Can't blame HEMA clubs really. It's the only place you can spar and fence with swords of your choosing. Regular fencing is limited to very skinny and wobbly sabres/epees.
Personally I think longswords back in the day may not have been as common as an arming sword. But I think they were popular kinda like a fancy car that all your friends would drool over. Because they were long,elegant and expensive.
The expensiveness probably being the distinguishing aspect. Same reason why the standard for the roman legions was the gladius. It's just simpler and cheaper to make.
D&D gets a lot of blame for this. And so much pop-culture versions of medieval combat is inspired by D&D. Of course the naming of swords isn't really a clear-cut thing.
to be fair the term longsword was used to describe different swords at different times. in the viking era an arming sword would have been the longest sword around, at least in Europe (the Chinese had had full length hand an a half longswords for several centuries by this point) so they would call it a longsword, or so i hear. D&D borrows heavily from Tolkien and Tolkien borrows heavily from Beowulf and the poetic eda so it's not surprising that viking era terms would show up in D&D
Yes, that is true. But the historical context around the legends of King Arthur is a 5th-6th century Romano-Brittonic king, so he shouldn't even be using an arming sword, let alone a longsword. He should be using either a Celtic sword or a Roman spatha (which is basically a roman copy of a Celtic sword). EDIT: It turns out I might be wrong about him using a Celtic sword.
While the historical context is that of 5th-6th century Britain, gross anachronisms go back at least as far as Malory - who does not even place the story in a specific period. For example, Malory describes medieval tournaments as well as medieval tactics in battle (cavalry dominated, and with couched lances). An anachronistic approach to history was pretty much the norm until the 16th-18th centuries, which we see not only in art (Biblical scenes with characters wearing armour contemporary to the artist), but in literature as well - such as Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur. Therefore, if we have no problem with le Morte d'Arthur, we shouldn't really have a problem with later anachronisms either. When it comes to Arthurian legends, I really have no problem with longswords, crossbows or gothic plate. If it is based on Malory, the setting is a fictional Britain at an undisclosed time, so anything from the 5th century and right up to the end of the 15th century is kosher as far as I'm concerned.
Gilmaris Yes!!!! Thank you. King Arthur is almost total fantasy, & if anything, the classic medieval setting is most appropriate as that's when the stories come from.
makes sense...if you are going to walk around with a side-arm, you don't want to carry something bigger and longer then you have to. it would be a nuisance.
Matt, do you sell a shirt that says "context" on it? A really nice shirt that I can wear at work, possibly with Mattface framed by "it's all about context" or something. I need it bro. WE need it. Hook us up, please.
I really like long swords not because I think they were widely used or even very common in the middle ages. I like them because I think they are just so cool. Also I think that replica you are holding in this video is an awesome looking example
More videos like this, please! What was the cultural context of swords, like now, who used them, but more importantly, how did people regard swords and swordsmen in their era. Japan has a load of info on this with the romantization of the katana and the samurai, but I haven't seen anything on, say, from the people who belonged to the fencing guilds you mentioned here.
Always knew their rareness (where are the longswordmen in medieval total war 2, for example), so this video really ties things together (they're rare because they were popular for barely any time at all, if ever they were).
My HEMA group had a "backstage" event in the Solinger Klingenmuseum, THAT place to be for german and general blade weapons. A professor guided us around and we had the chance of having a close view and even test historical originals. So of course we asked the museum to show us original longswords of type XVa or XVIIIb of the oakeshott types. The professor was sorry to inform us that there are just few originals left in germany and the museum had NONE of that type in their hands.the professor told us that they were not used so often as it seems. So it seems to be true.
I think there is a correlation between the popularity of longsword and the introduction of full plate armor. Since most, if not all, part of the body is essentially protected with the full plate armor, this opens up the other hand from holding a shield to helping the weapon hand. Ofcourse, there is more points to this, I think its just something to think about. . .
Re: longswords -- and their turning up in treatises -- could it be argued that the very existence of specialized treatises indicates a weapon is not "the standard" but an exception for which special teaching is needed? (leaving aside later military treatises like sabre where the treatise seemed to be written to instruct a body of soldiers at once)?
The most notable early example I can think of of medieval longsword-use is probably Manfred of Sicily’s mounted, coat-of-plates-wearing German Mercenaries at the Battle of Benevento in 1266; they were operating in a pretty specialized role, and suffered a pretty conspicuous rout specifically due to being forced into a close-range engagement with an enemy wielding arming swords. Of course, the Siculo-Normans always had a pretty avant-garde setup, given how far-flung their territories were at their height, so one was potentially likelier to encounter an Islamic Sabre or Scimitar than a longsword in an Italian Hohenstaufen or Hauteville army
Really nice vids. This one and the one about amount of polish on medieval swords. My thoughts excatly on both topics, but nice to hear them from you :D haha
Matt, I think you hit it spot on. One thing I realized afterwards is that the masters that wrote the treatises utilizing the longsword as their central weapon system actually did accomplish what they set out to do; albeit several centuries later than intended. Today the longsword is the central weapon system for HEMA. I think most everyone starts out with the longsword prior to moving on to sword & buckler, sabre, or even rapier. It makes you wonder how or even if history would have been remarkably changed if the longsword had been as popular in the medieval times as it is now.
Revolvers were popular for roughly the same amount of time as longswords and rapiers. I think weapons being iconic and romanticized also requires a relatively brief period of use during "epic" historical periods.
Larold It is far less a sword in the European sence than a flat wooden club with a series of razor blades on its "edges" Or more like an elongated entrenching tool modified for CQB WW1 style. But still sounds like an awesome vid. Both to give this nightmare of metal-free devastation exposure, and to show why HEMA doesn't cover indigenous American weapons. (Bowie knives are still basically European. Their materials, construction, and design are adaptations of European knives.)
HEMA doesn't cover indigenous American weapons for the same reason it doesn't cover katanas. It's Historical European Martial Arts, surely non-European weapons have different martial arts.
@ZubjectX: .... So? How is that relevant? Who says that Scholagladitoria only covers HEMA? He has done videos about Chinese, Filipino, and Middle Eastern weapons, which are not HEMA either.
Long swords (two words) are described as the standard side arm for Hungarian cavalrymen (what we'd now call light or medium cavalry) in 1350 by Matteo Villani as well. (Whether that indicates a longer sabre or a longer sword, completely ambiguous). Also, totally agree with your hypothesis.
