use would simply use a cavalry sabre, or have a sabre like the 1803 flank officers sword commissioned for use.
the Europeans were used to many cutting specialized weapons being around with European weapons like the saber messer and the larger kriegsmesser as far as swords go, and most European swords were reasonably capable in both the cut and the thrust, so they would not be nearly as unfamiliar with the cut as the Indian swordsmen were with the thrust because any opponents they trained against would likely use a weapon reasonably effective in the cut and the thrust.
Could you get a decent stab if you aimed for thrusting through the arm pit with the curve and edge facing outwards towards the target with the flats facing up and down Matt?
Hello there, I am your true fan. That been said, I would like very much to read your opinions about Cold Steel swords. I know that it's a rookie question, I' m fully aware of that, but I appreciate your insight pertaining to this matter though. Please, tell me what are your favorite swords/sabers, and which are the top branda of swords from your own point of view. Thank you in advance.
I'm curious if the battles where the curved sword wielders were deemed weak to thrusts tended to occur mostly in the context of them fighting without their buckler?
This raises the next logical question - did the reverse apply? Let's say you live in a time and place when thrusting swords are really popular. For example, rapiers. If you're fighting someone who's only really trained to use a dedicated thrusting sword and hasn't really bothered much with cutting, would it be effective to throw some more cuts in there or are people's reflexive reactions to cuts enough to compensate for the lack of training?
Matt, could you ever do a video about the evolution of near-Eastern swords, as in the gradual shift from straight-bladed to curved-bladed styles that occurred circa the 14th-15th centuries? Some people have suggested that the Sudanese Kaskara sword (which you did a video on earlier this year) was patterned after the early medieval Arabic longsword, and likewise straight-bladed swords continued to predominate in parts of North Africa, such as among the Tuaregs. It's interesting that curved-bladed swords came to be ubiquitous elsewhere in the Middle East and parts of Asia where straight-bladed swords had once predominated (India and the Kandha broadsword also comes to mind), and I was hoping you could help explain this historical development.
Hey there I have a request! There are lots of videos on RUclips that dissect medieval/fantasy movies for not being historical, and I really want to watch a movie that is medieval and is a good representation of the era. Do you know of any movies that do it well? Would you be able to make a list possibly? I would really like it 😍
Didn't matt say in the past that it's very dangerous to thrust because you normally can't pull your sword out of his body in time to parry the after blow?
It is the one main risk of thrusting. However, there are lots of bonuses to thrusting which balance that out. Very few things have advantages and no disadvantages - it is a matter of weighing up the balance of each.
If your parry was succesfull and your point still has a straight line to the target then you can thrust as an extension of the parry movement. If you succesfully land the thrust an afterblow is pretty unlikely in that situation
Like certain punching techniques, some sword techniques are more telegraphed than others...thrusts can be harder to see coming. Presumably especially, as Matt pointed out, for those who culturally trained practiced and used mainly cutting techniques. Also, it becomes instinctive and unconscious reaction to parry cutting techniques for a trained warrior...in the heat of battle it may be done without thinking, and that's where the problem lies...a warrior might not be conscious of the possibility of thrusts and therefore be more vulnerable to them. Physical training and endurance is very important, but so is having a focused and active mind!
Hey Matt! Somewhat unrelated to the video but do you know of any instances where naval officers preferred the cutlass over their own swords? I can't think of a situation where a spadroon or sabre would be preferable over something like an 1804 pattern cutlass during a boarding action.
Yes there are references to cutlasses being used by officers and I have known several antique naval officers' swords which were non-regulation and inspired by cutlass design. There are also custom-made cutlasses for officers to be found. It is what I would personally choose.
How did footwork differ between more european styles and persian, arab etc. styles? Whenever I try to learn about it everyone seems to only mention the upper body.
My question then becomes, was the weapon designed for cutting because cutting was the preferred usage or was the preferred usage cutting because of the weapon design? i.e. was the curved, single edged weapon design driven by metallurgical limitations (ala the Japanese katana) which defined the martial art which in turn defined later weapon designs? Do we know?
Rewatching this a lot later, and I've reliably seen the opposite in my club. Teaching broadsword/backsword people gravitate to giving point to the exclusion of all else, and we have to actively coax them out of it.
Спорт
"Short video response"--15 minutes. This is why we love you, Matt.
human nature is to give blows - Matt Easton-
rahadian panji oki "I know a few natural thrusters"
We're all thrusters now:)
Will Foucault and Chomsky ever (lunge and) recover?
must be the seaman in him
The CM Studio everybody know you can ALWAYS thrust into that blow repeatedly while still being covered
"I know some people who are natural thrusters" Matt Easton 2016.
