I worked in Durham Cathedral for a spell and the falchion they have (the Conyers falchion) in the collection is ridiculously thin. The thing is a razor and I am certain it was never meant to be used against armour but meant to be used by people in armour against lesser armoured opponents, which is arguably reinforced by it's place as a status symbol used by the bishops of Durham.
Armored men tended to fight other armored men. I doubt they'd choose a weapon which while marginally better for cutting into cloth, was a significant disadvantage when faced with a near peer opponent. Those symmetrical sword hilts on falchions make all the sense in the world, all of a sudden. You could choose to hit with the blunt edge, or a sharp edge, almost on a whim.
@@bakters " Armored men tended to fight other armored men" - they could, for example heavy cavalry against heavy cavalry. But when on foot, it would not be uncommon for a man-at-arms to fight a lower rank peasant levy who is equipped with a spear/polearm, a gambeson and kettle hat.
@@baktersHitting with the blunt end would be less useful than pulling out a contemporary dagger, let alone using a dedicated bludgeon. And, no, the time of the Cluny falchion was also one of the peak periods for peasant revolts put down by knights. A sidearm optimized for cutting unarmed or padded armored serfs would be entirely contextually appropriate for someone with enough wealth to afford multiple arms.
@dequitem Hi, love your work. I had argument with friend that it's not easy for an unarmoured man to take down a knight, even he lost his weapon. My argument is, all those anti-knight martial arts were R &D by knights/samurai initially to kill their own kind; second, that extra weight of armour makes them more stable; third, yes, knight may exhaust faster but when they are impervious to most direct attack, they can fully committed to offense thus turn offense into best defense; while armour may limit knight's agility but it could make joint lock on them harder. Perhaps you could arrange experiments to test unarmoured vs armoured fight to find out how easy/difficult for unarmoured person to subdue a knight? I admit I am armchair theorist but I believe I have believable brain simulation thanks to expert input from you guys. Any way, highly appreciate if we can see it in action. If I am wrong I learn something new; if I'm right I can brag to my friend.
@@chengkuoklee5734 you are correct. We did many tests on Hema events against trained hema tournament fencers. I normaly win 9 out of 10 fights without much effort if my armor counts as protection.
@@dequitem i believed my previous post missed out something. If both have no weapons, how easy/difficult for an unarmoured person fight against an armoured one? Maybe you could collaborate with MMA fighters?
@@chengkuoklee5734 Imagine taking a punch from a plate gauntlet. And in hand to hand, weight is one of the most important factors- armour adds weight. And that's not to mention the protection- they strike all they want and you can't. Grappling would be the only way, and who's to say the sort of man who makes enough of a living to fight won't be a good grappler?
Thanks for that great video response. It's always interesting to hear your thoughts as an expert to historical weapons. Even when I thought more about falchions with a point for thrusts of the 15th century it was very interesting to see different examples of the 13th and 14th century in action and from different perspectives. I didn't know that they were that light and thin. But I am still sure, that I still prever the falchions of the 15th century with an reenforced point over a mace. Side note: Yes, Buhurt maces are limited to 1kg and rounded edges, but swords and falchions are restricted far more. They must not have points, they must have rounded, they must not have a cutting edge and must have at least a 2 mm impact edge so that their force is distributed. And last but not least, the most important technique, stabbing and holding the blade, is completely forbidden. So I am not sure if the mace is realy more dangerous in Buhurt.
I would argue that the extra restrictions on swords and blades are a moot point because swords and blades are far more complex than a mace, and thus require more modification to be made safe as opposed to the single dimensional simplicity of a mace. As you stated, you have to do things like remove edges and round points plus limit no stabbing to make blades safe. A mace already has no edges or points to start with and in most cases are not meant to be used in stabbing because the design of the mace is an all in on bludgeoning damage swing attacks. The number of different things you have to do to an object shouldn't matter because not all objects are comparable in the first place. If you have 1 object that can do many things but not well, you would still have to do more modifications to that object as opposed to another object that does 1 thing extremely well.
Thank you both for your videos. They are amazing. For buhurt we have to keep in mind that it's a modern sport, inspired from the middle ages, in a way like HEMA. I, my self, am a buhurt fighter with also an interest in HEMA and armoured fighting in general. In both sports we use modern materials and equipment for practical and safety reasons, because in the end we don't wanna kill ourselves or get badly injured. In buhurt stabbing is prohibited, because it's far more devastating than a blow and we don't want to kill our injur ourselves. Especially when using a two-handed weapon, you are able to put fare more force in to a thrust than a strike and a thrust is more energy efficient and faster. So I think, you should have better chances to overcome your opponent with a weapon that is reasonably good in stabbing.
Swords are not regulated more than maces. Arguably, maces are restricted way more. Single handed swords are allowed to be 1900 grams in buhurt. The typical weight of a single handed mace of the relevant period is 1.5 to 2 kg. So at 1 kg MAX for the regulation for maces in buhurt, we're talking up to a 50% weight reduction from typical flanged examples in the period that would accompany the legal styles of armor for the sport. And the weight of swords in buhurt is actually UP from historical counterparts, because most of the swords being sold for buhurt have NO geometry -- when you buy a "buhurt sword" you are typically getting a flat bar with a sword-like contour with no edge beveling to speak of, and a fully radiused edge, 5 mm thick. They are sword-like objects -- swinging them and fighting with them is like fighting somebody with the leaf spring from a truck. Most falchions for buhurt are exactly the same, forward weighted in an atrocious manner worse than some single handed axes, and this is why they are so pervasive in the sport, they hit way heavier than sharp swords, and heavier than what they allow for maces. There are not only limits to how thick the presenting edge must be, but also huge limits to what radiuses are allowed on the striking edge of every surface. Swords are straight or gently curved, so that's not a problem. But any of the features of flanged maces, like studs, or sharp bends, which concentrate pressure effectively, are completely illegal. The contour of a curve on any striking surface cannot be less than a 50 mm radius -- so there are no pointed flanges, no spikes, no beaked weapons represented in buhurt. I implore you to read the most recent ruleset for IMCF that dropped last summer, and I also implore you to compare the required specifications they list, and compare that with the counterparts on the market that are sold as battle ready weapons. Even a quick visual comparison between accurate replicas and the "weapons" they sell on buhurt vendors that are sport legal is sure to be an instant eye opener for you and Matt Easton. It can't be overstated -- ONLY the lightest examples of maces are represented in buhurt, and the swords are all overbuilt in comparison. You very rarely find beveled sword blades in the sport among its combatants, and it's just as Matt said, they're all arguably more like bar maces than sword blades. This results in an arms race, where the armors were overbuilt to begin with to be "safe", then the weapons are overbuilt to hit harder, and then some time later the armor is overbuilt even more to compensate.
The fact that they limited the weight of the mace so massively in buhurt gives us a clue to the dangers of smashing a mace against an armored opponent... Add to that the fact that the falchions used in buhurt are heavier and thicker then their medieval counterparts, so they are indeed basically a falchion-shaped mace. The conclusion we can draw is that maces are pretty good in armored context.
And their armor is wayover built relative to historical military armor specifically to protect against bludgeoning. It is sport equipment with a superficial resemblance to period military equipment.
In XVI century Polish hussars were using "nadziak"(horseman's pick) and from look of it its not hard to understand why it was good weapon against armored oponents.
Yeah, it's like concluding that samurai swords are bad against armour because shinai don't hurt much in a kendo duel. Even if the result were correct, the method to attain it is hilariously flawed.
Aaaactually though you should check out Dutchess Skye's video discussing the _actual historical sources_ we have access to. The only account we have that actually speaks to the usefulness of a mace against an opponent in significant armor essentially claims that while you _can_ injure someone that way, it actually takes significantly more skill than just jamming through somewhere with a sword would, and the only real use of a mace is that it's extremely durable, making it a decent thing to have as a last resort. 99% of the time maces were weapons for bringing down on someone's head while riding a horse, and most of the victims were people wearing a stock-standard, somewhat shitty helmet (there's also one guy who explicitly suggested that people reinforce their helmet with a metal scullcap to avoid this). There's _one account_ of someone actually using a mace on-foot, in essentially a dueling context, one of the men involved tossed the mace because it seemed too heavy to bother with and the man who kept it "sunk it into the head" of his opponent suggesting that it wasn't what we think of as a mace at all and probably something more like a pollaxe.
@@colbyboucher6391There is no way a thrust weapon like a sword would be better against a fully plate armored opponent than a mace. Just the factor of how hard it is to hit someone specifically in the armpit or inner groin with a point, compared to how easy it is to smash the head with a mace, is enough evidence to know how silly it is to say a mace wouldnt be good against an armored opponent. The poleaxe was deadly bc it could smash like a mace, pierce like a dagger, gave reach, leverage, and could trip the opponent. We see how deadly it is in demonstration. A mace to the head with even the best plate helmet is still going to F you up. A stab to the armpit or weak point trying to pierce mail or thinner plate is of questionable effectiveness compared to smacking someone in the head. We even know swords were turned upsidedown to become maces to be better against armor. Bc maces are physically better. It's basic physics.
Dequitem needs some love for his channel. those realistic fights are the best i have ever seen. the silent atmosphere, just the noise the armor makes when they battle. from an artistic point of view those fights are great.
@@AjenjoAnejoabsolutely, my favorite channel for sure, I always wanted to find a harness fencing club that does something similar. Buhurt just turns me off a bit...
I'm just looking at your poleaxe, and it struck me that it become obvious why the edge on the blade is straight, not curved. A straight edge results in pointier tips. The forward tip is a secondary chance of scoring a hit in a thrust, in case the main spike misses any yielding target, while the downward tip allows for stabbing while hooking behind the knee or at a groin. Also, Dequitem's idea that in an armored fight a knight would primarily strike with the blunt back edge makes the distinction between a falchion and a messer meaningful. It really is about the hilt. A symmetrical sword hilt allows for turning the weapon blunt edge forward, which does not work equally well with asymmetrical knife-type hilts on a messer. It never occurred to me, that you'd *want* a blunt edge weapon, but it does makes sense.