AFAIK, longswords, specifically "montantes" Spanish voice, this is, the kind of two handed sword we see in movies like two handed Aragorn's sword Anduril and similar swords, were duel and civil swords, not war swords, and happened the same in warfare. Putting aside that swords were less used in war than what people tend to think (for several reasons, like they were more difficult to use in a formation that spears and that in individual combat they were less useful in war than maces), if you were going to use a sword in the war, it would be a sword that let you use a shield, to avoid yourself being hacked down to easily. For this reason, bastard swords of not much weight and length were quite more used in war than two handed sword, since they could be used both two handed and one handed, and was easier to find a gap in the armor due to a swifter tip, much pointy. Arguably, the raise of two-handed sword up to certain degree might happen due to two reasons. The first one is the war was way more organized at the mid-end of 14th century, with much more professional armies composed by man at arms and low nobility and less high nobility in the field, and also, less wars overall, or smaller scale ones. Generally speaking, this favored quite more the individual combat instead of the moving of big armies with a lot of troops that needed a lot of coordination, and specially between nobles. Duels became more common, be it to settle down a battle or specially for honor reasons, and a sword with so much range is more useful in a duel than a short sword and a shield, which is way more useful in formation or in a situation were you can be hit from anywhere, but in a duel, lack of range become crucial. Also, in terms of warfare, arguably they might be their use slightly increased due to the appearance of plate armor. The increase of protection might be a reason for high nobles that were commanding forces to wear two-handed swords in battle. Simply put, they would be moving tanks if they ever (rarely) had to enter combat, and if they did, they would probably be when formation was already broken, and in a more individual combat context, with a lot of the troops already dead 9r incapacitated, and so, less possibility of being surrounded, etc, in a situation were range and superior protection would prove superiority. We've got to have in mind that not everyone could afford themselves plate mail and a well made longsword, which was also a factor, a good craft with well balance, and those who could probably wouldn't be on the first lane of battle, they would be commanding probably since wealth was heavily tied to your noble and/or militar position (which were many or most of times also tied). After this initial popularity between nobles, creating a "trend" probably "common folks" who could afford it bought one ("" is because common folks who could afford a good sword weren't that common), and with gradually improvement of crafting arts, longswords became more affordable and accesible to the increasing burgueoise of the free cities and more wealthy soldiers, that with the increase of smaller scale wars and more situations of individual fights, saw probably a good alternative on this kind of swords for civil situations of self defense or small skirmishes that encouraged more individual fights rather than big formations and a lot of troop moving. Seemingly, something similar happens with katana in Japan, which is more or less the same size than longswords according to the smaller size of Japan people. Both weapons were burders and symbol of honor since both were duel weapons used to defend that honor, while wakizashi was the weapon symbolizing duty and honor aswell since it was the weapon to commit seppuku (Aka hara kiri). And this is quite much my particular interpretation of why and how could two-handed sword raise to a moderate degree of popularity. Note that longswords were probably way more expensive than shorter swords, due to two main reasons, the first and more obvious is that they needed more metal (usually, if not always, steel) to be made, and second one that there was less common to do one, being initially less popular, there were less Smithers knowing how to do one and making it, and even less doing a polished one, although this second thing became less of a reason the more common they became, yet still a reason. Probably this two things aswell as the limited uses the sword had, kept them from growing more in popularity, being the Messer and even the two handed Messer (less common) a way more common weapon between common folks and man at arms, aswell as all kind of one handed swords. All in all, although maybe less proficient than longswords in the specific situations that it had advantage, were usable weapons nonetheless, and were more proficient in other situations longswords wouldn't. For a soldier not very wealthy that couldn't afford many weapons and even more such a specific and expensive one (who were many and probably most) , the one handed sword (of any type) was the way to go. Correct me Matt (or anyone else) if I made any misinterpretation of history here, of hows and whys of the topic. Salutes!!
That longswords and full plate should coincide in time makes a lot of sense. If you don't need a shield any more because your armour is good enough to make it redundant, you'll look for a sidearm that gives you a bit of extra reach you can only afford because you've got both hands free. At the same time, a causal relationship would mean that only those who could afford good plate would actually shift to longswords, which would become prestigious but not too common weapons. As those people would have been the same as those who could afford fencing manuals and fencing schools, the literature would end up giving more attention to them than they would merit by sheer percentage of swords around.
That's not true, even with plate armor, you never want to get hit, a 1.5 kilogram hunk of steel hitting your encased head will give you a concussion, polearms were mostly used in formations not to hit your comrades and because it was a fantastic weapon for the wealthy lads who could afford it, but shields were always a good and prevalent choice.
Yeah, you still don't want to get hit. But arrows, unless they're fired at point-blank range, become much less of a threat, as do glancing blows. Meanwhile, you may parry direct blows from close-range weapons. The balance of the trade-off between additional protection from carrying a shield and greater range from using a two-handed sword shifts in favour of the latter, at least as long as you can afford top-notch armour. You will still want to keep your foe at the kind of distance where a sword is useless, so longer swords won't replace polearms. But you're suddenly able to carry a sidearm, a fallback weapon, that gives you greater range and striking force, plus halfswording capacity, that sword-and-shield cannot afford. Plus, your carrying that kind of weapon in civilian life communicates that you're wealthy and cool/badass enough not to need a shield. Of course, if you can't afford really good plate armour you'll prefer a sidearm that's easily combined with a shield because arrows and glancing blows are still so much of a threat that ten or fifteen, even twenty-five, extra centimetres of range won't tip the scales. That's kinda the point I was trying to make.
It is not only a range though, the two handed leverage is also a factor here. There is also a thing that the longsword is also especially popular on the european plain - in archeological record for Bohemia, East Germany and Poland, most common find is Type XVIa, followed by XIIIa and XII, with shorter sword blades being sidelined and the likes of short XV or XVIII almost absent. (though whole record is about 450 pieces for X-XV century so not substantial. Still half of them for 500 year time are definitely long types). At that time we are talking horse-centric culture in the whole area.
Finally getting around to seeing this! When I considered the problem of weapon popularity I took a look at some period painting from the area I am interested in, 15th Century Italy. In the streetscape of the burning of Savonarola the only people armed are clearly doing crowd control. More than half of them are wearing swords which strike me as being of the right proportion to be longswords. However all are worn as sideams; every guard in the piazza carries a polearm and none have sword drawn. In the famous 15th Century portrait of the Gonzaga family in the Palazzo Ducale in Mantua, only one man is shown wearing a sword; one suspects illustrating his status as a knight. The rest of the men carry bollocks daggers, some of surprising length but still clearly examples of the type. I have Muir's Mad Blood Stirring on my reread soon list. It follows a vendetta in early 16th century Venice, and makes a serious point about the New Manners of challenge and duel normalizing sword carrying and displacing the 15th century practice of stabbing your enemies by surprise at Easter mass. ;) I have not seen any discussion beyond Muir of that bit of timing; it aligns well with other cultural shifts but I would like your thoughts on why gentlemen began to wear swords under normal circumstances if in fact it is not just a fiction.
Another excellent video. It's important to try to get the truth (at least as much as we can know it) out there with this kind of thing. I definitely feel like anyone who attempts to delve into the reality of swords and swordsmanship in the Middle Ages and teach it to others is bound to face an uphill struggle. Misconceptions abound, mainly due to the ubiquity of "Medievalesque" fantasy nowadays. Far too many take what they see there and try to apply it to the historical past. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy fantasy just as much as the next guy. I'm a huge fan of The Witcher, Dragon Age, and LOTR (to name but a few) BUT I always make it a priority to remember that while these works of fantasy are clearly inspired by actual history, they are certainly NOT actual history. I feel like this line between fantasy and history becomes blurred far too easily so it's definitely good to see videos like this. PS: I do realize I'm probably preaching to the choir here with this, but those are my thoughts.
The thing I like that Matt touches on here is how some have argued (I have ran into this too) that longswords were used during post Norman Period and the Crusades period of the middle ages. I think its important to distinguish, however, the differences of what would become known as a Longsword from the Great Sword of War. This is me actually agreeing with and expanding on Matt's point. Longswords, and indeed most popular styles of sword at a particular time were status symbols and as such most likely expensive to make in the quality demanded by the upper class. It should also be noted that while the longsword was popular with many different people at different times the Longsword is a transitional weapon brought about by various reasons. I don't think its unrealistic to say that the longsword was more than likely much more rare than single handed weapons.