😂😂😂
"human nature is to give blows"
i need to tell my gf that
The Indians had a treatise on thrusting... It was called the Kama Sutra 😏
Good for you
Joe Toner, thelegend27? XD
They gave thrusts to create live, they gave cuts to bring death
Ragd0ll that might be the most intelligent Kama sutra joke I have read
Joke aside Cama Sutra is philosophical treatise... and it have some thrusting included, yes :)
They've got curved swords. Curved. Swords.
Have you seen those warriors from The East? They've got curved dicks! *Curved.* *Dicks.*
Yep, some countries/languages/traditions don't use term "sabre" much. Crazy for me since I have a concept of "sword" (straight double-edged), "sabre" (curved single-edged), "palash/backsword"(straight, single-edged) etc. since probably early childhood.
Well, a lot of our known terminologies are quire "recent", most made up during the victorian age. Both an early crusader with a one handed sword, and a late crusader with a hand and a half sword would call their weapons plain "sword". And so on with other things.
In my country we use sword(Daab/ดาบ) for single edged sword and saber(Krabi/กระบี่) for double edged sword, mostly referred to Chinese's Jian.
When I tell my fellow countrymen that saber need to be a bit curve and mostly single-edged they will disagree with me strongly without knowing that there are something lost in translation.
These are very interesting comments, but I just thought you should know that
wtfwhoisthisguy's comment is a quote from the video game; Skyrim.
"Killing with the point lacks artistry, but don't let that hold your hand when the opening presents itself." Frank Herbert, Dune
Ahhh, Duncan Idaho quote, the one true BEST fighter in the galaxy. This brings tear to my eye. :)
Best comment I've seen in a while...
There’s Arabian straight swords and shortswords like the Ya’arubi and Andalusian swords and others. Not to mention the curve was first seen in Mesopotamia levant and ancient yemen so the semites including Arabs were capable with both curved and straight swords depending on the region, as for the spread of the curved blade: Arab Caliphates and mongol invasion to Damascus.
so day off today. found this channel, and that was the afternoon.
Welcome here :-)
This channel is so great, so many frequent uploads with such good information
Thanks.
scholagladiatoria lol you got almost all of that bang on! Even the thrusts being dangerous during training. But in the school of indian swordsmanship i was taught there are techniques to block thrusts. And something that you might find interesting is that a thrusts is called a "hool"
Interesting, thanks. As noted in the video, I find that HEMA fencers are often bad at dealing with thrusts, even though there are lots of thrusts in what we do, simply because most people when fencing have an inclination to not thrust enough.
scholagladiatoria The techniques used in Punjab, specifically the Ranjit Akhara, are quite different to the rest of india. I think this is because of the location of Punjab, that is the reason there are more different strikes. To block a hool we do what in punjabi we call chuk the vaar, vaar meaning strike. Chak means to pick up, you use the sword pushed by the dhal and the thrust is almost pushed above from below. It can also be done in reverse by going from above to below.
scholagladiatoria But like I said I have never seen anyone else use this technique. Hools in general are almost never done unless using a sword such as a khirch. I remember once at our local temple a friend and I were practising, when I did a hool and he responded with a hool. Shortly after another friend watching us from far came towards us and made fun of us for using thrusts. Thrusts in indian swordsmanship are considered pointless and in the general community of swordsmen in india you'll seem as an idiot doing hools in a fight.
Hello Matt ! Thank you so much for answering my question.
I've learned a lot from this fantastic channel .
Keep up the good work :)
Thanks for this video Matt - my best friend is Indian, and - whilst I'm not Italian - we like to get each other weapons of the culture to which we martially aspire/appreciate. It certainly helps in our training and understanding of how Western and Eastern martial styles and cultures interacted.
Also, thank you for pointing out the name of the Indian shield - the dhal: I have a rotella, rapier and gauche, so now I need to get my friend a dhal to accompany his talwar and katar dagger to complete our set! :D
Demonflesh spawn That's awesome
That's cool - I like to experiment with the use of Indian weapons myself and we have looked at incorporating these into our training. The British did use Indian weapons sometimes and of course much of the 'British' army in the 19th and early 20th centuries was actually Indian. Though my main reason for being interested in Indian weapons is that they are awesome!
As a person of Scottish decent, my go to is broadsword, targe and dirk lol Though I am curious how the styles match up. I think it'd be a cool sparring match. Tulwar and dhal vs broadsword and targe, as well as the respective styles. Indian martial arts are very stunning to see.