From what i see, buhurt doesn't have much similar with real harnishfechten, a plethora of sport-like limits are imposed that skew the results for anyone who would use buhurt as some kind of an exemplar for how things looked irl. They hit each other with over/under weight metal bars all over their plates, never trying to hit in a way that would actually matter irl...
Buhurt fighter here. You’re right. The modern rules and optimisations mean I would never in good conscience tell others this is how accurate fighting looked like. In our sport we prioritise grapples and fencing technique comes at its very last. Because we are using blunt weapons too the focus is also on bludgeoning, meaning we wont use our energy to do any parries ect unless they will protect us from being gapped.
Absolutely loving these exchanges with Dequitem, really feels like old RUclips. The point and counter-point rather than just "opinion" is super refreshing and absorbing, seeing so much information from two practical perspectives is an actual delight.
Hello ! I just found this channel a few weeks ago, I’m glad that I found it,I won a Buhurt mace in a competition and the mace is beautiful it weighs 1KG, I also have a replica of the kings Arthur sword but the mace is easy to wield, perfect size ! Now I’m in love with maces ⚔️🏰
It is very easy to have a wrong impression of a sword when you have only seem a picture of it. Mostly because most pictures don’t show you the thickness of the blade.
Buhurters seem to be min-maxing weaps to game the system. Since they know the max weight and obligatory bluntness of everyone's arms, there is an incentive to just choose the heaviest club-like thing they can get okayed and handle. Screw whatever it is called or how it was originally supposed to be used. It's getting used like a club, either way.
💯 This meta is also the sole reason why an unreasonable amount of padding is required to participate in Buhurt. I get it, extra padding for the dome is a great idea in modern context, however so much extra padding throughout the whole body makes the armor look far too chunky and disgusting.
I have respect for Buhurt and those who participate, I just prefer the authenticity of harness fencing, where technique and proper armor shines. I prefer my knights to be skilled nimble fighters not brutes and savage bulls.
There's duels and pro-fight game play and then there is melees. You will see more learned techniques in the 1v1 fights, where you are fighting for points struck or domination (pro-fights allow the fight to go to the ground). A pro-fight falchion is actually pretty balanced light, rather than being maximized for weight. For melees, the ruleset is what it is. There's no sense in throwing a moullionet in between swings while your buddy holds an opponent's hip meat open to you. Likewise to say try to thrust with your sword or polearms into some ones visor, is inherently against the safety rules. A weapon and the techniques used for it are meant to kill and maim people, so this harumph of weapons not being used how they were originally is silly and pedantic in regards to a sport ruleset, especially with massed battles. And especially when harnisfechten let alone harnisfechten in massed battle, is a small fraction of a fraction of surviving hema knowledge. Would you feel better if there was a rule that you can't return to Woman's Guard or Oberhau twice in a row while striking an opponent?
@@ElDinosaurioGigante I would prefer that we always stress whether we're speaking specifically of real fighting or sport fighting. The subject of the video seems to have arisen over a lack of clarity about that. A falchion might indeed be the most popular and best weapon for buhurt SPORT fighting. But that doesn't at all mean it was the best in real combat or duels. Context must always be stressed. I also feel like sport fighting is evolving into a progressively artificial, contrived thing, ala Olympic fencing. And that's OK, as long as it isn't hyperbolically presented as a realistic reenactment of historical fighting. But the hype machine is strong, and that irks.
@@texasbeast239sorry I’m late, but this is exactly what I was thinking. I feel like the experience you can gain doing Buhurt can be very misleading, and lead you to think you know what’s effective in a life or death, full strength chaotic fight when you really don’t.
Absolutely. I was more referring to Falchions as single edged armingswords, with still the possibility to thrust with something like a reenforced point and a pommel as a counter weight. But still I love Matt Eastons response video. He has so much inside and knowledge as a weapon expert about historical accurate blades.
Hi Matt, I gave a look at the maces that used in buhurt and they seem to have more rounded contours than the one you hold, yours has very sharp corners by comparison and I think it makes a difference, when you're trying to dent metal plate
Correct. Buhurt maces are required to have 6 flanges (at least in ACS) and follow the same edge thicknesses and rounded tip rules as bladed weapons. So it is purely a concussive weapon, whereas say your stereotypical gothic flanged mace has piercing potential. Some rule sets also ban ball maces, could be because they transmit force through 1 point of contact, could be because in order to meet weapon roundedness requirements you need a certain size mace head and that size mace in steel is inherently too heavy, could be because the authenticity committee hates tow-hitches.
@@martinhg98that’s mostly because if you make it longer then they have to end up with a smaller head. Plus shorter is better for grappling and the like. But I do know someone who has a mace that’s a few feet long, I think with a rattan shaft, so they are allowed just not very common for different reasons
The two types of Falchions reminds me of two types of seaxes from the Baltic Viking and Crusade period, which specifically there's the Semigallian tribe's knives, which look exactly the same as a Falchion, with no guards. And of course the narrower seaxes as well, which usually had no guard as well. They were usually given a V-shaped grind, which went all the way down the edge from the back, which would make a rather nasty cut. Usually over 20cm-to-50 or 60cm long, which they would be shortsword size.
I am a huge fan of the reverse-falchion which appears to be made specifically for in-armour fighting. Bjorn Ruther did a video recently called "The real orcsword: The 14. century reversed Falchion" which you might enjoy.
That was a magnificent video he did. One of my absolute favorite swords, I agree with him totally on his opinions of it. Pure cutting power, used for slashing/chopping motions with some armor-piercing capability.
Only too bad that he presented an obviously faked example as an antique, rather than using a replica by Maciej Kopciuch or Krieger Historical Weapons. I talked with James Elmslie about the sword used in that video. There are only two known extant examples of a type F2 falchion, one in a Dutch military museum and the other in the Musée de l'Armée in Paris. There are plenty of fake ones sold over the years out of the notorious Fricker collection, and most of these were in better condition than a WW1 sword found in a garden shed.
Matt has a video about forward-curved falchions too: ruclips.net/video/6O_Pup-XemI/видео.htmlsi=3bzE_NYFrUOdzaM4 What's interesting to me about Ruther's example, especially after watching this video, is how heavy it is: 1468g Link to Bjorn Ruther's video for anybody interested: ruclips.net/video/2Sh08Du5F10/видео.htmlsi=6zqckhDp-xo_sxwt
At some point when I was looking at reverse falchions, I started to wonder. Isnt it just starting to converge on the design of the billhook in sword-form at this point?
i remember threads talking about the bible basher swords being a new type of sword only found in tapestries, but i always thought it was a falchion with a damaged end/tip, which to me shows falchions got damaged often in armoured combat.
It would be really dangerous to use proper weight maces in armored full contact sparring. I don't care if you are wearing a modern steel plate helmet you are risking serious spinal damage or a concussion if you get hit full strength in the head with a proper weight mace or hammer.
i mean if you use weapons designed to maim or kill people in armor, with techniques designed to maim or kill people in armor, against people in armor...
Maybe, but folks in buhurt get hit with reasonably heavy two-handed axes & the like. Knockouts & injuries happen, but they're not super common. I imagine there is some long-term damage involved.
I gave you a shout out to lk chen. I ordered their munich town guard. They asked how i heard of them. I told them from you, lol. Excited to get the Munich
Knyght Errant has a great collaboration with the knightly arts where they are practising half swording techniques. Two things are apparent, firstly they are practising techniques to get the tip of someone's longsword out of your mailed armpit, which well if the point went through mail easily I can't help but think the historical technique would not really exist... and secondly as per the manuscripts they are leaning into that blade, an armoured man is putting his weight into the tip of that longsword to attempt to burst the maile rings. It demonstrates quite perfectly that against quality maile it would take a bit of force!
A sword that is much closer to how people imagine a falchion is the old type of Ol Alem used by the Massai of Kenya and Tanzania. Look at the measurements I took of my example, this isn't a sword at all, it's a mace in drag. Length blade: 567 mm Length total: 700 mm Width blade near hilt: 12.9 mm Width blade @ middle: 38.6 mm Width blade @ widest point: 51.8 mm Thickness blade near hilt: 8.5 mm Thickness blade @ middle: 8.5 mm Thickness blade @ widest point: 7.3 mm Weight / with scabbard: 627g / 828 g Pob: 240 mm
Loved seeing this video. I´m a novice buhurt fighter, still crafting my armor. It´s very interesting to compare the reality of HMB combat to the reality we can deduce about historical combat. A falchion is the most common weapon due to the ease of use in training. For swords, the rule book states that they can be from 1.3 - 1.7 kg (it lists the proportions that they can have in length and thickness). They are very small parameters, but when you compare the falchions for group fighting against the swords used in the dueling categories (sword and shield, sword and buckler, profight), they are 2 distinct styles of swords. The falchion is for striking hard, like a mace, while the dueling sword is more nimble and easier to handle. Despite having less weight, the axes and maces are required to have less weight than the swords yet they are still harder to wield if not used to them, due to them having most of their weight in the front. The mace is mostly used in vertical strikes because it´s hard to handle horizontally. However both the mace and the axe are useful in the clinch, as you can grab the shaft with both hands. If you try to wrap your arms around your oponent so you can contain or even take them out of the fight with a throw, the shaft allows you to grab larger opponents. Mind you, that the opponent can grab the shaft of your weapon and even rip it from your grip.The rules do not allow the grabbing of sword blades despite the fact that it could be done with minimal damage in certain situations. The falchion can become an obstacle in the clinch when trying to grapple with an opponent, and if you drop it, you have to run back to your corner to grab a new weapon, but can´t strike or take ofensive action while doing so, you may only defend yourself from attacks. It´s very interesting to see how much the training and the actions change in a sport according to the objective. In buhurt, the goal is to throw your opponent to the floor, not to kill them, so a lot of encounters, though as intense as historical battles, play out very differently because the goals are different. Still I feel it´s an incredible way to recreate the intensity of battle
I think’s importance to accept that during modern sport fighting /re-enactments you know your not there to die and to kill - you can barrel into your opponent if you think taking a couple of hits is worth it to get in to cqc, where as when your life is on the line your more likely to fight with that mind keeping spacing and distance as much as possible.