Hi Matt - what do you know about claymores (the two handed massive kind, not the basket hilted broadsword)? I'd like to see a video on them - when were they used, by who, in what context etc? Thanks!
Hi, Matt, I fully agree with you. Also, IMHO longsword appearance/popularity was connected to the armor evolution. With a full plate armor there was lesser need for a shield, as armor itself gave you very good protection. This resulted in demand of a sword with longer reach (plus using a longsword with two hands doesn’t tire you as much as using a sword with one hand), and here it was, the longsword.
I imagine that a lot of fencing treatises cover longsword so extensively because longswords were often owned by wealthy people who could afford to buy fencing treatises.
It is always an interesting subject on "why do we only have treatises on such and such?" and why does that make them seem more popular? I would suggest one of the main reason's is what you mentioned at the end of the video, Matt. That they are specialist weapons. You could argue that weapons like the longsword and rapier are capable of many more variations of technique and complications than, say, an arming sword. 1) This leads to why someone would write a 'how to' manual 2) Also why a master would write and focus on them, so they could charge for their services and knowledge about a 'true fighter's weapon that demands more skill and technical knowledge. 3) People being people, no matter the age they live in, want to show off. So these more niche weapons get hyped by the people who study them and practice with them. Still happens today in unarmed today. It's not simply jiu jutsu, it's a certain lineage etc etc
My two cents here: I believe that longswords are popular among modern day sword enthusiasts because the most popular medieval period among medieval enthusiasts is, imho, the late 14th and (mostly) 15th century (due to fantasy settings popularity), when this type of sword was quite common.
It occurs to me that the relative prevalence of treatise on longsword & rapier might have something to do with the advent of printing (making it easier to produce books) & the relative rareness of the swords (they're not widely used, so masters are difficult to find so you might want to detail their use in a more portable form).
Matt, Could you do a video about the use of the longsword against armored vs. unarmored opponents? I've tried to do some research, but I know I'm just scratching the surface. Against unarmored opponents, it seems to be cuts and thrusts, but in armored fighting, it seems the sword is more of a grappling tool to immobilize or force an opponent to the ground where halfsword techniques are used to get the point into gaps in the armor.
Hi. I notice you handle the blade of your swords ALOT while barehanded. Don't you worry about rust? How do you protect them normally? Thanks I really appreciate you taking the time to do these vids
That Video was indeed helpful! Although I thought for myself the longswords weren'T incrredibly common, my reasons were to some extent wrong. I believed it was (mostly) a noblemans sword, being quite surprised to hear that in germany it was popular among the "normal" people. And the relative short lifespan of the popularity seems to have evaded my knowledge as well. Thank you.
Archers are actually one of the groups that used longswords extensively. I refer of course to the ordinances of Luis the Bold of Burgundy in the 1470's (IIRC). There he stipulates the organisation and armament of his new armies. What stuck out to me was that the archers (or was it the crossbowmen, they kinda blended more together in reality than the ordinances) were required to be armed with a longsword, in addition to the long knife (I kinda assumes a messer kind of thing, but it might be more of a rondel/bollock dagger) everyone was carrying. The piqueneerso n the other hand carried bucklers for close combat. Incidentily it is the piqueneers in Switzerland that typically carries longswords, not the archers.
Hi Matt! Quick question: why would you choose a longsword over sword and buckler? I know the longsword has superior speed and leverage, but having a buckler just seems to be such a massive advantage. And then the shorter sword is also easier to carry. Do you think changing conditions on the battlefield had an influence on what people carried as civilians (for lack of a more appropriate term)? So basically, when people wore mail, they would have used a shield and so a one-handed side arm makes sense, and with sword and buckler you had a similar weapon set for civilian use. Whereas, if you were a nobleman in later medieval times and owned plate armour, you wouldn't use a shield and therefore your sidearm of choice would be a longsword, which you could also carry as a civilian. Which would probably make sense regarding training (limitting the number of different techniques you need to master)... Or is there more to it?
This is a very big question which I could make more than one video about, but in short I would say: The longsword and sword & buckler appear roughly equal in a one-on-one duel. We use them frequently against each other and they often face each other in competitions. The results indicate that they are more or less equal, just with different strengths and weaknesses.
One thing that people forget when considering this match-up is that a buckler is an excellent defensive weapon, but it is also extraordinarily predictable (intercept an attack, bind hard, wind strong, unlikely to disengage). An inexperienced fencer will be stymied by it, but an experienced one will tend to treat it as just another obstacle to account for, or even a weakness to be exploited (there are many historical tactics and techniques designed for use against a predictable fencer who parries too strongly).
i'm curious, in your experience how long does it take someone to become an experienced fencer, or at lest experienced enough to counter a buckler like that? I'm familiar with the concept but have a hard time pulling it off in sparring.
Also in the context of a contemporary match off as a knight with access to a set of plate armour I'll take the long sword all day. Even if bucklerdouche has plate too. So I would agree with Matt in one on one 'unarmoured' duel they are broadly equal but at the time overall and as a battlefield sidearm I feel the Longsword is just better.
It is absolutely fascinating how analogous this is to modern gun culture in the United States. If you go to any shooting school, nearly everyone will be using a full size or mid size handgun of good quality, and it will usually be very optimized. In firearms media, everyone does the same. In practice, the vast majority carry something very small, lightweight, cheap, and all together different from what is portrayed. “There is nothing new under the sun”.
Hi Matt, I've been playing the Viking Conquest expansion for Mount and Blade lately and in some cases, I've been given a spear and shield to fight another opponent armed with spear/axe/sword and shield. I'm curious, would you personally want the shield as a spear user in a duel, or would you drop the shield to have both hands on the weapon and have more control?
Matt, one of the questions that was part of this recent debate on the HEMA Alliance forum was whether or not a knight or man-at-arms who owned a longsword would wear or carry it out of harness and off the battlefield (out tournament grounds) as a sort of "daily driver" or would they have carried an arming sword day-to-day and reserved the longsword as a piece of "battlefield" kit like a pollaxe, mace, harness, destrier, etc. In terms of time period and geography I'm primarily interested in the mid 14th to early 15th century in Italy. Any thoughts?
Excellent video. I’ve read accounts that in the Burgundian army of the late 15th century, the standard equipment for longbowmen (many of them English mercenaries) included 2-handed longswords as secondary weapons. To take one specific period and class of person, how common would it be for an English man at arms of the 15th century to have a longsword as their main sidearm?
I am under the impression that mounted English men-at-arms typically carried falchions to cut down lightly armoured targets. Wich is the role I believe that a longsword would serve in such a mans loadout. Then of cuorse they would have tools to deal with other armoured opponents like any other gendarme, like hammers, picks and such.
In my research on northern rus armor, I found a few mentions that seems to point to the presence of some longswords in 1240. For longsword use, I think that armor is a big player and in the Rus they wore lots of lamellars with maille under or scale to replace lamellar if they were dedicated foot soldiers (wiith enough money for armor), in fact the rus people had the reputation to be over armored for a long time. That over armored style the rus had is the reason in my opinion that there most likely were longswords used in sufficient number to be drawn and mentioned in the 1240 in the northern rus (still way more in the 1300's and 1400's though).