In Polish 17th century fencing tradition, heavily influenced by duelling thrusts were frowned upon and considered somewhat of a dirty trick, as usually the expectation was that one, win or lose, would survive the duel. I remember some accounts of those fighting opponents with rapiers talking at length how difficult to defend but also unfair the thrusting techniques were.
Podrick is a natural thruster.
Prodrick amirite?
tongue thruster
Does Superdry know you're cheating on them with Adidas?
I know a good sabrefencer, who is quicker than me, has better reactions and can take harder hits than me. However he trains an old austrian duelling system, where thrusting was prohibited and I can confuse him quite well by using the point.
One of your most illuminating videos, thank you as always.
Great question - very well said answer. The final point about the buckler brought it all home. Thanks Matt
"Human nature is to give blows" Matt Easton 2016.
Matt, great channel - look forward to next year's content.
Happy Christmas and New Year to you and yours!
Simpler answer, they were used to fight with a buckler/dhal/sipar, and those shields are quite effective defense against thrusts.
As well as the circular motions of sword fighting in Asia .
I wonder if Matt has any Killij, those things are wicked cool hopefully we'll get a video at some point on them
Could you perhaps talk about the Chinese Jian Gim or the Filipino Kris swords?
checking the comment section
10℅ historical information
90℅ sex references about thrusting
Good video as always. When my Neyman jacket and gorget arrvied and we could do thrusts it just changed everything. I remember reading somewhere that it is the intelligent way of fighting, which while bieng a very broad term, i tend to agree with. It's like the straight punch in boxing compared to the hook. To hit in a curved or circular fashion you have to move closer to have proper effect, so right away your vulnerable to thrusts and ripostes and if they keep backtracking you have already swung and hit air, with a thrust you can just keep moving - under a guard - and run them through. I think by the end of the day i was riposting with a thrust about 80% of the time to great effect.
Great channel
I'm a follower for some years now
all the best mate ;)
Amazing video as always Mat
Some day I hope to have a house like yours filled with historic replicas of all types of arms and armor.
great video
I bought Swordsmanship of the British Empire on your recommendation a while back, and its exciting to recognize specific instances you may be referring to in videos. Specifically in this video the use of the point in India, its a great book and I can't thank you enough for recommending it. The foreword wasn't half bad either :p
It's probably my favourite book and I was honoured to add a foreword to Kinsley's work.
Mark Misioura Why would you make those? The british empire has several examples of wars where swords were important and used frequently.
Hitler and Stalin only came to power after the first world war when the relevance of the sword had already declined a lot and in WW2 it declined even more.
I feel there are better empires to look at then those two.
Swordmanship of the French Empire for example would probably have a lot more relevance and would be a more logical 'continuation of the series'.
"let's examine that point"
I'd rather not get stabbed thanks
Fabulous video, sir. Thank you.
Great question and a great video response.
This reminds me of leg attacks in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. So many people avoid training them and they are frowned upon by many schools. Those that use them against those that do not, have a huge advantage. Although the inverse can be true some people are really good at leg locks and suck at everything else and as soon as their leg locks are countered, they are in a bad way.
Why are they frowned upon? Too easy to cause injury?
CaptChimponaut That is one reason, however there are many that look at them as cheap tricks that are not "real jiu jitsu" because they counter a lot of things that the sport guys do they leave their feet and legs vulnerable to attack.
Thats the main reason, The other is that its an illegal attack in most gi competition (more and more allow now tho). The development of US no-gi has really improved leg lock knowledge across the board tho. Guys like Ryan Hall, Eddie Cummings... a few others
Ease of injury was the main reason we never trained them when I was rolling with a few guys each weekend for fun at my gym years after I'd last gone to an actual BJJ club. The way it was explained to me was that you throw an arm in a hold of some kind and you've got a lot of leeway between when it starts to hurt and when you'd actually be seriously injured in order to either tough it out or tap. With leg locks, sometimes by the time you realize you're in pain and in trouble it's too late and your ligaments aren't going to have a good time. Like months of recovery required won't have a good time. So the margin for error was just extremely low and it wasn't worth fucking up our regular training just to include them since none of us were training seriously for competition or anything.
Vivi2372 We have been training with them and using them at our school since we were white belts, we tell people the dangers and how to avoid them, the only people that have been injured at our school are higher belts that should know better but let their pride get in the way instead of tapping they do something stupid like try and roll out of them.
For white belts Straight ankle locks are IBJJF legal as long as they do not reap the knee. There is little danger at all to them.
Also, leg attacks can be useful in self defense and other aspects of controlling people.