From my understanding, fully armored men actually would risk taking a few hits to close the gap, since they can afford to do so. Obviously, they would still opt to parry or block a hit, but if they’re a little off on their timing, it would generally not be a big deal.
I'm curious about the source for the fascinating image at 4:43 of what looks like a 15th-century armored duel with maces. As far as weapon prevalence in period sources goes, based on a quick review of available texts that cover the duel in full armor, the (not obviously specialized) longsword does come out on top with 13 appearances. The spear is nearly as common at 12 appearances, as many manuals cover the traditional combination of spear/lance, sword, & dagger. Pollaxes appear in 8 texts, while explicitly specialized longswords appear in 6. Given that multiple sources state that spear/lance, sword, & dagger were the customary weapons for dueling in full armor, it's not at all clear that anyone chose the longsword (or pollaxe, or anything) for an armored duel because they thought it was the best weapon. Rather, folks tended to fight armored duels with matched customary weapons. Even when someone challenged to a duel had the option of choosing weapons & armor for it, this still often involved the same weapons & armor for each duelist. I'm not aware of much evidence for duels in armor with unequal weapons, though Die Blume des Kampfes does show variations on the common set of spear, sword, & dagger where only one duelist opts to use a shield. Folks sometimes attempted to game the conventions by making specialized longswords that could be used like pollaxes or having specialized daggers with a thinner inner blade as Joachim Meyer described. The fact that people made specialized dueling longsword that could be used as pollaxes suggests they believed the pollaxe superior to the longsword for an armored duel. Finally, Meyer did write that longsword, sabre, & dagger was a common weapon set for the duel in full harness, & gave instructions on how to use the sabre to cut at the hands & stab at weak spots & gaps. So sabres did see some use in armored duels.
The falchion crits on 18-20. Against an opponent with high AC you'll get relatively fewer hits so having a high proportion of them be crits really helps.
That was fast! Very interesting points about the difference between modern recreations of weapons,their historical counterparts And how they can skew results on way or the other. Would love to see your thoughts on dequitm's top 4. Maybe again modern materials and designs change the outcome yet again? Still Brilliant as always!
the point about not being able to stab with a Conyers type falchion and hitting people in armor with the spine, seem to pretty much explains the shape and usage of the type 2a reverse edge falchion. point to stab armored opponents with check, reinforced spine that can be used to hit people who are armored check, and it still retains the cutting power of the previous version.
Completely agree on hitting with the blunt back edge. I do this with a machete and it just connects so much harder then the blade and can break thick branches more effectively.
We need more discussion on heavy two handed falchions used against armor. I know the primary discussion is that falchions were lighter than we thought true,many modern surviving swords are incredibly thin BUT we have tons of examples or large two handed falchions clearly being depicted against armored opponents. Not saying falchions we’re actually heavy and we were wrong rather that there is a “anti armor” or at least battlefield specific weapon that was clearly heavy enough to require two hands and a longer handle.
post medieval dussacks hangers and cutlasses are usually much more thrust oriented than mid medieval choppy falchions due to the design of the points despite they all have broad thin stocky looking blades
Search for Elmslie typology - it was introduced by historian and bladesmith James Elmslie as a typology for medieval single edged swords (falchions and messers but not only), based on his research in pictures and surviving original swords. There are some interesting blade types in there. Edit: there's also a wikipedia article about it.
We need to get a way from "pwn" culture and get to this humble, educational exploration that this gentleman demonstrates. Well done on your responses to Deq.
I made my anti-chainmail 3pronged mace from a 5 prong pitchfork so it has side spikes kinda like a warhammer. I cut the 2 side prongs down so when you shove it through chainmail the middle prong penetrates about 6 inches while the side prongs only penetrate about an inch and get jammed in the rings. Looks like a shorthandled trident but a very effective mace 1 or 2 handed. Thrown it hits like a thunderbolt, so I called it 'arc'
18:00 Yea, as soon as you reach for that pollaxe, another point comes to my mind... If we think about armored combat in the medieval period, we also need to remember the context ( 🍻 ) of the mustered fighting forces of the age. So a lord of a county puts out a call to arms to his area, he gets a lot of farmers, you don't have to train someone to be an effective fighter with a mace as to a sword, and you don't have to train someone to be effective with a "big 2-handed smashy axe" as to sword and shield or even mace and shield.
As far as I know, there's almost no evidence for infantry use of short maces by the 15th century in Europe. Any decently equipped soldier would have a sword by that point, & presumably have at least some idea how to wield it. The bill did have reputation as a rustic perhaps crude weapon according to a few late-16th-century English texts, though soldiers with bills typically wore some armor & weren't just random farmers (though they might be farmers). So perhaps there's something to the simplicity of striking with a large axe-type weapon & how it's similar to agricultural work. But I don't think this was a major factor in weapon choice in that period.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I agree with all that. I just meant that we can't rule out that there might have been some of that influence on what was popular and why it was. More of a "this is what I'm most familiar with" kind of thing.
@@ronr4849it depends in which country and when you're talking about to who had what, using the word crude to describe the weapons the commoners had is being too broad. In some countries and times there were laws requiring them to carry and train with certain things, it must've been common to find commoners that rivalled even the most seasoned men-at-arms or knights with certain weapons, there're plenty of accounts of pikeman and billman and archers dominating a battlefield and not with crudely thrown together weaponry. I don't know about you but I make sure my equipment's not going to fail on me
Schola, your channel is criminally under subbed, you have some of the absolute best information I've ever seen for anything Medieval, you make it easy peasy to absorb, and you're not a jaded jerk❤❤❤. The falchion is contender for my favorite sword and I've read/heard they had power enough that, like a mace, if you hit hard enough, the blunt force trauma alone is deadly. But that's one heck of a hit. Your thoughts? You're a hero to a lot of us bro, keep it up! Love from Texas!❤❤❤
It is always important to recognized the differences between a sport and actual combat. The differences may be small, but even small differences can be significant.
I love that poleaxe. It is such a beautiful weapon without being extravagant. And the concept of the weapon is just perfect. I wish we could see more of them in fantasy movies and such although i cant really remember what era in real history you've told us it was used in.
There was a history channel or dictionary channel show in the early 00's called "Conquest" most episodes seem to be lost but the first episode was on killing a knight and they made similar points
Arms Vs Armour!! - CAN a Falcion get through mail? - Which breaks first, a sword or helmet? - How many mace strikes to deform a helmet or breastplate? Go on. You will now. Go aaan go aaan go aaan go aaan.
Based on the sources Skye presented in their video. I think dulling the edge wasn’t a concern or breaking weapons tbh. I sharp or dull the is immaterial to the percussive effects. The point breaking would be a more serious w
The reason the falchion dominated mace in mediaval warfare was that first of all it was exceedingly expensive to import pepper and chili from the far ends of the world and distill into into a potent mace compound. Then, in an age before aerosols, you had to make little lamb intestine balloons, filll them with homebrewed mace, and mount them on the business end of a portable hand bellows. This of course would have to be done on the day of battle or these wee balloons of eww would quickly dry out and become inefficient or even potentially hazardous to the user or any accompanying trusty aides, pages or followers. THEN once you entered the fight you’d point the bellows at the approaching knight or unruly, unwashed peasant and pump vigorously in the hope of timing the arrival of the attacker with the explosion of the mace balloon and the best case scenario of this creating a small floating cloud of disgust for them to embrace. Some immediate downsides or limitations to this strategy comprise: - Single use vs.highly finicky training setups. - Forgetting to inflate the bellows before mounting the mace balloon, and consquently sucking mace into the bellows rather than firing it, often leading to death by falchion before a re-charge could be performed. - Accidentally firing the balloon as a soggy, farty projectile due to shoddy knots or intestine slippage, - Unexpected changes in the prevailing wind direction - or the attacker causing reverse wind effect by huffing and puffing from the exertion of say carrying a huge falchion into battle. - Temperatures significantly below the freezing point turning the mace into an icy but otherwise nonthreatening momentary spectacle - or as Maximus Meridius once put it “frost. Sometimes it makes the mace thicc”. - Attackers with a life long habituation to a chili and pepper-rich diet, might be less susceptible to the effect - or worst case even enjoy it! - Dispatching a bundle of unruly, unwashed peasants, essentially achieves the same effect only cheaper and at significantly lower risk to the user. - There is a single recorded historical instance of a Campbel clansman trying to achieve the bellows effect by pointing the drone of a mace-filled Highland Battle Pipe towards a herd of advancing McDonalds - when a wee lad in the group launched a piece of leftover, sweaty bannock from his sling shot, effectively blocking the pipe and causing an instant lethal blowback, wiping out the enterprising piper and three nearby associates (the event was later immortalised/weaponised in “The Ballad of the Peppered Piper” which for a long time remained a local favourite much to the chagrin of Clan Campbel survivors). Clearly, on the whole it is generally more efficient and advisable to just simply grab a sharpened crowbar of any description and proceed to whack ones opponent with it repeatedly until death occurs - or even to just throw primitive biscuits or hard tack at approaching enemies. Especially ones equipped with sets of Mace Bellows or makeshift-modded Battle Pipes.