In my opinion the Longsword is not a very good self-defense weapon, except when you´re wearing armor. You can´t defend against projectiles, you are always open on one side. I think that a buckler in combination with a shorter sword makes a more reliable choice. And on the battlefield a shield is always a better option IF you are not wearing heavy armor. Not to mention that a longer sword is usually more expensive and uncomfortable to carry around. So for me it wouldn´t be a surprise if they weren´t that common in the middle ages.
you're not going to defend against projectiles with a buckler tho, you need a full shield for that. In a civillian self defence context, where you're probs not going around with a shield, the longsword is pretty decent. You're fucked if someone attacks with with a crossbow or bow, but again, in a civillian context your fucked anyway since your probs niether armoured nor shielded. As a singular piece of equipment for self defence, it's pretty good against most things. Rapiers are better, but you have a fighting chance with a longsword against them in you can parry and engage in grappling. longswords are amazing versitile, you can use them to get to a clinch, but can also choose to keep distance,you can use them against armour through half swording for accuracy against weakpoints and using the crossguard as a blunt truma weapon, you have great slashing abilty against unarmoured opponents. it's real problem is that is an amazing general weapon, but for any specialised purpose there are better options
@@internetenjoyer1044 Horse archers used bucklers to block arrows actually, you do know most people aim for centre of mass? Longswords are for men at arms in full plate or the rich man with an arsenal picking one for a judicial duel. IT is not the regular self defence weapon. The weapon set of the medieval period was sword and buckler or dagger. If you are going to praise the longsword so much, go and carry it all day everyday for the next year and tell me how it goes. And your thoughts on this superior weapon.
@@chroma6947 It makes sense for horse archers to get a much protection as they can. they cant use a shield, so they use a buckler. that hardly means that a buckler is going to block arrows as a matter of course, especially not in a civillian setting when someone will be aiming for your specifically and you wont have armour. The sword and buckler is a perfectly good weapon, the longsword was as well. I didnt make a judgement as to what the best was
@@internetenjoyer1044 it was a good weapon in full plate. Outside of that you were being suicidal. Even one handed swords have the advantage of grappling or grabbing the opponents blade. Plus two hands means less reach therefore you need to compensate with more blade length along with longer hilt. Pain to wear.
I think the reason for treatises (and hard-ons) is the same as why we see so many longswords in movies. They are simply eye-catching even if not the more "effective"
I don't know now because I have also heard the same explanation that you're talking about, and that's the one I can actually back up. I think I had a professor that told me the other explanation, but it doesn't make as much sense. Also, I'm Canadian, I'm not sure what the U.S. Americans are taught, I think I just repeated incorrect information.
You can look it up for full detail in Wikipedia: search "dark ages historiography'. I'm British and we were taught that after the Romans left Britain, and before the Normans invaded, there was a period which was referred to as the "dark ages". The word "dark" carried lots of connotations: dark in that there were few written records; dark in that the civilising effect of Rome was lost; dark in that brutal Saxon and Viking raiders attacked our coasts; dark in that people worshipped "the old gods"; and so on. We now know a lot more about that period and understand that they were a lot more civilised and sophisticated than previously thought. We have also stopped using "dark ages" because it was felt that "dark" implied a judgement (the old idea that dark = bad). All of these terms are artificial. For example, "mediaeval" (US = medieval) refers to the "middle" (medi) age - but of course as time goes on, it will no longer be "in the middle" of anything. No one living at the time thought they were mediaeval; they believed they were modern. Every generation believes it is modern. The term "migration era" is descriptive and factual. The term "dark ages" is judgemental ad says more about "our" view of that period than about the period itself. The term "mediaeval" is subjective because it is "in the middle" between the Romans and "us". In 10,000 years, it will not be in the middle.
I think its true that term was created with a judgemental motive, but it doesn't mean it's not descriptive and factual. The civilization regress that happened after the fall of Rome is undeniable, and the best example of that is scarcity of written historical sources. The Dark Ages are a pretty much a blank page in history - we have way more sources even from early classical period that was 1000 years earlier. The problem with that term that I fully acknowledge is that it does kinda create false image for people who know little about medieval history. It creates a notion that people back then were particularly primitive, supersticious and just plain stupid. Not really though. It were just very chaotic times. In a vaccum left by fall of one the greatest empires in history, new kingdom were beeing literally build from scratch by tribes who travelled hundreds kilometers. For the record, I believe Dark Age to be period from 5th to 9th century, or even 8th.
I doubt it hurts anyone's feelings, but that was never the point. The age was indeed "dark" in many senses. The danger (which is too strong a word, but I'll use it) is that using a label that is based on a judgement (those times were dark, bad, benighted, etc.) might colour our perceptions and therefore we may think about it in the wrong way - just like by calling someone "the Great" we automatically focus our perceptions on their greatness and may fail to take full account of their weaknesses, failures, and the bad things they did. A non-historian, hearing the expression "dark ages" might make assumptions and never realise the beauty and complexity of their poetry and mythology, or learn about the exquisite gold and jewellery that was made. They may not appreciate the complexity and perfection of design of the Viking longship, or the subtleties of weapons and tactics, or the sophistication of their laws. Call a Viking a dark age barbarian and you visualise him as a hairy savage hacking at his foes with clumsy brutality. Call him an early medieval elite warrior and perhaps you see him in a wider and fairer context and gain a clearer understanding..
What you are all forgeting is that it was only Dark in Northern/Western Europe. In Greece and Italy, as well as Anatolia and the Islamic world, arts, sciences and technology kept advancing. The far east was also prosperous and this period was also important in Messo American history with Mayan conquests and what not. So the age itself wasnt dark at all, you Germanics were
Interesting stuff - Thanks! I can imagine individuals of many periods asking the blacksmith or other sword-maker to make an arming sword with a longer hilt just to change the balance a little bit. At what point anyone would attach a different designation to that type of sword, I'll leave to those who study that subject more seriously.
I think that longswords were used in defending the gates,bridges,walls,stairs, building entrence, and similar situations where you need to keep enemy away and they can't easily surround you. You can also use them when you are surrounded, you can draw them quick if you're ambushed and you need to fight at that moment. But primary weapon on battlefield, mostly NO.
To me it makes the most sense that they would be popular during a time when shields could be safely discarded in favour of full plate, which would further imply that they were specialized weapons used by the "elite." Then again, I'm basing this off a fairly jumbled memory of my European history, so take it for what it's worth. Cool video!
When it comes to King Arthur, surely anything goes including light sabres if it takes your fancy considering as most of it is mythical. May as well have tanks in Camelot while you are at it.
Except King Arthur is not a myth; it is a legend with a clear historical context and setting. In this case, 5th-6th century Britain during the initial Saxon invasions. Ideally, he should be carrying around a Celtic sword.
scholagladiatoria Huh. Funny enough, in another comment I mentioned the Spatha. I have researched the time period as much as I could, but I always can still be wrong. I do recall reading that Romano-British soldiers in post-roman Britain could still have had Celtic swords, though I can't remember where. But thanks for the correction.
I've actually been thinking of about this for a while. Can you do a video speculating on how people would fight in war vs fencing since most treatises are unarmored fencing? Were cuts completely negligible in war because even padded armour stops most cuts and weaker thrusts? How would most people be killed on the battlefield, and so on?
I was looking at Landsknechts in art and I noticed that most of them depicted with What I suppose might be called Zweihanders (are they or are these just long swords?) didn't have blades of the great length often brought up when mentioning them. They seem more like Long swords with grips large enough for three hands. Commonly they seemed to have a two handed space then a ridge to stop your hand slipping below. Then another one handed space, ending with the pommel. One imagines they'd have very good leverage in a melee. I'd be interested to to hear your or anyone else's clarification on these weapons.