Other instances you get knocked to the ground and use some ground entries to bring the person down, control their legs then move into a dominant top position. Depending on how they land, you can take their back or get into side control.
I am not a leg lock guy but I know how to attack with and defend them, because it is applicable to do even if it just opens up attacks on the top of the body. If you only focus on attacking the top half of the body, that leaves the entire bottom half that people do not have to worry about. If they all of a sudden have their legs being attacked they can leave them selves vulnerable to all kinds of upper body attacks as they try and defend their lower half.
I feel as though the forward balance of curved swords would also factor against their use for thrusting, as it would make point control more difficult.
Ben Mullison The curved nature of the blade also makes it a bit more difficult to control the tip (mass outside of the sword's "axis") when compared to a similarly balanced blade.
Sources also mention Indian swordsmen being really effective against bayonet wielding British soldiers, what is your take on this?
Statistically, they were not. Bayonet-armed British troops won most engagements in the Sikh Wars and Indian Mutiny (and numerous other wars in Asia). The biggest problem with swordsmen was that they would would the bayoneteer after being run through by the bayonet first.
How about spears and other thrust-centric staff weapons? Indians had and used them. Why would they be bad at parrying them?
I talk about this in the video.
IIRC, in many of the cases were sword-users won it was in one-on-one or loose formations, while bayoneteers were successful in tight formations.
I could be misremembering though.
Tananjoh
I'd think that in a skirmish sword and shield will be in advantage, as long as it's not 1:1. On one on one there's the range advantage of the rifleman. In tight formations the sword-fighters will have problems closing in unless they can rely on shields or armor.
we can still thrust effectively with sabers! just like you can! and we also had a lot of straight swords, but that doesn't even matter because like I said before you can also thrust with sabers and we did, so we naturally also learned to parry an thrust!
Love this video, as all the rest.
can you PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE some time talk on earlier middle eastern swords and fencing.
it's like they didn't have swords n the middle east prior to the 18th-19th century, EVERY ONE who talks about swords in you tube is behaving as if it's only European swords from the early middle ages to the early modern age, and middle eastern swords it's only Ottoman swords, or 19th centenary central Asian swords, like nothing exited before that . but when Europeans used their viking swords, arming swords, or Long swords, in these periods oriental swords presumably existed, it's an extremely neglected subject EVERY ONE ignores.
They have addressed this in a video before.
The reason they don't talk about eastern swords is because they are all part of the HEMA club.
historical EUROPEAN martial arts. lol.
By very definition, they restrict themselves to European for most topics.
First of all Mat talks about Indian and central Asian fencing all the time, because it's historically relevant to Hema, it interacted with English fighting martial arts. near eastern fighting tradition is even more relevant for Hema, it interacted with European fighting traditions for much more significant period of time, and influenced European martial arts allot. the Spanish, the Italians, the Austrians and every one in the Balkan interacted with near eastern martial transitions, and later the French and English also adopted near eastern elements into their martial traditions. Egyptian Mameluke swords were pretty popular in the 19th century, to the extant they are still used as ceremonial swords in the US Marine corps today.
Is there such a thing as HMDMA (Historical Middle Eastern Martial Arts)... not really. It's just that as westerners we have less exposure to middle east/near east fencing traditions.
It should really be just Historical Martial Arts.
I Think the European part is there to distinguish it from the more popular far eastern martial arts, which are not historical, but modern. really putting a Imaginary border between the Europe and the Near East is rather ridicules.
There is no reason a person studying and practicing near eastern weapons and fighting methods can't be apart of the Hema community, despite the fact the fighting technics and weapons might originate from the western side of Asia.
Hey just for the two people who replied on this comment ...
I searched the whole planet earth and didn't read the word hema in the comment
I practice swordsman ship with my friends and not in a hema club
great vid.. this was a truly interesting topic.
Learned a lot great video.
I'm so glad that dude asked his question.
Not the hero we deserved, but the hero we needed
Excellent video.
Adapted from the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer:
Know your foe!
Lacking European sophistication, the Indian basic soldier is a rather dull creature. Unaware of the deadly accuracy of your powerful rifle shot by a cultivated calculated and civilized mind like the glorious British infantryman, he will be an easy target. The few ones reaching your lines might have a long traditional history of swordfighting. But their often overcomplicated techniques might be effective in dealing with their own kind. However, a courages thrust to the heart will dispatch them quickly and cleanly clearly showing efficiency, glory and valour of civilization. :P
Regarding rapiers vs backswords in 16th century England, George Silver did write that in many fencing schools they didn't thrust with "swords" and didn't cut with rapiers. He thought this was bad since it would lead to people being bad at thrusting and defend against thrusts with swords, same for rapiers with thrusts. Considering the trouble some Indian and Middle Eastern people had with thrusts he may have been right.