If I remember correctly, George Silver believed that the billhook was one of the most, if not the most superior of all the melee weapons. I wonder if a falchion would be chosen to compliment the bill or billhook because it makes for a better weapon combination, or if it was more that common soldiers would carry whatever sidearm they could manage to find and equip (perhaps there were many old falchions lying around that were seldom used?) I think it's fairly easy to deduce that a falchion would be easier and cheaper to build and maintain, by a substantial amount (you can probably debate this), which cannot be underestimated as a motivating factor, especially if we're talking about equipping an army. If, as Matt suggests, the falchion is meant to be used against the less armored opponents, which is who the billmen wuld be fighting primarily, this would, I think, be supporting evidence . I think the falchion is an interesting sword, and I like knowing more about when and why and how it was used, because we don't get to see it very much. I have yet to acquire any sort of falchion for myself, and I would like to experience how it feels. Superficially, it's seems lie it would be similar to a modern machete, but much more handy, have better slicing ability, but less robustness.
I'd like to offer a different theory for the so-called "reverse edge" falchions: a stronger, thicker point. Falchion, being single edged, are thickest at their spine and from there taper down to a fine edge. Thus, when creating a clipped point you have two options. Clipping from the spine leaves you with all the cutting edge length, but the remaining point will be rather thin and fragile. Whereas clipping from the edge, while removing a portion of finely tapered cutting edge, will mean the point is starting from the thick and strong part of the blade.
If falchion is better for fighting against armor, it would have been a more prominent sidearm as armor technology evolve, and armor becoming more effective and accessible. Doing something more doesn't neccessarily makes you better at or gives you more correct insight on that thing.
This machetelike falchion looks like a rather large Version of old german hunting knife ,Waidmesser' , a small version called , Waidblatt ' is still used by a small number of german hunters.
@@dequitem : In german collections ( museums/ noblemens castles) you often see such hunting knives. I am way no expert, I think , most of the collection pieces are from 16th to 18th century, some may be 15th century, very last ones first half 19th century ( in 1820s Romantic era started in Germany, and many richer Germans wanted copies of , medieval ' objects). Blade length may be 40 cm The knife was more a cleaver / billhook/ machete than a weapon. The Waidmesser was in 19th century repaced by smaller Standhauer, which became rare arround 1900. In late 19th century the even smaller Waidblatt appeared, different Blade Styles. Most popular Version has a thick Tip section, this weightenes the relative short Blade to give more Power in a cut. Today the Waidblatt and the Hirschfänger ( assumingly descendant of Langes Messer') are also sometimes used as Dress sidearms during Hunters ceremonies.
Another point to the mace is damage doesn't cause to to lose effectiveness. Reinforced points are cus they make the point stiffer and if you thrust a point against and you fail to make lethel thrust, the thrust is less likely to be dulled to a point as to be ineffective. Also, a warhammer point and a poleaxe point asplust over a falchion point, they are stiffer, so less likely to flex, less likely to lose the energy needed for lethel penetration. A mace can be damaged to hell and not lose effectiveness.
11:12 -11:16. Right there when you said that, was exactly when I started thinking about maybe the artwork from the medieval period didn't quite capture that battlefield falchions were being used like bar maces when needed and like big butcher knives on the less armoured men at arms. So yea, I totally agree that that's probably a thing. It just makes sense; and how often do we find that the answer to an historical question we've been pondering for ages is "they did what made sense"...
Excellent point-pun intended. Martial Arts are basically aggressive tag. And HEMA is tag with sticks. Most men didn’t and don’t die immediately because of an injury. They die of infection and blood loss and it’s still not immediate, especially with tamponade from a blade in the wound. Armor worked because it protected the investment in time and skill that the soldier represented, because shooting a bow, riding a warhorse, wearing armor, and fighting with various hand weapons takes time and d money. Guns are easy to use, easy and quick to teach and so not much of an investment and not much of a reason to armor men…except the head and even that not so much. And this is absolutely the Machiavellian way that Lords thought. And all the scenes in movies of men going around dispatching the wounded…that was mercy. If you couldn’t get up or limp to hospital, you were probably going to die later anyway. War is Hell. Cheers!
I went to a Buhurt training recently. Even the Arming Sword was crazy heavy. I train with dumbells, so I go some rough idea on how heavy that sword was. The Falchion was pretty much a slab of metal. Definitely even in the 3 kg range possibly.
Interested in how often armor-armor was encountered vs armored-light infantry? Obviously it’s different across battles and time periods, but would love a video about professional soldiers of the era picking mission-specific weapons. Or were they gearing up similarly every battle?
I can see how the Falchion would be picked over the arming sword in certain situations, as its really a giant machete so would be useful hacking your way through thick cover.
I may just watch Matthew Jensen break too many swords, but I'm skeptical of using the spine offensively unless it's a fresh sword. Striking the spine into a hard target after using the sword and damaging the edge seems to be a very effective way to break a sword.
Hi Matt, funny question for you that might be a video idea: Do you know of the border skirmishes between Chinese and Indian soldiers up in the Himilayas? They have an agreement not to bring guns up there to avoid escalation, but they have started bringing clubs and other melee weapons. Suppose this goes on for another 5-10 years of non-gun escalation; could we see them bringing modern versions of medieval weapons? Just take the cutting edge of pre or early gunpowder era plate and harness and poleaxes, etc as a starting point, but with modern material science and substantial military budgets behind them and what could they come up with to gain an edge in their border skirmishes of dozens of men without guns?
Per Bjorn Hellqvist, the Conyers falchion is 1.2mm (.047") thick at the widest part of the blade, tapering from 6mm at the hilt, and down to 1mm at the tip. That doesn't exactly scream bludgeon to me, even using the spine instead of the edge.
In buhurt, falchions are NOT limited to 1300grams. In fact, that's the MINIMUM for profights. The max is much higher. Maces are severely limited because they have been shown to be very effective at producing concussions. This is also why 2 handed maces amd hammers of completely forbidden.
I would prefer a longer shafted horseman’s war hammer 🔨 with a spike on other side paired with decent shield for fighting a heavier armored opponent. It gives you more options for stronger percussion attack..
I'm sure you have noticed the similarity between the point on your poleaxe and a rondel dagger. Furthermore, I suspect that many armored combats to the death involved the defeated combatant down on the ground where maximum force could successfully exerted by the winner against the foe on the ground.
What is a mace made of, iron or a steel alloy? What is the cost compared to a falchion? I've wondered if maces were cost effective backup weapons. No professional ever takes just one weapon into combat. A bodyguard with a $700 Sig with a $400 sight mounted on the slide may have a simple $300 snub revolver as a backup. Obviously a second identical Sig would be the best choice but the bank account might not allow. Not all bodyguards are high end. I bet not all Knights were high end either......
Hey Matt, in Dungeons & Dragons, (at least the versions where they exist in the rules), Falchions are two handed weapons. But all the examples you show are clearly one handed weapons. So were there historic two handed falchions? The example images they give are very much like the first example you show up.
Matt, do you think professional soldiers/knights/men-at-arms would in some cases have multiple types of armor to wear on campaign? For instance, armor for traveling in wartime and armor for a siege or pitched battle? My first thought it only knightly class would be able to afford and transport that. I thought if anyone might know, it would be you!
Interesting how much more complex the blade of the wakefield hanger is compared with the seemingly quite similar langmesser which is also partially fullered. Is it just the compatatively thicker and shallower unfullered point that "reinforce" it so much? Would this be hindered by sharpening the false edge?
I worked in Durham Cathedral for a spell and the falchion they have (the Conyers falchion) in the collection is ridiculously thin. The thing is a razor and I am certain it was never meant to be used against armour but meant to be used by people in armour against lesser armoured opponents, which is arguably reinforced by it's place as a status symbol used by the bishops of Durham.
Haha a lot of churches over there have melee weapons? And I thought religion was stupid...
Armored men tended to fight other armored men. I doubt they'd choose a weapon which while marginally better for cutting into cloth, was a significant disadvantage when faced with a near peer opponent.
Those symmetrical sword hilts on falchions make all the sense in the world, all of a sudden. You could choose to hit with the blunt edge, or a sharp edge, almost on a whim.
@@bakters
" Armored men tended to fight other armored men" - they could, for example heavy cavalry against heavy cavalry.
But when on foot, it would not be uncommon for a man-at-arms to fight a lower rank peasant levy who is equipped with a spear/polearm, a gambeson and kettle hat.
@@baktersHitting with the blunt end would be less useful than pulling out a contemporary dagger, let alone using a dedicated bludgeon.
And, no, the time of the Cluny falchion was also one of the peak periods for peasant revolts put down by knights. A sidearm optimized for cutting unarmed or padded armored serfs would be entirely contextually appropriate for someone with enough wealth to afford multiple arms.
Yes a protector of bishops tipple 😂
Dequitem is seriously one of the best armored fighting channels out there, and I'm glad you're shouting him out
❤
@dequitem Hi, love your work. I had argument with friend that it's not easy for an unarmoured man to take down a knight, even he lost his weapon.
My argument is, all those anti-knight martial arts were R &D by knights/samurai initially to kill their own kind; second, that extra weight of armour makes them more stable; third, yes, knight may exhaust faster but when they are impervious to most direct attack, they can fully committed to offense thus turn offense into best defense; while armour may limit knight's agility but it could make joint lock on them harder.
Perhaps you could arrange experiments to test unarmoured vs armoured fight to find out how easy/difficult for unarmoured person to subdue a knight?
I admit I am armchair theorist but I believe I have believable brain simulation thanks to expert input from you guys. Any way, highly appreciate if we can see it in action. If I am wrong I learn something new; if I'm right I can brag to my friend.
@@chengkuoklee5734 you are correct. We did many tests on Hema events against trained hema tournament fencers. I normaly win 9 out of 10 fights without much effort if my armor counts as protection.
@@dequitem i believed my previous post missed out something. If both have no weapons, how easy/difficult for an unarmoured person fight against an armoured one? Maybe you could collaborate with MMA fighters?
@@chengkuoklee5734 Imagine taking a punch from a plate gauntlet. And in hand to hand, weight is one of the most important factors- armour adds weight. And that's not to mention the protection- they strike all they want and you can't.