Actually I'd love to hear your thoughts on when you think this projection began, of giving longswords a longer period and greater distribution and popularity than they had. Did the Victorians do this? It seems like it must be bound up with a broader medievalism in literature and art.
May be connected to the use of shields? Thanks for the video, Matt. Do you think may be a two handed sword could not possibly come about for as long as shields were a permanent fixture in the battlefield, because you need your left arm to carry the shield? Dissing the shield to fight two handed against a fellow wearing a shield and a regular sword would put you at a disadvantage despite the extra reach of your longer sword, right? The evolution of plate armor may then be to thank for the arrival of the two handed sword. When harnesses become so protective that you don’t need a shield anymore, your left hand is suddenly freed! When you were listing people who favored two handed swords, Swiss pikemen didn’t wear shields because they wielded their pikes two handed... city dwellers may not carry a shield around in their daily lives, but just a side weapon, which may give wielding a longer weapon an edge... I don’t know. It’s just a thought. What do you think?
So, would a plate-armored knight use a longsword? I know that it is shown alongside spear and buckler in treatises, but I have heard those are for judicial duels specifically. From your comparison to a rapier, it would seem that the longsword was *only* used as a dueling weapon?
Longswords are the predominant sword type shown in the armored fighting texts. But again, mostly as a sidearm. This is of course just going by the texts, which does give a narrow view of things. But swords really aren't the best thing for armored fighting though, a pollaxe is superior to get into armor. But a sword is easy to wear and versatile.
Nice thoughts Matt! With all this trend of HEMA etc. it's good that a scholar and practitioner makes the difference by pointing out the unexpected, that longswords where not so common! Apart from any historical value , such thoughts also encourage HEMA clubs to start practicing a little bit more other weapon combos...like 1-h sword & shield or axes vs shields...spears etc. Weapons used more in warfare and feel more "martial" perhaps than "fencing" arms and symbols of status.
HEMA clubs generally aren't interested in the weapons used in war, but in the weapons trained for in fencing clubs. They recreate how certain people certain places trained, based on the historical documentation they left behind. And it is not to stick under a chair that the longsword has some of the best written and most numerous treatsies about it. Military folk were not trained at clubs with a reading requirement, but by their drill sergeant (or whatever that position was called) where they were deployed. It is also worth mentioning that the best treatsies are from a period where fighting was either very drill based (rather than indivisual skill), sucha as in pike formations or duels (formal or informal). Those going to fencing practice were for the most part interested in the latter kind of fighting. Individual prowess being valued highly on the battlefield was more common at the time where we have very little documentation about how they fought. And it is only really reconstructions of how we think they fought based prior knowledge and hints in narrative text. It's a bit like reconstructing karate from kon-fu movies, when all you know is boxing. A very good attempt at recreating how vikings fight are being made by Roland Warcheca (Dimicator), I advise to check him out.
Oh but I have! Very good job both of him and testing drills with Thrand also. It is not bad I think, trying to reconstruct something based on common "material"... as long as it fits and you can apply solid principles from a fitting source. I don't think your example would be a good idea (kung-fu from boxing..) but Pugilism from boxing why not? As a hema practitioner myself I am just frustrated with all this fuss around clubs about accuracy and legitimacy. Roland's work might also not be accurate or "legitimate"...but it is still something, in overall..."stable". Don't know if you get my point...hope so. It's bad to limit something you call Historical and Martial...to "fencing" logic. That's all really...
Big question then: WHY was it preferred or liked among certain people in certain times? What is it that made it preferable above a sword&buckler combination? The longsword has advantages over regular swords in length and leverage, but what made it popular?
I think long swords were primarily battlefield weapons. At least in the same period that was the main purpose of the kriegsmessers which are basically long swords. They both pretty much died out when muskets became widespread.
Metallurgy and armor advances probably gave longswords more practically. Steel is hard to produce reliably back then and longer blades are less forgiving of flawed steel. And armor made shields less of a necessity.
"When you see a movie about "King Arthur" and people using longswords; that is totally freaking wrong!" Wait, does that mean Monty Python's King Arthur and the Holy Grail was now 100% accurate!
Very good video. At the longswords in Germany subject i'd like to add that Germany at the time is a lot of different countries united under one emporer, Italy, Austria, Parts of the Tschech republic, Poland, parts of France and the Core country of modern Germany were all at some point parts of the German empire. And every region had its own traditions and preferred weapons and swords. Or weapons if a similar type looked very differently depending on the regio. Just look at the late 16th early 17th century broadswords and backswords...
As I understand it, between Lichtenaeur and Meyer there's about 200 years (end of 14th to end of 16th century). And if Lichtenauer was a longsword master, it must have been used before him, same for being used after Meyer (otherwise who's paying him). So, to me that seems closer to 200-250 years (though it was used in war for considerably less time than that).
Well Meyer was basically the dusk of the longsword's days in everyday carry, as rapiers and sideswords started to become more prevalent. In fact, Meyer has an entire section dedicated to sidesword
some learn the new hot stuff, and other have a intrest in their grandfathers stuff. It´s not like it´s a hard start and a hard stop. crossbows was used well in to the 19th century for hunting, if not even longer and if they arn´t forced military tend to keep their weapon in inventories long after that a new model should have replaced them.
DaaaahWhoosh You can totally invent a weapon from scratch and become a master in its use yourself, not saying that's what Lichtenauer did, but to say that 'he was a master therefore someone must have come before him' is totally flawed logic.
I was actually very proud of the folks who did the "Underworld" vampire/werewolf movie franchise. The opening of the 2nd one is set in AD1202, and I remember thinking "oh no, get ready for the anachronistic longswords!". But I was pleasantly surprised to see that they at least made an effort at some historical accuracy- the swords were all single-handed, and, even though they were still a bit fantasy-ish(they literally cannot help themselves!), they weren't over-the-top. Now, if only polearms, especially spears, could receive some more attention!... Although, now that I watch it again, the armor is absolutely RIDICULOUS! Basically full plate harness in 1202!?!?🤣
Were armor-piercing swords like the Estoc used before the invention of full plate, or were they made specifically to deal with the mail in the gaps of it?
Mat.....Given what you've said about these swords, what sword in your opinion, enjoyed the longest continuous use and most widespread popularity throughout the middle ages overall?
Hi Matt, I just wanted to say that I found a link to your book on Amazon, Major Elliott's Art of Attack and Defence - but I only see it in print! Any chance you can make an e-book version? You've got thousands of fans who might be more than happy to fork over a few dollars to get your book, even if physical books are now overpriced and cumbersome and take days to deliver! If you digitalized it and included a link (even just a title) I think you might be pleasantly surprised by the bump in income! - Just a thought. I, for one, would love a copy!
This discussion makes me think, are there treatises discussing sword and buckler vs longsword ? If the arming sword was more popular than the longsword, then surely the longsword treatises would describe facing it ? (I know there are some describing how to face polearms for example)
Hey Matt, I have a question about armor. I understand that leather armor as commonly portrayed in movies and games did not really see use. However, would a moderatly thick layer of leather, thin enough to not impede movement, sewn to the outside of a gambeson add to it's defensive properties in any meaningful way? Or would it only really help with waterproofing the garment?