Thanks for making this video
my retort is, given most sabre treatises, very few cover closing distance, and i have used this to my advantage in sparring sessions using heavily curved trainers, by having a parry and repost with a thrust, where when they come in with a cut to my outside, i will close distance, and with their sword still bound on mine, i would use that curve and close distance to facilitate a thrust that was unexpected. while it is admittedly not a mainstream tactic, it has worked for me well.
Stick em with the pointy end! :-)
Good question and reply.
In the 17th 18th and 19th century the Afghans wiped out entire British/ European soldiered units out completely without any survivors.
The Afghans knew how to use the thalwar/ swords and the musket.
British officers and soldiers refused to face the swordsmen in the North West Frontier and asked for a heavy bullet Webley.
I'd like to hear more about "natural hitters" and stuff like that.
I always figured - before I found you and skall and lindy - that cutting was better than thrusting on the grounds that "this is what anyone will do if you give them a sword"
I'm wondering what has been written about this, or said about this, or what thoughts you have on this.
How does someone's natural reaction impact their choice of weapon. Should you be picking a weapon that strengthens your natural reactions, or the opposite, and go with one that forces you to learn how to fight in a way you don't normally think to?
This is one of the things I've actually been very interested in for quite some time.
It's a big topic, but a good one to cover in videos, so I will. In terms of which weapon to focus on, I hate to say it but I think it depends on context! Partly what you want, but partly what you wanted to use a weapon for. Rapiers for example are awesome as one-on-one combat sidearms, but really not very good as melee weapons. Choosing weapons is a bit like rock, paper, scissors.
As for what to pick, depends on your personal context. If you're a "natural hitter" you can devote time and effort to train yourself into becoming a "thruster". Now, if you're in an hypothetical situation where you need a weapon now, go with what will work better for you.
I'm a HEMA student, but it's been less than a year, but I've got a decade of medieval reenactment on my back. There thrusts are forbidden because they're unsafe (and we don't use rattan weapons like SCA in USA, but rather blunt steel weapons), so at HEMA sparrings I still find it hard to thrust even when I see a clear opening because I'm still "programmed" not to.
Eventually I'll overcome that, but as you pointed out, if I needed to fight for my life today, I'd go for a shield and axe, rather than a longsword.
Give them a spear and everyone is a natural thruster.
i will say that there is no natural thruster. The 5% of people that scholagladatoria found out were natural thrusters were just people that had learned through their life, from films or whatever, that thrusting is pretty good with a sword.
The reason for this is when you pick up a long spear or staff. Your inclination is to poke with it because the length makes it unworldly to hit with.
By comparison, a sword is shorter, or rather it is a desirable length that supports a good slashing/bashing technique. Same with a bat.
Now lets look at a knife. It is too short to support a swing/bash. The tip doesn't build up enough speed to sufficiently bash something. So we stab.
In summary, human's just learn at an early age to slash/bash with objects because most objects support that technique. And obviously our humans arms/muscles support bashing.
There is no 'you are a natural thruster so you should hone that skill'. It just has to do with training and learning. And most people do not get the opportunity to learn/train with a thrusting weapon.
By watching completely inexperienced people handling one, most people would try to use a spear (not a pike, of course) as a quarterstaff with a blade at the end.
Training can be "incestuous" at times - they people we train against the most are the people we train with, but it's actually kind of useless, since the people we train with are probably the LAST people we will ever get into a fight with.
Loved your video
You know, nobody has done an experimental sparring series. I would love to see more of this. Think of the combinations. Messer vs Smallsword. Katana vs Talwar. Cutlass vs Arming sword. Falchion vs Sabre. Mambele vs Schwerd.Khopesh vs Wakizashi. Gladius vs Truong. Hanger vs Dao. Jian vs Kris. Spatha vs Shashka. Kilij vs Pata. Pulwar vs Takouba. Kaskara vs Estoc. I hope to see more of these odd pairings.
great video as always,have you ever consider doing a video on Patton Calvary saber
I will if I ever happen to buy one, though without ever having handled one I'd prefer to reserve judgement.
Great video as usual. I think it's great that you cover so many different regions of the world, not just Europe as tends to happen too often. The world's very large and fascinating after all.