Grappling would be the only way, and who's to say the sort of man who makes enough of a living to fight won't be a good grappler?
Thanks for that great video response. It's always interesting to hear your thoughts as an expert to historical weapons. Even when I thought more about falchions with a point for thrusts of the 15th century it was very interesting to see different examples of the 13th and 14th century in action and from different perspectives. I didn't know that they were that light and thin.
But I am still sure, that I still prever the falchions of the 15th century with an reenforced point over a mace.
Side note: Yes, Buhurt maces are limited to 1kg and rounded edges, but swords and falchions are restricted far more. They must not have points, they must have rounded, they must not have a cutting edge and must have at least a 2 mm impact edge so that their force is distributed. And last but not least, the most important technique, stabbing and holding the blade, is completely forbidden. So I am not sure if the mace is realy more dangerous in Buhurt.
I agree that pointy falchions are more dangerous because you can wound someone, while a mace can't do that.
I would argue that the extra restrictions on swords and blades are a moot point because swords and blades are far more complex than a mace, and thus require more modification to be made safe as opposed to the single dimensional simplicity of a mace. As you stated, you have to do things like remove edges and round points plus limit no stabbing to make blades safe. A mace already has no edges or points to start with and in most cases are not meant to be used in stabbing because the design of the mace is an all in on bludgeoning damage swing attacks.
The number of different things you have to do to an object shouldn't matter because not all objects are comparable in the first place. If you have 1 object that can do many things but not well, you would still have to do more modifications to that object as opposed to another object that does 1 thing extremely well.
Thank you both for your videos. They are amazing.
For buhurt we have to keep in mind that it's a modern sport, inspired from the middle ages, in a way like HEMA. I, my self, am a buhurt fighter with also an interest in HEMA and armoured fighting in general. In both sports we use modern materials and equipment for practical and safety reasons, because in the end we don't wanna kill ourselves or get badly injured. In buhurt stabbing is prohibited, because it's far more devastating than a blow and we don't want to kill our injur ourselves. Especially when using a two-handed weapon, you are able to put fare more force in to a thrust than a strike and a thrust is more energy efficient and faster.
So I think, you should have better chances to overcome your opponent with a weapon that is reasonably good in stabbing.
@@arvidgahsche516 the only bigger dents in my helmet are from thrusts 😅 but my head don't like big strikes too.
I mostly agree!
Swords are not regulated more than maces. Arguably, maces are restricted way more. Single handed swords are allowed to be 1900 grams in buhurt. The typical weight of a single handed mace of the relevant period is 1.5 to 2 kg. So at 1 kg MAX for the regulation for maces in buhurt, we're talking up to a 50% weight reduction from typical flanged examples in the period that would accompany the legal styles of armor for the sport. And the weight of swords in buhurt is actually UP from historical counterparts, because most of the swords being sold for buhurt have NO geometry -- when you buy a "buhurt sword" you are typically getting a flat bar with a sword-like contour with no edge beveling to speak of, and a fully radiused edge, 5 mm thick. They are sword-like objects -- swinging them and fighting with them is like fighting somebody with the leaf spring from a truck. Most falchions for buhurt are exactly the same, forward weighted in an atrocious manner worse than some single handed axes, and this is why they are so pervasive in the sport, they hit way heavier than sharp swords, and heavier than what they allow for maces.
There are not only limits to how thick the presenting edge must be, but also huge limits to what radiuses are allowed on the striking edge of every surface. Swords are straight or gently curved, so that's not a problem. But any of the features of flanged maces, like studs, or sharp bends, which concentrate pressure effectively, are completely illegal. The contour of a curve on any striking surface cannot be less than a 50 mm radius -- so there are no pointed flanges, no spikes, no beaked weapons represented in buhurt. I implore you to read the most recent ruleset for IMCF that dropped last summer, and I also implore you to compare the required specifications they list, and compare that with the counterparts on the market that are sold as battle ready weapons. Even a quick visual comparison between accurate replicas and the "weapons" they sell on buhurt vendors that are sport legal is sure to be an instant eye opener for you and Matt Easton.
It can't be overstated -- ONLY the lightest examples of maces are represented in buhurt, and the swords are all overbuilt in comparison. You very rarely find beveled sword blades in the sport among its combatants, and it's just as Matt said, they're all arguably more like bar maces than sword blades. This results in an arms race, where the armors were overbuilt to begin with to be "safe", then the weapons are overbuilt to hit harder, and then some time later the armor is overbuilt even more to compensate.
The fact that they limited the weight of the mace so massively in buhurt gives us a clue to the dangers of smashing a mace against an armored opponent... Add to that the fact that the falchions used in buhurt are heavier and thicker then their medieval counterparts, so they are indeed basically a falchion-shaped mace.
The conclusion we can draw is that maces are pretty good in armored context.
And their armor is wayover built relative to historical military armor specifically to protect against bludgeoning.
It is sport equipment with a superficial resemblance to period military equipment.
In XVI century Polish hussars were using "nadziak"(horseman's pick) and from look of it its not hard to understand why it was good weapon against armored oponents.
Yeah, it's like concluding that samurai swords are bad against armour because shinai don't hurt much in a kendo duel. Even if the result were correct, the method to attain it is hilariously flawed.
Aaaactually though you should check out Dutchess Skye's video discussing the _actual historical sources_ we have access to. The only account we have that actually speaks to the usefulness of a mace against an opponent in significant armor essentially claims that while you _can_ injure someone that way, it actually takes significantly more skill than just jamming through somewhere with a sword would, and the only real use of a mace is that it's extremely durable, making it a decent thing to have as a last resort. 99% of the time maces were weapons for bringing down on someone's head while riding a horse, and most of the victims were people wearing a stock-standard, somewhat shitty helmet (there's also one guy who explicitly suggested that people reinforce their helmet with a metal scullcap to avoid this). There's _one account_ of someone actually using a mace on-foot, in essentially a dueling context, one of the men involved tossed the mace because it seemed too heavy to bother with and the man who kept it "sunk it into the head" of his opponent suggesting that it wasn't what we think of as a mace at all and probably something more like a pollaxe.
@@colbyboucher6391There is no way a thrust weapon like a sword would be better against a fully plate armored opponent than a mace.
Just the factor of how hard it is to hit someone specifically in the armpit or inner groin with a point, compared to how easy it is to smash the head with a mace, is enough evidence to know how silly it is to say a mace wouldnt be good against an armored opponent.
The poleaxe was deadly bc it could smash like a mace, pierce like a dagger, gave reach, leverage, and could trip the opponent. We see how deadly it is in demonstration.
A mace to the head with even the best plate helmet is still going to F you up. A stab to the armpit or weak point trying to pierce mail or thinner plate is of questionable effectiveness compared to smacking someone in the head.
We even know swords were turned upsidedown to become maces to be better against armor. Bc maces are physically better. It's basic physics.
Dequitem needs some love for his channel. those realistic fights are the best i have ever seen. the silent atmosphere, just the noise the armor makes when they battle. from an artistic point of view those fights are great.
Those beautiful vistas, and the violent clanging around. I Just love the channel.
@@AjenjoAnejoabsolutely, my favorite channel for sure, I always wanted to find a harness fencing club that does something similar. Buhurt just turns me off a bit...
I just watched their most popular video. Well, looks kinky. As if they are having very rough sex.
Realistic? Huh?
Thank you for your kind words!
“Two households, both alike in dignity…”
This is the star crossover I’ve been hoping for. Dequitem and Scholagladatoria.
🍻❤️🤺
I'm just looking at your poleaxe, and it struck me that it become obvious why the edge on the blade is straight, not curved. A straight edge results in pointier tips. The forward tip is a secondary chance of scoring a hit in a thrust, in case the main spike misses any yielding target, while the downward tip allows for stabbing while hooking behind the knee or at a groin.
Also, Dequitem's idea that in an armored fight a knight would primarily strike with the blunt back edge makes the distinction between a falchion and a messer meaningful. It really is about the hilt. A symmetrical sword hilt allows for turning the weapon blunt edge forward, which does not work equally well with asymmetrical knife-type hilts on a messer.
It never occurred to me, that you'd *want* a blunt edge weapon, but it does makes sense.
I'd never thought of this one and was like wow
From what i see, buhurt doesn't have much similar with real harnishfechten, a plethora of sport-like limits are imposed that skew the results for anyone who would use buhurt as some kind of an exemplar for how things looked irl. They hit each other with over/under weight metal bars all over their plates, never trying to hit in a way that would actually matter irl...
The same can be said of any modern martial arts even the MMA guys have a huge list of things they're not allowed to do
Chopping gaps in armour is definitely the goal in striking in Buhurt, just bashing plates is much less effective
@@theprimordialvoid Unless you have a properly made weapon meant for doing that.
Buhurt fighter here. You’re right. The modern rules and optimisations mean I would never in good conscience tell others this is how accurate fighting looked like. In our sport we prioritise grapples and fencing technique comes at its very last. Because we are using blunt weapons too the focus is also on bludgeoning, meaning we wont use our energy to do any parries ect unless they will protect us from being gapped.
@@theprimordialvoid I'm no expert but I'm not sure aiming to fatally injure your opponent is the goal of a sport
Absolutely loving these exchanges with Dequitem, really feels like old RUclips. The point and counter-point rather than just "opinion" is super refreshing and absorbing, seeing so much information from two practical perspectives is an actual delight.
❤
Hello ! I just found this channel a few weeks ago, I’m glad that I found it,I won a Buhurt mace in a competition and the mace is beautiful it weighs 1KG, I also have a replica of the kings Arthur sword but the mace is easy to wield, perfect size ! Now I’m in love with maces ⚔️🏰
It is very easy to have a wrong impression of a sword when you have only seem a picture of it. Mostly because most pictures don’t show you the thickness of the blade.