Yes, leather (particularly buff leather) is better at resisting penetration and protecting the linen or cotton from abrasion. For this reason fencing jackets were faced with it and some still are. Buff coats were very popular in the 17th century.
I think Mr. Easton has done a video or two on this. IIRC, the low end was a plain, beat-up but still functional sword, which could be gotten for a penny or two (bear in mind that a foot archer was paid about three pence a day in the early fifteenth century). The high end was probably the presentation swords commissioned by Henry V, which cost £2,000 each -- a significant fraction of England's annual revenue. As I say, anyone could afford a sword, if they were willing to settle for the late-medieval equivalent of a beater.
Спорт
"The fencing-guilds really had a hard-on for longswords"
Kind of like most HEMA clubs...
Can't blame HEMA clubs really. It's the only place you can spar and fence with swords of your choosing. Regular fencing is limited to very skinny and wobbly sabres/epees.
Nobody wants to buy bucklers. :'(
I know those feels :/
So true, I would like to train sword and shield, but there any in my town :P
There isn't really much on larger shields besides.
My Dungeons & Dragons Paladin wields a +3 Longsword of Context. His battle cry is "IT DEPENDS!"
*YARGGGGGHH! FOR THE CONTEEEEXT!*
D&D Longswords are closer to Arming Swords
@@aquamarinerose5405 Context!
your paladin sure is sound a lot like a lawyer
@@horsearcher6852 no lawers are no class in dnd they are from humans and households
Personally I think longswords back in the day may not have been as common as an arming sword. But I think they were popular kinda like a fancy car that all your friends would drool over. Because they were long,elegant and expensive.
The longer your phallic symbol is, the better!
Long, straight, and hard ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Not only fashion thing... I would always prefer longsword over e.g. armingsword and buckler... it has some obvious advantages...
The expensiveness probably being the distinguishing aspect. Same reason why the standard for the roman legions was the gladius. It's just simpler and cheaper to make.
@@Tkoutlosh an arming sword paired with a shild has a verry big advantage against a longsword
Thats why in buhurt you rarely see anyone use them
I think people confuse arming swords with longswords a lot.
D&D gets a lot of blame for this. And so much pop-culture versions of medieval combat is inspired by D&D. Of course the naming of swords isn't really a clear-cut thing.
My biggest pet peve. Or when they make longswords with blade length shorter than most arming swords.
to be fair the term longsword was used to describe different swords at different times. in the viking era an arming sword would have been the longest sword around, at least in Europe (the Chinese had had full length hand an a half longswords for several centuries by this point) so they would call it a longsword, or so i hear. D&D borrows heavily from Tolkien and Tolkien borrows heavily from Beowulf and the poetic eda so it's not surprising that viking era terms would show up in D&D
@@yamiyomizuki that’s complete speculation on your part. I doubt the word longsword appears in Beowulf and that connection seems very fragile.
Quick point=10 minutes long
For him that is short.
kokofan50 i know. Ive been around for a while.
That's why we like him
"You have to do it 10 minutes!" (Pewds, 2k16)
Alistair Shaw Longswords usually are a bit top-heavy, I suppose their points aren't that quick
In all fairness, when you see a movie about King Arthur, from an historical perspective, that is totally frigging wrong regardless.
Yes, that is true. But the historical context around the legends of King Arthur is a 5th-6th century Romano-Brittonic king, so he shouldn't even be using an arming sword, let alone a longsword. He should be using either a Celtic sword or a Roman spatha (which is basically a roman copy of a Celtic sword).
EDIT: It turns out I might be wrong about him using a Celtic sword.
While the historical context is that of 5th-6th century Britain, gross anachronisms go back at least as far as Malory - who does not even place the story in a specific period. For example, Malory describes medieval tournaments as well as medieval tactics in battle (cavalry dominated, and with couched lances). An anachronistic approach to history was pretty much the norm until the 16th-18th centuries, which we see not only in art (Biblical scenes with characters wearing armour contemporary to the artist), but in literature as well - such as Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur.
Therefore, if we have no problem with le Morte d'Arthur, we shouldn't really have a problem with later anachronisms either. When it comes to Arthurian legends, I really have no problem with longswords, crossbows or gothic plate. If it is based on Malory, the setting is a fictional Britain at an undisclosed time, so anything from the 5th century and right up to the end of the 15th century is kosher as far as I'm concerned.
Gilmaris Yes!!!! Thank you. King Arthur is almost total fantasy, & if anything, the classic medieval setting is most appropriate as that's when the stories come from.
I'd like to see a King Arthur set in modernish times, maybe as a 19th century Western. That's the latest historical period that's fully mythologised.
Wizards were only commonly seen from about 200 BC to 100 AD, but even then they were less common than primordial water spirits.
I love that you mentioned the longsword made in 1198. I bought a replica of that sword specifically because its such a historical oddity
I see a new video from Scholagladiatoria and I stop what I am doing to watch!
makes sense...if you are going to walk around with a side-arm, you don't want to carry something bigger and longer then you have to. it would be a nuisance.
Exactly.
For some reason, that thought never crossed my mind.
You can't compare guns to swords dumb ass
gambeson Gauntlets you mean Oven mitts?
You can quite see how smart someone in how he handles, in this case potential, criticism. I absolutely like how he reacted to the one he thought of.
Matt, do you sell a shirt that says "context" on it? A really nice shirt that I can wear at work, possibly with Mattface framed by "it's all about context" or something. I need it bro. WE need it. Hook us up, please.
We also need a shirt with his face saying “I love the Butt!”
And on this same website, we need all of his "Super Dry" shirts too!
Like an OBEY image but Matt and CONTEXT
I really like long swords not because I think they were widely used or even very common in the middle ages. I like them because I think they are just so cool. Also I think that replica you are holding in this video is an awesome looking example
More videos like this, please! What was the cultural context of swords, like now, who used them, but more importantly, how did people regard swords and swordsmen in their era. Japan has a load of info on this with the romantization of the katana and the samurai, but I haven't seen anything on, say, from the people who belonged to the fencing guilds you mentioned here.
Always knew their rareness (where are the longswordmen in medieval total war 2, for example), so this video really ties things together (they're rare because they were popular for barely any time at all, if ever they were).
My HEMA group had a "backstage" event in the Solinger Klingenmuseum, THAT place to be for german and general blade weapons. A professor guided us around and we had the chance of having a close view and even test historical originals. So of course we asked the museum to show us original longswords of type XVa or XVIIIb of the oakeshott types. The professor was sorry to inform us that there are just few originals left in germany and the museum had NONE of that type in their hands.the professor told us that they were not used so often as it seems. So it seems to be true.
Can we have a video on the evolution and use of artillery in late medieval times (1300-1500)
After all these years this is still my favorite channel on youtube.
Thanks Matt, this is something I've been wondering about for a while. Keep it up bro
This was brought up as a topic of discussion on the Face Book HEMA Alliance forum literally less than 24 hours ago. Great timing Matt!
Always such good information, keep up the great work!
This is a fantastic video, thanks so much Matt.
Popular for 1d8 years.
I think there is a correlation between the popularity of longsword and the introduction of full plate armor. Since most, if not all, part of the body is essentially protected with the full plate armor, this opens up the other hand from holding a shield to helping the weapon hand. Ofcourse, there is more points to this, I think its just something to think about. . .