Excellent as always. One aspect of the difference in cut and thrust technique not brooched, to my surprise is the prevelence in historical cutting swords of short grips meeting the requirements of cutting with a closed hand, as opposed to the evolution of point weapon grips that allows open handed and "finger control" of the sword. The tulwar you are holding and the Brit '96 LC are obvious examples of short gripped cutters. By 1802 the French line LC and HC swords had at least 4.5 inches of grip, facilitating presentation of the point.
Favorite Nathan Bedford Forrest annecdote regarded a close fight where the general found himself surrounded by 5 federal cavalrymen, but managed to beat his way out of the predicament. Congratulated by his staff, for another martial feat, Forrest retort, " Hell. one of them damned fools had thought to thrust n that would of been tha end of Forrest." A propos. ;)
Hey there, Matt! Could you make a video comparing pollaxes, maces and warhammers and anti-armour swords (that is, the ones that are optimized for thrusting and half-swording) in fully armoured fighting? Which weapon is, in your opinion, the best against head-to-foot late medieval plate armour?Cheers! I'm a big fan of your vídeos, so keep it up!
>Shaven head
>Adidas sweater
>Big knife
Matt confirmed to be Slavic gangster.
Really interesting video!
"Short video response".
Thrusts are also advantageous against shorter people (offensively and defensively) and when fighting in a battle line there aren't a lot of room for the shorter fellow to get out of the way. Average height of an Anglo man was about 5'6 in the 19th century and the average height of Indian men was probably closer to 5'0.
I don't mean any disrespect to anyone, I'm also short by the way, I'm simply stating a possible answer as to why this may be.
I think long reach is generally an advantage with most weapons and yes it is certainly quite noticeable with thrusting swords, where an extra few inches of arm and leg reach count for a lot.
Hey Matt, great Channel! You often said that a helmet would be the first armour you'd take. What is the 2nd most important? Protection for hands and arms because that's where you get hit the most or something for your chest to protect the organs? Keep it up!
Teut Busnet - Sorry, I'm not Matt :) But in a document signed by Count Willem IV of the County of Holland in 1342 concerning the necessary equipment men had to bring when going to war, those who had assets between 50 and 100 Dutch Pounds had to account for a coat-of-mail (among other things) while those who had assets lower than 50 Dutch Pounds needed to bring a helmet, shoulder plates, gauntlets and only a woolen doublet/jerkin (among other things).
Though this obviously has to do with the higher cost of a coat-of-mail as well, it's also likely they prioritised protection of the arms/hands/head over that of the torso.
Interesting, thanks Glenn!
We need a "Natural Thruster" shirt
This was fascinating!
I read an article years back that mentioned Sir Richard Francis Burton, the British explorer, as having killed over twenty people in personal duels. Supposedly, he was such an accomplished swordsman that he wrote a book on swordplay. Are you familiar with his book? Was he as good as I read in that article?
I know the book well. It is not a good manual in my opinion. He also wrote a manual on the bayonet, which was not very successful. My opinions on Burton are somewhat complex - he was certainly an extraordinary man, but I have grave doubts about some of the things he claimed to have done and that other people said he did.
@scholagladiatoria Would it be possible in future to make a video on Burton? I too had read quite a bit on him and the thought had crossed my mind that most of his most impressive feats were performed without any witnesses.
I have thought about doing a video about Burton... The problem is that when criticising a person I want to be 100% sure that I am correct. Perhaps I will pick one specific instance of where he was wrong (I know a couple of examples) and just focus on that point.
There is a reasonable recent modern republication of that (1884) book. (Richard F. Burton; The Book of the Sword; Dover Publications Inc, New York. 1987. ISBN 0-486-25434--8). The book is supposed to be a complete history of the sword - it is actually part 1 of what would have been 3 parts, if Burton would have lived longer. I found it pretty disorganized. And where it want to tell the history of the sword through the ages, it often is somewhat suspect. Victorian gentlemen didn't know as much about history as they thought they did, and they are prone to mix facts and (personal) theories without telling you which is which.
the kukri actually thrusts just fine. a well made Nepalese kukri is on line to thrust when held naturally. naturally maybe the wrong word.
Excellent discussion! Maybe the issue of range might be prudent to delve into some more? It's not easy to just switch perception of range once you've trained a certain amount of time. While thrusts may be a well known type of attack, you'd be used to having to deal with them at a much shorter range due to the curvature of the sword, and therefore straight thrusts coming from the "wrong" distance would indeed be hard to adjust to.
@ School Gladiatoria , do you think that this may have contributed to the straighter saber's that the British foot officers and soldiers carried ?