Buhurters seem to be min-maxing weaps to game the system. Since they know the max weight and obligatory bluntness of everyone's arms, there is an incentive to just choose the heaviest club-like thing they can get okayed and handle. Screw whatever it is called or how it was originally supposed to be used. It's getting used like a club, either way.
💯 This meta is also the sole reason why an unreasonable amount of padding is required to participate in Buhurt.
I get it, extra padding for the dome is a great idea in modern context, however so much extra padding throughout the whole body makes the armor look far too chunky and disgusting.
I have respect for Buhurt and those who participate, I just prefer the authenticity of harness fencing, where technique and proper armor shines.
I prefer my knights to be skilled nimble fighters not brutes and savage bulls.
There's duels and pro-fight game play and then there is melees.
You will see more learned techniques in the 1v1 fights, where you are fighting for points struck or domination (pro-fights allow the fight to go to the ground). A pro-fight falchion is actually pretty balanced light, rather than being maximized for weight.
For melees, the ruleset is what it is. There's no sense in throwing a moullionet in between swings while your buddy holds an opponent's hip meat open to you.
Likewise to say try to thrust with your sword or polearms into some ones visor, is inherently against the safety rules.
A weapon and the techniques used for it are meant to kill and maim people, so this harumph of weapons not being used how they were originally is silly and pedantic in regards to a sport ruleset, especially with massed battles. And especially when harnisfechten let alone harnisfechten in massed battle, is a small fraction of a fraction of surviving hema knowledge.
Would you feel better if there was a rule that you can't return to Woman's Guard or Oberhau twice in a row while striking an opponent?
@@ElDinosaurioGigante I would prefer that we always stress whether we're speaking specifically of real fighting or sport fighting. The subject of the video seems to have arisen over a lack of clarity about that. A falchion might indeed be the most popular and best weapon for buhurt SPORT fighting. But that doesn't at all mean it was the best in real combat or duels. Context must always be stressed.
I also feel like sport fighting is evolving into a progressively artificial, contrived thing, ala Olympic fencing. And that's OK, as long as it isn't hyperbolically presented as a realistic reenactment of historical fighting. But the hype machine is strong, and that irks.
@@texasbeast239sorry I’m late, but this is exactly what I was thinking. I feel like the experience you can gain doing Buhurt can be very misleading, and lead you to think you know what’s effective in a life or death, full strength chaotic fight when you really don’t.
Dequitem's context for the falchion seemed more for half-swording, like a lesser longsword, not as a _falchion_-falchion.
Absolutely. I was more referring to Falchions as single edged armingswords, with still the possibility to thrust with something like a reenforced point and a pommel as a counter weight.
But still I love Matt Eastons response video. He has so much inside and knowledge as a weapon expert about historical accurate blades.
Hi Matt, I gave a look at the maces that used in buhurt and they seem to have more rounded contours than the one you hold, yours has very sharp corners by comparison and I think it makes a difference, when you're trying to dent metal plate
Correct.
Buhurt maces are required to have 6 flanges (at least in ACS) and follow the same edge thicknesses and rounded tip rules as bladed weapons.
So it is purely a concussive weapon, whereas say your stereotypical gothic flanged mace has piercing potential.
Some rule sets also ban ball maces, could be because they transmit force through 1 point of contact, could be because in order to meet weapon roundedness requirements you need a certain size mace head and that size mace in steel is inherently too heavy, could be because the authenticity committee hates tow-hitches.
Thay are also wrery short
@@martinhg98that’s mostly because if you make it longer then they have to end up with a smaller head. Plus shorter is better for grappling and the like. But I do know someone who has a mace that’s a few feet long, I think with a rattan shaft, so they are allowed just not very common for different reasons
@@spencergorman366
A 1h mace and 2hmace both are capped at 1kg, so folks that want to swing 2h tend to default to 2h axe or a 2h chopper/warbrand
The two types of Falchions reminds me of two types of seaxes from the Baltic Viking and Crusade period, which specifically there's the Semigallian tribe's knives, which look exactly the same as a Falchion, with no guards. And of course the narrower seaxes as well, which usually had no guard as well. They were usually given a V-shaped grind, which went all the way down the edge from the back, which would make a rather nasty cut. Usually over 20cm-to-50 or 60cm long, which they would be shortsword size.
I am a huge fan of the reverse-falchion which appears to be made specifically for in-armour fighting.
Bjorn Ruther did a video recently called "The real orcsword: The 14. century reversed Falchion" which you might enjoy.
That was a magnificent video he did. One of my absolute favorite swords, I agree with him totally on his opinions of it. Pure cutting power, used for slashing/chopping motions with some armor-piercing capability.
Excellent recommendation, I recently watched that video, it was very interesting.
Only too bad that he presented an obviously faked example as an antique, rather than using a replica by Maciej Kopciuch or Krieger Historical Weapons. I talked with James Elmslie about the sword used in that video. There are only two known extant examples of a type F2 falchion, one in a Dutch military museum and the other in the Musée de l'Armée in Paris. There are plenty of fake ones sold over the years out of the notorious Fricker collection, and most of these were in better condition than a WW1 sword found in a garden shed.
Matt has a video about forward-curved falchions too: ruclips.net/video/6O_Pup-XemI/видео.htmlsi=3bzE_NYFrUOdzaM4 What's interesting to me about Ruther's example, especially after watching this video, is how heavy it is: 1468g
Link to Bjorn Ruther's video for anybody interested: ruclips.net/video/2Sh08Du5F10/видео.htmlsi=6zqckhDp-xo_sxwt
At some point when I was looking at reverse falchions, I started to wonder. Isnt it just starting to converge on the design of the billhook in sword-form at this point?
Short answer, ofc not lol
Well, not a historical one. Buhurt one is vastly different.
i remember threads talking about the bible basher swords being a new type of sword only found in tapestries,
but i always thought it was a falchion with a damaged end/tip,
which to me shows falchions got damaged often in armoured combat.
It would be really dangerous to use proper weight maces in armored full contact sparring. I don't care if you are wearing a modern steel plate helmet you are risking serious spinal damage or a concussion if you get hit full strength in the head with a proper weight mace or hammer.
i mean if you use weapons designed to maim or kill people in armor, with techniques designed to maim or kill people in armor, against people in armor...
Buhurt question, whats heavier: a 1kg mace or a 1.5 kg axe
Seems like a situational situation.
I have taken a Daneaxe full force on top of my helmet. My heels and lower back hurt, the had not.
Maybe, but folks in buhurt get hit with reasonably heavy two-handed axes & the like. Knockouts & injuries happen, but they're not super common. I imagine there is some long-term damage involved.
I gave you a shout out to lk chen. I ordered their munich town guard. They asked how i heard of them. I told them from you, lol. Excited to get the Munich
Knyght Errant has a great collaboration with the knightly arts where they are practising half swording techniques. Two things are apparent, firstly they are practising techniques to get the tip of someone's longsword out of your mailed armpit, which well if the point went through mail easily I can't help but think the historical technique would not really exist... and secondly as per the manuscripts they are leaning into that blade, an armoured man is putting his weight into the tip of that longsword to attempt to burst the maile rings. It demonstrates quite perfectly that against quality maile it would take a bit of force!
A sword that is much closer to how people imagine a falchion is the old type of Ol Alem used by the Massai of Kenya and Tanzania. Look at the measurements I took of my example, this isn't a sword at all, it's a mace in drag.
Length blade: 567 mm
Length total: 700 mm
Width blade near hilt: 12.9 mm
Width blade @ middle: 38.6 mm
Width blade @ widest point: 51.8 mm
Thickness blade near hilt: 8.5 mm
Thickness blade @ middle: 8.5 mm
Thickness blade @ widest point: 7.3 mm
Weight / with scabbard: 627g / 828 g
Pob: 240 mm
Loved seeing this video. I´m a novice buhurt fighter, still crafting my armor. It´s very interesting to compare the reality of HMB combat to the reality we can deduce about historical combat. A falchion is the most common weapon due to the ease of use in training. For swords, the rule book states that they can be from 1.3 - 1.7 kg (it lists the proportions that they can have in length and thickness). They are very small parameters, but when you compare the falchions for group fighting against the swords used in the dueling categories (sword and shield, sword and buckler, profight), they are 2 distinct styles of swords. The falchion is for striking hard, like a mace, while the dueling sword is more nimble and easier to handle.
Despite having less weight, the axes and maces are required to have less weight than the swords yet they are still harder to wield if not used to them, due to them having most of their weight in the front. The mace is mostly used in vertical strikes because it´s hard to handle horizontally. However both the mace and the axe are useful in the clinch, as you can grab the shaft with both hands. If you try to wrap your arms around your oponent so you can contain or even take them out of the fight with a throw, the shaft allows you to grab larger opponents. Mind you, that the opponent can grab the shaft of your weapon and even rip it from your grip.The rules do not allow the grabbing of sword blades despite the fact that it could be done with minimal damage in certain situations.
The falchion can become an obstacle in the clinch when trying to grapple with an opponent, and if you drop it, you have to run back to your corner to grab a new weapon, but can´t strike or take ofensive action while doing so, you may only defend yourself from attacks.
It´s very interesting to see how much the training and the actions change in a sport according to the objective. In buhurt, the goal is to throw your opponent to the floor, not to kill them, so a lot of encounters, though as intense as historical battles, play out very differently because the goals are different. Still I feel it´s an incredible way to recreate the intensity of battle
I think’s importance to accept that during modern sport fighting /re-enactments you know your not there to die and to kill - you can barrel into your opponent if you think taking a couple of hits is worth it to get in to cqc, where as when your life is on the line your more likely to fight with that mind keeping spacing and distance as much as possible.
From my understanding, fully armored men actually would risk taking a few hits to close the gap, since they can afford to do so. Obviously, they would still opt to parry or block a hit, but if they’re a little off on their timing, it would generally not be a big deal.