Exactly. Without full plate, a shield is a far better use of the off hand. 🙌
Re: longswords -- and their turning up in treatises -- could it be argued that the very existence of specialized treatises indicates a weapon is not "the standard" but an exception for which special teaching is needed? (leaving aside later military treatises like sabre where the treatise seemed to be written to instruct a body of soldiers at once)?
Very informative, thanks for educating .
The most notable early example I can think of of medieval longsword-use is probably Manfred of Sicily’s mounted, coat-of-plates-wearing German Mercenaries at the Battle of Benevento in 1266; they were operating in a pretty specialized role, and suffered a pretty conspicuous rout specifically due to being forced into a close-range engagement with an enemy wielding arming swords. Of course, the Siculo-Normans always had a pretty avant-garde setup, given how far-flung their territories were at their height, so one was potentially likelier to encounter an Islamic Sabre or Scimitar than a longsword in an Italian Hohenstaufen or Hauteville army
Really nice vids. This one and the one about amount of polish on medieval swords.
My thoughts excatly on both topics, but nice to hear them from you :D haha
I'm very glad you made that point about the polarizing opinions. There's too much we don't know to make so many broad statements
Thank you for your work.
But King Arthur using lighting magic in a fight... that's historically correct right?
Difícil que el chancho chifle.
I
Matt, I think you hit it spot on. One thing I realized afterwards is that the masters that wrote the treatises utilizing the longsword as their central weapon system actually did accomplish what they set out to do; albeit several centuries later than intended. Today the longsword is the central weapon system for HEMA. I think most everyone starts out with the longsword prior to moving on to sword & buckler, sabre, or even rapier.
It makes you wonder how or even if history would have been remarkably changed if the longsword had been as popular in the medieval times as it is now.
Woo! Medieval swords! Not that I haven't enjoyed your later period videos but I love all things medieval.
Another excellent video.
Revolvers were popular for roughly the same amount of time as longswords and rapiers. I think weapons being iconic and romanticized also requires a relatively brief period of use during "epic" historical periods.
Matt I would love to see you do a video on the Obsidian swords(Macuahuitl)used by the Aztecs and other native tribes of Mexico
Larold It is far less a sword in the European sence than a flat wooden club with a series of razor blades on its "edges" Or more like an elongated entrenching tool modified for CQB WW1 style.
But still sounds like an awesome vid. Both to give this nightmare of metal-free devastation exposure, and to show why HEMA doesn't cover indigenous American weapons. (Bowie knives are still basically European. Their materials, construction, and design are adaptations of European knives.)
HEMA doesn't cover indigenous American weapons for the same reason it doesn't cover katanas. It's Historical European Martial Arts, surely non-European weapons have different martial arts.
@ZubjectX: .... So? How is that relevant? Who says that Scholagladitoria only covers HEMA? He has done videos about Chinese, Filipino, and Middle Eastern weapons, which are not HEMA either.
It was in reply to "why HEMA doesn't cover indigenous American weapons." rather than to the original comment, I didn't put an @ in there.
And it would be a great contrast to other weapons. I would love to see it, but I dont know where he would find one.
Long swords (two words) are described as the standard side arm for Hungarian cavalrymen (what we'd now call light or medium cavalry) in 1350 by Matteo Villani as well. (Whether that indicates a longer sabre or a longer sword, completely ambiguous). Also, totally agree with your hypothesis.
Would be great to see a video on jousting stuff. Types of lances used, armor(Froghelms are just awesome) and even horses and point system!
AFAIK, longswords, specifically "montantes" Spanish voice, this is, the kind of two handed sword we see in movies like two handed Aragorn's sword Anduril and similar swords, were duel and civil swords, not war swords, and happened the same in warfare.
Putting aside that swords were less used in war than what people tend to think (for several reasons, like they were more difficult to use in a formation that spears and that in individual combat they were less useful in war than maces), if you were going to use a sword in the war, it would be a sword that let you use a shield, to avoid yourself being hacked down to easily. For this reason, bastard swords of not much weight and length were quite more used in war than two handed sword, since they could be used both two handed and one handed, and was easier to find a gap in the armor due to a swifter tip, much pointy.
Arguably, the raise of two-handed sword up to certain degree might happen due to two reasons. The first one is the war was way more organized at the mid-end of 14th century, with much more professional armies composed by man at arms and low nobility and less high nobility in the field, and also, less wars overall, or smaller scale ones. Generally speaking, this favored quite more the individual combat instead of the moving of big armies with a lot of troops that needed a lot of coordination, and specially between nobles. Duels became more common, be it to settle down a battle or specially for honor reasons, and a sword with so much range is more useful in a duel than a short sword and a shield, which is way more useful in formation or in a situation were you can be hit from anywhere, but in a duel, lack of range become crucial. Also, in terms of warfare, arguably they might be their use slightly increased due to the appearance of plate armor. The increase of protection might be a reason for high nobles that were commanding forces to wear two-handed swords in battle. Simply put, they would be moving tanks if they ever (rarely) had to enter combat, and if they did, they would probably be when formation was already broken, and in a more individual combat context, with a lot of the troops already dead 9r incapacitated, and so, less possibility of being surrounded, etc, in a situation were range and superior protection would prove superiority.
We've got to have in mind that not everyone could afford themselves plate mail and a well made longsword, which was also a factor, a good craft with well balance, and those who could probably wouldn't be on the first lane of battle, they would be commanding probably since wealth was heavily tied to your noble and/or militar position (which were many or most of times also tied).
After this initial popularity between nobles, creating a "trend" probably "common folks" who could afford it bought one ("" is because common folks who could afford a good sword weren't that common), and with gradually improvement of crafting arts, longswords became more affordable and accesible to the increasing burgueoise of the free cities and more wealthy soldiers, that with the increase of smaller scale wars and more situations of individual fights, saw probably a good alternative on this kind of swords for civil situations of self defense or small skirmishes that encouraged more individual fights rather than big formations and a lot of troop moving.
Seemingly, something similar happens with katana in Japan, which is more or less the same size than longswords according to the smaller size of Japan people. Both weapons were burders and symbol of honor since both were duel weapons used to defend that honor, while wakizashi was the weapon symbolizing duty and honor aswell since it was the weapon to commit seppuku (Aka hara kiri).
And this is quite much my particular interpretation of why and how could two-handed sword raise to a moderate degree of popularity. Note that longswords were probably way more expensive than shorter swords, due to two main reasons, the first and more obvious is that they needed more metal (usually, if not always, steel) to be made, and second one that there was less common to do one, being initially less popular, there were less Smithers knowing how to do one and making it, and even less doing a polished one, although this second thing became less of a reason the more common they became, yet still a reason. Probably this two things aswell as the limited uses the sword had, kept them from growing more in popularity, being the Messer and even the two handed Messer (less common) a way more common weapon between common folks and man at arms, aswell as all kind of one handed swords. All in all, although maybe less proficient than longswords in the specific situations that it had advantage, were usable weapons nonetheless, and were more proficient in other situations longswords wouldn't. For a soldier not very wealthy that couldn't afford many weapons and even more such a specific and expensive one (who were many and probably most) , the one handed sword (of any type) was the way to go.
Correct me Matt (or anyone else) if I made any misinterpretation of history here, of hows and whys of the topic.
Salutes!!