This still happens very often in modern sabre. It's often quite easy to tell the difference between people who took the old-fashioned ("classical?") route of starting with foil before picking up other weapons and the ones who only did sabre from the start -- the ones who started with foil tend to mix in thrusts and cuts and the pure sabreurs often get stymied by thrusts. Of course this is not universal, and people at the highest (say, international or even national) competitive levels tend to be the ones who have some way to practice defending against thrusts anyway, but it's still rather easily observed in local or regional meets.
Indeed, there are lots of people doing sabre and backsword who use the thrust way too little. As mentioned, I think most people simply find it more natural to hit, unless taught to do otherwise.
I should also add, there are lots of people thrusting really really badly as well. For a thrust to be safe it has to be done in the correct way, it's not just a poke with the point :-)
have you tried the ColdSteel Natchez Bowie, looks really interesting
plz make a video on specifications of khanda its usage and weight etc
Wouldn't the "caveman" style bashing attack be better suited for hitting the "point" away? Or what is the standard human nature defense from a thrust?
Hello , Matt. Interesting video, as usual.
However, on another topic, I have a request for one of your movie reviews of "Alatriste", with Viggo Mortensen, which I watched last night. There are some impressive duels toward the end. It is based on the novels of Arturo Perez-Riverte about a Spanish soldier of the 1620s who makes his living as a private sword for hire in Madrid when not actually at war against the "heretics" of Flanders. If you haven't read these, they are quite diverting, in the warm-blooded manner of the Sharpe novels, only about an era some 200 years earlier.
Another novel, also by Perez-Riverte, that you might find interesting is "The Fencing Master", about a past master in the declining years of both his life and his art, insofar as they can be separated. Pistols and politics have about taken over for the purpose of settling disputes in Spain, circa 1866. Very well translated from the Spanish, I believe, though I am not in a position to judge the fencing. Quite convincing to a non-expert, however.
Thanks, v enjoyable! Interesting to spar sabre v historic replica weapons like these though perhaps a challenge to unlearn sabre techniques (eg thrusting) to simulate?
two questions off of this. on the flip side of things how effective are point oriented swords at dealing with heavy cutting oriented swords (lets just say a rapier vs. that indian sword you have or any polish sabre type weapon) is a rapier at a huge disadvantage from dealing with a heavier blow that another rapier would not produce? (ive sort of had this argument with an eppee guy as i used to be foil fencing). second is would you prefer a sword and buckler or a sword and dagger? /in which situations would a sword dagger be more beneficial than a buckler or vise versa. cheers
Hmm, interesting. Richard Marsden shows on example of polish sabre that thrusts with curved blade should be done from binding. What's your take on that?
Could the effectiveness of the thrust also have to do with the light clothes they wore?
+scholagladiatoria What type of swords are hanging on the wall to your right (my left)? I'm smitten by their curves.
what about the back the blade for defensive blocks
just as a matter of curiosity; as a member of an Historic Arms society I have seen quite a number of 'Indian" straight swords cf www.oriental-arms.co.il/item.php?id=1699 , so just what percentage of their swords ie Khandas, were straight ?
I would argue that restrictions on armor (since metal is never cheap in those areas and by the time it could be mass produced guns took over) and the availability of cavalry (notice how even back when Alexander fought Poru the Indian cavalry was made up of the poorer nobles and the middle classes while the Macedonian cavalry was almost entirely nobility, so there was a disparity with armor that the Macedonians exploited by engaging in close-quarters combat, or the fact that the Turkish army only began to rely on Infantry when the Jannisary corps was armed with muskets) is another reason why sabers were so big.
Did the European armies have similar problems dealing with slashes in turn? And while we're on the topic of British conquests in Asia, why was the 1796 smallsword so awful when pitted against tulwar if the thrust had that inherent advantage?
The 1796 Spadroon (not a smallsword, the smallsword has no ability to cut, and a spadroon has a very slight one) was a very light, usually very flimsy sword, and in such wouldn't have been very good in defending against much of anything other than other Spadroons or smallswords. It's blade wasn't hefty or wide enough to deliver good cuts, and was usually to flexible to be a good thruster. Many officers who served when that sword was in use would simply use a cavalry sabre, or have a sabre like the 1803 flank officers sword commissioned for use.
the Europeans were used to many cutting specialized weapons being around with European weapons like the saber messer and the larger kriegsmesser as far as swords go, and most European swords were reasonably capable in both the cut and the thrust, so they would not be nearly as unfamiliar with the cut as the Indian swordsmen were with the thrust because any opponents they trained against would likely use a weapon reasonably effective in the cut and the thrust.
Could you get a decent stab if you aimed for thrusting through the arm pit with the curve and edge facing outwards towards the target with the flats facing up and down Matt?