Stumbled upon this video and really enjoyed it, I don't usually thumbs up but I think you deserve it, great video, loved it!
I like the falchions that are big choppy boys but also have a 20cm spike at the end. Best of both worlds
I'm curious about the source for the fascinating image at 4:43 of what looks like a 15th-century armored duel with maces. As far as weapon prevalence in period sources goes, based on a quick review of available texts that cover the duel in full armor, the (not obviously specialized) longsword does come out on top with 13 appearances. The spear is nearly as common at 12 appearances, as many manuals cover the traditional combination of spear/lance, sword, & dagger. Pollaxes appear in 8 texts, while explicitly specialized longswords appear in 6. Given that multiple sources state that spear/lance, sword, & dagger were the customary weapons for dueling in full armor, it's not at all clear that anyone chose the longsword (or pollaxe, or anything) for an armored duel because they thought it was the best weapon. Rather, folks tended to fight armored duels with matched customary weapons. Even when someone challenged to a duel had the option of choosing weapons & armor for it, this still often involved the same weapons & armor for each duelist. I'm not aware of much evidence for duels in armor with unequal weapons, though Die Blume des Kampfes does show variations on the common set of spear, sword, & dagger where only one duelist opts to use a shield. Folks sometimes attempted to game the conventions by making specialized longswords that could be used like pollaxes or having specialized daggers with a thinner inner blade as Joachim Meyer described. The fact that people made specialized dueling longsword that could be used as pollaxes suggests they believed the pollaxe superior to the longsword for an armored duel.
Finally, Meyer did write that longsword, sabre, & dagger was a common weapon set for the duel in full harness, & gave instructions on how to use the sabre to cut at the hands & stab at weak spots & gaps. So sabres did see some use in armored duels.
The falchion crits on 18-20. Against an opponent with high AC you'll get relatively fewer hits so having a high proportion of them be crits really helps.
The increased threat range also makes Improved Critical and Keen Edge that much more powerful.
Disciples of Dispater in the chat over here
What’re falchions, blade of disaster?
Love those interesting debates we as the audience can learn so much when Matt is fired up like this
That was fast!
Very interesting points about the difference between modern recreations of weapons,their historical counterparts And how they can skew results on way or the other.
Would love to see your thoughts on dequitm's top 4.
Maybe again modern materials and designs change the outcome yet again?
Still Brilliant as always!
Dequitem noted an important advantage of the sword was quick recovery speed and parrying the opponent's attacks. So not just about pure damage.
the point about not being able to stab with a Conyers type falchion and hitting people in armor with the spine, seem to pretty much explains the shape and usage of the type 2a reverse edge falchion. point to stab armored opponents with check, reinforced spine that can be used to hit people who are armored check, and it still retains the cutting power of the previous version.
Completely agree on hitting with the blunt back edge. I do this with a machete and it just connects so much harder then the blade and can break thick branches more effectively.
Maybe thats where reverse edge falchions came into there own? Would like to hear you're thoughts on them Mat
I love seeing all the Buhurt comments and mentions in the video!
I love both of your opinions and I absolutely love the introduction to his channel
Excellent response.
We need more discussion on heavy two handed falchions used against armor. I know the primary discussion is that falchions were lighter than we thought true,many modern surviving swords are incredibly thin BUT we have tons of examples or large two handed falchions clearly being depicted against armored opponents. Not saying falchions we’re actually heavy and we were wrong rather that there is a “anti armor” or at least battlefield specific weapon that was clearly heavy enough to require two hands and a longer handle.
Truly, just a following of logic!
Excellent video.
God bless you, and stay safe.
post medieval dussacks hangers and cutlasses are usually much more thrust oriented than mid medieval choppy falchions due to the design of the points despite they all have broad thin stocky looking blades
i rarely find myself in historical and medieval forums so videos like this are really interesting.
Thnks Mat - I had never heard of that saber-like falchion
Search for Elmslie typology - it was introduced by historian and bladesmith James Elmslie as a typology for medieval single edged swords (falchions and messers but not only), based on his research in pictures and surviving original swords.
There are some interesting blade types in there.
Edit: there's also a wikipedia article about it.
Gonna keep this one relatively concise.. 20 minutes later..
Never change, Matt.
We need to get a way from "pwn" culture and get to this humble, educational exploration that this gentleman demonstrates. Well done on your responses to Deq.
Sounds like yet another thing to test with armor and dummy, and historically accurate reconstructions.
I made my anti-chainmail 3pronged mace from a 5 prong pitchfork so it has side spikes kinda like a warhammer. I cut the 2 side prongs down so when you shove it through chainmail the middle prong penetrates about 6 inches while the side prongs only penetrate about an inch and get jammed in the rings.
Looks like a shorthandled trident but a very effective mace 1 or 2 handed. Thrown it hits like a thunderbolt, so I called it 'arc'
18:00 Yea, as soon as you reach for that pollaxe, another point comes to my mind... If we think about armored combat in the medieval period, we also need to remember the context ( 🍻 ) of the mustered fighting forces of the age. So a lord of a county puts out a call to arms to his area, he gets a lot of farmers, you don't have to train someone to be an effective fighter with a mace as to a sword, and you don't have to train someone to be effective with a "big 2-handed smashy axe" as to sword and shield or even mace and shield.
As far as I know, there's almost no evidence for infantry use of short maces by the 15th century in Europe. Any decently equipped soldier would have a sword by that point, & presumably have at least some idea how to wield it. The bill did have reputation as a rustic perhaps crude weapon according to a few late-16th-century English texts, though soldiers with bills typically wore some armor & weren't just random farmers (though they might be farmers). So perhaps there's something to the simplicity of striking with a large axe-type weapon & how it's similar to agricultural work. But I don't think this was a major factor in weapon choice in that period.
@@b.h.abbott-motley2427 I agree with all that. I just meant that we can't rule out that there might have been some of that influence on what was popular and why it was. More of a "this is what I'm most familiar with" kind of thing.
@@ronr4849it depends in which country and when you're talking about to who had what, using the word crude to describe the weapons the commoners had is being too broad.
In some countries and times there were laws requiring them to carry and train with certain things, it must've been common to find commoners that rivalled even the most seasoned men-at-arms or knights with certain weapons, there're plenty of accounts of pikeman and billman and archers dominating a battlefield and not with crudely thrown together weaponry. I don't know about you but I make sure my equipment's not going to fail on me
@@valandil7454 I never used the word "crude".... Other than that, I agree with you.
2:58 Small point but (as of end 2023) falchions can be 1900 grams for IMCF or 1800 grams for HMB (1700 + 100 'error')
Really enjoyed this one
Schola, your channel is criminally under subbed, you have some of the absolute best information I've ever seen for anything Medieval, you make it easy peasy to absorb, and you're not a jaded jerk❤❤❤.
The falchion is contender for my favorite sword and I've read/heard they had power enough that, like a mace, if you hit hard enough, the blunt force trauma alone is deadly. But that's one heck of a hit. Your thoughts?
You're a hero to a lot of us bro, keep it up! Love from Texas!❤❤❤
Let me guess: Yes, except when it isn't. It depends upon context.
Okay, okay. I'll watch the video.
It is always important to recognized the differences between a sport and actual combat. The differences may be small, but even small differences can be significant.
I've been watching Dequitem for his Harnishfechten fights. And when I saw you mention him I just had to see
I love that poleaxe. It is such a beautiful weapon without being extravagant. And the concept of the weapon is just perfect. I wish we could see more of them in fantasy movies and such although i cant really remember what era in real history you've told us it was used in.
There was a history channel or dictionary channel show in the early 00's called "Conquest" most episodes seem to be lost but the first episode was on killing a knight and they made similar points
Arms Vs Armour!!
- CAN a Falcion get through mail?
- Which breaks first, a sword or helmet?
- How many mace strikes to deform a helmet or breastplate?
Go on.
You will now.
Go aaan go aaan go aaan go aaan.
Based on the sources Skye presented in their video. I think dulling the edge wasn’t a concern or breaking weapons tbh. I sharp or dull the is immaterial to the percussive effects. The point breaking would be a more serious w
The reason the falchion dominated mace in mediaval warfare was that first of all it was exceedingly expensive to import pepper and chili from the far ends of the world and distill into into a potent mace compound. Then, in an age before aerosols, you had to make little lamb intestine balloons, filll them with homebrewed mace, and mount them on the business end of a portable hand bellows. This of course would have to be done on the day of battle or these wee balloons of eww would quickly dry out and become inefficient or even potentially hazardous to the user or any accompanying trusty aides, pages or followers.
THEN once you entered the fight you’d point the bellows at the approaching knight or unruly, unwashed peasant and pump vigorously in the hope of timing the arrival of the attacker with the explosion of the mace balloon and the best case scenario of this creating a small floating cloud of disgust for them to embrace.
Some immediate downsides or limitations to this strategy comprise:
- Single use vs.highly finicky training setups.
- Forgetting to inflate the bellows before mounting the mace balloon, and consquently sucking mace into the bellows rather than firing it, often leading to death by falchion before a re-charge could be performed.
- Accidentally firing the balloon as a soggy, farty projectile due to shoddy knots or intestine slippage,
- Unexpected changes in the prevailing wind direction - or the attacker causing reverse wind effect by huffing and puffing from the exertion of say carrying a huge falchion into battle.
- Temperatures significantly below the freezing point turning the mace into an icy but otherwise nonthreatening momentary spectacle - or as Maximus Meridius once put it “frost. Sometimes it makes the mace thicc”.
- Attackers with a life long habituation to a chili and pepper-rich diet, might be less susceptible to the effect - or worst case even enjoy it!
- Dispatching a bundle of unruly, unwashed peasants, essentially achieves the same effect only cheaper and at significantly lower risk to the user.