I love how the game BattleBrothers emphasize on this by giving more hit chance.
Hello there, I am your true fan. That been said, I would like very much to read your opinions about Cold Steel swords. I know that it's a rookie question, I' m fully aware of that, but I appreciate your insight pertaining to this matter though. Please, tell me what are your favorite swords/sabers, and which are the top branda of swords from your own point of view. Thank you in advance.
I'm curious if the battles where the curved sword wielders were deemed weak to thrusts tended to occur mostly in the context of them fighting without their buckler?
This raises the next logical question - did the reverse apply? Let's say you live in a time and place when thrusting swords are really popular. For example, rapiers. If you're fighting someone who's only really trained to use a dedicated thrusting sword and hasn't really bothered much with cutting, would it be effective to throw some more cuts in there or are people's reflexive reactions to cuts enough to compensate for the lack of training?
How about a video on lead cutting & handkerchief cutting swords.
Matt, could you ever do a video about the evolution of near-Eastern swords, as in the gradual shift from straight-bladed to curved-bladed styles that occurred circa the 14th-15th centuries? Some people have suggested that the Sudanese Kaskara sword (which you did a video on earlier this year) was patterned after the early medieval Arabic longsword, and likewise straight-bladed swords continued to predominate in parts of North Africa, such as among the Tuaregs. It's interesting that curved-bladed swords came to be ubiquitous elsewhere in the Middle East and parts of Asia where straight-bladed swords had once predominated (India and the Kandha broadsword also comes to mind), and I was hoping you could help explain this historical development.
Out of curiosity, will you talk about the dha(?) sword that's been a new addition to your wall for several videos now?
Could you do battle rewiew of Karl Tanner vs Jonn Snoe from game of trhones?
Sorry about my bad english, i'm from finland.
Hey there I have a request! There are lots of videos on RUclips that dissect medieval/fantasy movies for not being historical, and I really want to watch a movie that is medieval and is a good representation of the era. Do you know of any movies that do it well? Would you be able to make a list possibly? I would really like it 😍
Why aren't bucklers more prevent in hema? There are a coupOK e places in my area that do longswood but no sword and buckler.
Any good books you can recommend about middle eastern sword fighting techniques?
Didn't matt say in the past that it's very dangerous to thrust because you normally can't pull your sword out of his body in time to parry the after blow?
It is the one main risk of thrusting. However, there are lots of bonuses to thrusting which balance that out. Very few things have advantages and no disadvantages - it is a matter of weighing up the balance of each.
If your parry was succesfull and your point still has a straight line to the target then you can thrust as an extension of the parry movement. If you succesfully land the thrust an afterblow is pretty unlikely in that situation
"I know some people who are natural thrusters"
Matt Easton - 2016
Like certain punching techniques, some sword techniques are more telegraphed than others...thrusts can be harder to see coming. Presumably especially, as Matt pointed out, for those who culturally trained practiced and used mainly cutting techniques.
Also, it becomes instinctive and unconscious reaction to parry cutting techniques for a trained warrior...in the heat of battle it may be done without thinking, and that's where the problem lies...a warrior might not be conscious of the possibility of thrusts and therefore be more vulnerable to them.
Physical training and endurance is very important, but so is having a focused and active mind!
Hey Matt! Somewhat unrelated to the video but do you know of any instances where naval officers preferred the cutlass over their own swords? I can't think of a situation where a spadroon or sabre would be preferable over something like an 1804 pattern cutlass during a boarding action.
Yes there are references to cutlasses being used by officers and I have known several antique naval officers' swords which were non-regulation and inspired by cutlass design. There are also custom-made cutlasses for officers to be found. It is what I would personally choose.
Is there book for midle east or asian curved sword fighting technique ?
Is the converse also true? Where there cultures/ fighting styles that were poor at defending against slashes?
How did footwork differ between more european styles and persian, arab etc. styles? Whenever I try to learn about it everyone seems to only mention the upper body.
My question then becomes, was the weapon designed for cutting because cutting was the preferred usage or was the preferred usage cutting because of the weapon design? i.e. was the curved, single edged weapon design driven by metallurgical limitations (ala the Japanese katana) which defined the martial art which in turn defined later weapon designs? Do we know?
Rewatching this a lot later, and I've reliably seen the opposite in my club. Teaching broadsword/backsword people gravitate to giving point to the exclusion of all else, and we have to actively coax them out of it.
Great observation. I always wondered if the Japanese thrust with Katanas
I highly recommend you watch the Shigurui death frenzy episode 10 that depicts the topic in detail.