- There is a single recorded historical instance of a Campbel clansman trying to achieve the bellows effect by pointing the drone of a mace-filled Highland Battle Pipe towards a herd of advancing McDonalds - when a wee lad in the group launched a piece of leftover, sweaty bannock from his sling shot, effectively blocking the pipe and causing an instant lethal blowback, wiping out the enterprising piper and three nearby associates (the event was later immortalised/weaponised in “The Ballad of the Peppered Piper” which for a long time remained a local favourite much to the chagrin of Clan Campbel survivors).
Clearly, on the whole it is generally more efficient and advisable to just simply grab a sharpened crowbar of any description and proceed to whack ones opponent with it repeatedly until death occurs - or even to just throw primitive biscuits or hard tack at approaching enemies. Especially ones equipped with sets of Mace Bellows or makeshift-modded Battle Pipes.
If I remember correctly, George Silver believed that the billhook was one of the most, if not the most superior of all the melee weapons. I wonder if a falchion would be chosen to compliment the bill or billhook because it makes for a better weapon combination, or if it was more that common soldiers would carry whatever sidearm they could manage to find and equip (perhaps there were many old falchions lying around that were seldom used?) I think it's fairly easy to deduce that a falchion would be easier and cheaper to build and maintain, by a substantial amount (you can probably debate this), which cannot be underestimated as a motivating factor, especially if we're talking about equipping an army. If, as Matt suggests, the falchion is meant to be used against the less armored opponents, which is who the billmen wuld be fighting primarily, this would, I think, be supporting evidence . I think the falchion is an interesting sword, and I like knowing more about when and why and how it was used, because we don't get to see it very much. I have yet to acquire any sort of falchion for myself, and I would like to experience how it feels. Superficially, it's seems lie it would be similar to a modern machete, but much more handy, have better slicing ability, but less robustness.
I'd like to offer a different theory for the so-called "reverse edge" falchions: a stronger, thicker point.
Falchion, being single edged, are thickest at their spine and from there taper down to a fine edge. Thus, when creating a clipped point you have two options. Clipping from the spine leaves you with all the cutting edge length, but the remaining point will be rather thin and fragile. Whereas clipping from the edge, while removing a portion of finely tapered cutting edge, will mean the point is starting from the thick and strong part of the blade.
I mentioned them in the video 😊
If falchion is better for fighting against armor, it would have been a more prominent sidearm as armor technology evolve, and armor becoming more effective and accessible. Doing something more doesn't neccessarily makes you better at or gives you more correct insight on that thing.
This machetelike falchion looks like a rather large Version of old german hunting knife ,Waidmesser' , a small version called , Waidblatt ' is still used by a small number of german hunters.
That's interesting. ❤
@@dequitem : In german collections ( museums/ noblemens castles) you often see such hunting knives. I am way no expert, I think , most of the collection pieces are from 16th to 18th century, some may be 15th century, very last ones first half 19th century ( in 1820s Romantic era started in Germany, and many richer Germans wanted copies of , medieval ' objects). Blade length may be 40 cm The knife was more a cleaver / billhook/ machete than a weapon. The Waidmesser was in 19th century repaced by smaller Standhauer, which became rare arround 1900. In late 19th century the even smaller Waidblatt appeared, different Blade Styles. Most popular Version has a thick Tip section, this weightenes the relative short Blade to give more Power in a cut. Today the Waidblatt and the Hirschfänger ( assumingly descendant of Langes Messer') are also sometimes used as Dress sidearms during Hunters ceremonies.
Another point to the mace is damage doesn't cause to to lose effectiveness. Reinforced points are cus they make the point stiffer and if you thrust a point against and you fail to make lethel thrust, the thrust is less likely to be dulled to a point as to be ineffective. Also, a warhammer point and a poleaxe point asplust over a falchion point, they are stiffer, so less likely to flex, less likely to lose the energy needed for lethel penetration. A mace can be damaged to hell and not lose effectiveness.
The suspense for the next batch of royal armories is killing me! When matt easton!?!
I’d love to see a review of the Todd Cutler Midevil Falchion which is on the heavier side but has a clip point.
I can't believe you actually had to explain this to people.
do you consider that Wakefield hanger a spear point or a clip point looks like its half way in between those to me
11:12 -11:16. Right there when you said that, was exactly when I started thinking about maybe the artwork from the medieval period didn't quite capture that battlefield falchions were being used like bar maces when needed and like big butcher knives on the less armoured men at arms. So yea, I totally agree that that's probably a thing. It just makes sense; and how often do we find that the answer to an historical question we've been pondering for ages is "they did what made sense"...
Bohurt is basicly medieval looking armored whacking and wrestling 😅
Excellent point-pun intended. Martial Arts are basically aggressive tag. And HEMA is tag with sticks. Most men didn’t and don’t die immediately because of an injury. They die of infection and blood loss and it’s still not immediate, especially with tamponade from a blade in the wound. Armor worked because it protected the investment in time and skill that the soldier represented, because shooting a bow, riding a warhorse, wearing armor, and fighting with various hand weapons takes time and d money. Guns are easy to use, easy and quick to teach and so not much of an investment and not much of a reason to armor men…except the head and even that not so much. And this is absolutely the Machiavellian way that Lords thought. And all the scenes in movies of men going around dispatching the wounded…that was mercy. If you couldn’t get up or limp to hospital, you were probably going to die later anyway. War is Hell. Cheers!
I went to a Buhurt training recently. Even the Arming Sword was crazy heavy. I train with dumbells, so I go some rough idea on how heavy that sword was. The Falchion was pretty much a slab of metal. Definitely even in the 3 kg range possibly.
Interested in how often armor-armor was encountered vs armored-light infantry? Obviously it’s different across battles and time periods, but would love a video about professional soldiers of the era picking mission-specific weapons. Or were they gearing up similarly every battle?
The historical falchion is a great weapon for fighting in armour. If you have the monopoly on armour in the engagment.
I can see how the Falchion would be picked over the arming sword in certain situations, as its really a giant machete so would be useful hacking your way through thick cover.
You have my undivided attention 😮
"I think we forget, in HEMA, that we're not TRYING to kill each other".
Why do you think we don't see more forward curved blades? Could it be the difficulty of unsheathing them in a hurry ?
7:00
Peasantry.
"You peasant!"
A dead giveaway, according to some sources.
Happy new year Matt. WHEEEEEE
I may just watch Matthew Jensen break too many swords, but I'm skeptical of using the spine offensively unless it's a fresh sword. Striking the spine into a hard target after using the sword and damaging the edge seems to be a very effective way to break a sword.
I appreciate the video ⚔️
Hi Matt, funny question for you that might be a video idea:
Do you know of the border skirmishes between Chinese and Indian soldiers up in the Himilayas? They have an agreement not to bring guns up there to avoid escalation, but they have started bringing clubs and other melee weapons. Suppose this goes on for another 5-10 years of non-gun escalation; could we see them bringing modern versions of medieval weapons? Just take the cutting edge of pre or early gunpowder era plate and harness and poleaxes, etc as a starting point, but with modern material science and substantial military budgets behind them and what could they come up with to gain an edge in their border skirmishes of dozens of men without guns?
Honestly, I'd be surprised if they haven't yet, even if it's just the occasional kirpan or something.
The head: re-setting the computer.
Tbh given what feudal life was like a falchion for the occasional peasant revolt still seems like a great investment for the armored lord
I could picture you in the 16th century having similar discussions about Roman, Goth, Visigoth, Frankish, and Germanic weapons and armor!
Of course it domanites, you can do a falchion punch with it
Per Bjorn Hellqvist, the Conyers falchion is 1.2mm (.047") thick at the widest part of the blade, tapering from 6mm at the hilt, and down to 1mm at the tip. That doesn't exactly scream bludgeon to me, even using the spine instead of the edge.
Wait, a general weapon typology is not monolithic?! Who would have thought?!
Ooooooohhhmyyyyy.this is first time i see that 🗡️🗡️😮thanks for info.greetz from Borneo island🤝💪
In buhurt, falchions are NOT limited to 1300grams. In fact, that's the MINIMUM for profights. The max is much higher. Maces are severely limited because they have been shown to be very effective at producing concussions. This is also why 2 handed maces amd hammers of completely forbidden.
I would consider using the spine of the falchion on heavy armor
I would prefer a longer shafted horseman’s war hammer 🔨 with a spike on other side paired with decent shield for fighting a heavier armored opponent. It gives you more options for stronger percussion attack..
damn first impression of the start of the video is the smallest mace vs the biggest falshion
I'm sure you have noticed the similarity between the point on your poleaxe and a rondel dagger. Furthermore, I suspect that many armored combats to the death involved the defeated combatant down on the ground where maximum force could successfully exerted by the winner against the foe on the ground.
What is a mace made of, iron or a steel alloy? What is the cost compared to a falchion? I've wondered if maces were cost effective backup weapons. No professional ever takes just one weapon into combat. A bodyguard with a $700 Sig with a $400 sight mounted on the slide may have a simple $300 snub revolver as a backup. Obviously a second identical Sig would be the best choice but the bank account might not allow. Not all bodyguards are high end. I bet not all Knights were high end either......
Hey Matt, in Dungeons & Dragons, (at least the versions where they exist in the rules), Falchions are two handed weapons. But all the examples you show are clearly one handed weapons. So were there historic two handed falchions?
The example images they give are very much like the first example you show up.
I've always heard that falchions were popular with bowmen for a sidearm.
damn, I literally just made a comment on his video that you, him and Bjorn Ruther should be making videos together. Seems like it's my lucky day
Matt, do you think professional soldiers/knights/men-at-arms would in some cases have multiple types of armor to wear on campaign? For instance, armor for traveling in wartime and armor for a siege or pitched battle? My first thought it only knightly class would be able to afford and transport that. I thought if anyone might know, it would be you!
Interesting how much more complex the blade of the wakefield hanger is compared with the seemingly quite similar langmesser which is also partially fullered. Is it just the compatatively thicker and shallower unfullered point that "reinforce" it so much? Would this be hindered by sharpening the false edge?