That longswords and full plate should coincide in time makes a lot of sense. If you don't need a shield any more because your armour is good enough to make it redundant, you'll look for a sidearm that gives you a bit of extra reach you can only afford because you've got both hands free. At the same time, a causal relationship would mean that only those who could afford good plate would actually shift to longswords, which would become prestigious but not too common weapons. As those people would have been the same as those who could afford fencing manuals and fencing schools, the literature would end up giving more attention to them than they would merit by sheer percentage of swords around.
That's not true, even with plate armor, you never want to get hit, a 1.5 kilogram hunk of steel hitting your encased head will give you a concussion, polearms were mostly used in formations not to hit your comrades and because it was a fantastic weapon for the wealthy lads who could afford it, but shields were always a good and prevalent choice.
Yeah, you still don't want to get hit. But arrows, unless they're fired at point-blank range, become much less of a threat, as do glancing blows. Meanwhile, you may parry direct blows from close-range weapons. The balance of the trade-off between additional protection from carrying a shield and greater range from using a two-handed sword shifts in favour of the latter, at least as long as you can afford top-notch armour. You will still want to keep your foe at the kind of distance where a sword is useless, so longer swords won't replace polearms. But you're suddenly able to carry a sidearm, a fallback weapon, that gives you greater range and striking force, plus halfswording capacity, that sword-and-shield cannot afford. Plus, your carrying that kind of weapon in civilian life communicates that you're wealthy and cool/badass enough not to need a shield.
Of course, if you can't afford really good plate armour you'll prefer a sidearm that's easily combined with a shield because arrows and glancing blows are still so much of a threat that ten or fifteen, even twenty-five, extra centimetres of range won't tip the scales.
That's kinda the point I was trying to make.
It is not only a range though, the two handed leverage is also a factor here.
There is also a thing that the longsword is also especially popular on the european plain - in archeological record for Bohemia, East Germany and Poland, most common find is Type XVIa, followed by XIIIa and XII, with shorter sword blades being sidelined and the likes of short XV or XVIII almost absent. (though whole record is about 450 pieces for X-XV century so not substantial. Still half of them for 500 year time are definitely long types). At that time we are talking horse-centric culture in the whole area.
Finally getting around to seeing this! When I considered the problem of weapon popularity I took a look at some period painting from the area I am interested in, 15th Century Italy.
In the streetscape of the burning of Savonarola the only people armed are clearly doing crowd control. More than half of them are wearing swords which strike me as being of the right proportion to be longswords. However all are worn as sideams; every guard in the piazza carries a polearm and none have sword drawn.
In the famous 15th Century portrait of the Gonzaga family in the Palazzo Ducale in Mantua, only one man is shown wearing a sword; one suspects illustrating his status as a knight. The rest of the men carry bollocks daggers, some of surprising length but still clearly examples of the type.
I have Muir's Mad Blood Stirring on my reread soon list. It follows a vendetta in early 16th century Venice, and makes a serious point about the New Manners of challenge and duel normalizing sword carrying and displacing the 15th century practice of stabbing your enemies by surprise at Easter mass. ;)
I have not seen any discussion beyond Muir of that bit of timing; it aligns well with other cultural shifts but I would like your thoughts on why gentlemen began to wear swords under normal circumstances if in fact it is not just a fiction.
Another excellent video. It's important to try to get the truth (at least as much as we can know it) out there with this kind of thing. I definitely feel like anyone who attempts to delve into the reality of swords and swordsmanship in the Middle Ages and teach it to others is bound to face an uphill struggle. Misconceptions abound, mainly due to the ubiquity of "Medievalesque" fantasy nowadays. Far too many take what they see there and try to apply it to the historical past. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy fantasy just as much as the next guy. I'm a huge fan of The Witcher, Dragon Age, and LOTR (to name but a few) BUT I always make it a priority to remember that while these works of fantasy are clearly inspired by actual history, they are certainly NOT actual history. I feel like this line between fantasy and history becomes blurred far too easily so it's definitely good to see videos like this.
PS: I do realize I'm probably preaching to the choir here with this, but those are my thoughts.
The thing I like that Matt touches on here is how some have argued (I have ran into this too) that longswords were used during post Norman Period and the Crusades period of the middle ages. I think its important to distinguish, however, the differences of what would become known as a Longsword from the Great Sword of War. This is me actually agreeing with and expanding on Matt's point. Longswords, and indeed most popular styles of sword at a particular time were status symbols and as such most likely expensive to make in the quality demanded by the upper class. It should also be noted that while the longsword was popular with many different people at different times the Longsword is a transitional weapon brought about by various reasons. I don't think its unrealistic to say that the longsword was more than likely much more rare than single handed weapons.
Hi Matt - what do you know about claymores (the two handed massive kind, not the basket hilted broadsword)? I'd like to see a video on them - when were they used, by who, in what context etc? Thanks!
Hi,
Matt, I fully agree with you. Also, IMHO longsword appearance/popularity was connected to the armor evolution. With a full plate armor there was lesser need for a shield, as armor itself gave you very good protection. This resulted in demand of a sword with longer reach (plus using a longsword with two hands doesn’t tire you as much as using a sword with one hand), and here it was, the longsword.
I imagine that a lot of fencing treatises cover longsword so extensively because longswords were often owned by wealthy people who could afford to buy fencing treatises.
It's almost like historical people had as much of an affection for long swords as modern people do.
Rapiers and longswords do look very cool.
It is always an interesting subject on "why do we only have treatises on such and such?" and why does that make them seem more popular? I would suggest one of the main reason's is what you mentioned at the end of the video, Matt. That they are specialist weapons. You could argue that weapons like the longsword and rapier are capable of many more variations of technique and complications than, say, an arming sword. 1) This leads to why someone would write a 'how to' manual 2) Also why a master would write and focus on them, so they could charge for their services and knowledge about a 'true fighter's weapon that demands more skill and technical knowledge. 3) People being people, no matter the age they live in, want to show off. So these more niche weapons get hyped by the people who study them and practice with them. Still happens today in unarmed today. It's not simply jiu jutsu, it's a certain lineage etc etc
That seems like a fairly reasonable estimate....good topic!!!
My two cents here: I believe that longswords are popular among modern day sword enthusiasts because the most popular medieval period among medieval enthusiasts is, imho, the late 14th and (mostly) 15th century (due to fantasy settings popularity), when this type of sword was quite common.
It occurs to me that the relative prevalence of treatise on longsword & rapier might have something to do with the advent of printing (making it easier to produce books) & the relative rareness of the swords (they're not widely used, so masters are difficult to find so you might want to detail their use in a more portable form).
Matt,
Could you do a video about the use of the longsword against armored vs. unarmored opponents? I've tried to do some research, but I know I'm just scratching the surface. Against unarmored opponents, it seems to be cuts and thrusts, but in armored fighting, it seems the sword is more of a grappling tool to immobilize or force an opponent to the ground where halfsword techniques are used to get the point into gaps in the armor.
Hi.
I notice you handle the blade of your swords ALOT while barehanded. Don't you worry about rust?
How do you protect them normally?
Thanks I really appreciate you taking the time to do these vids
That Video was indeed helpful! Although I thought for myself the longswords weren'T incrredibly common, my reasons were to some extent wrong.
I believed it was (mostly) a noblemans sword, being quite surprised to hear that in germany it was popular among the "normal" people. And the relative short lifespan of the popularity seems to have evaded my knowledge as well.
Thank you.
Sports cars are very popular. But they are never the majority. For archers, civilians, and spearmen, a one handed sword is a better secondary weapon.
Archers are actually one of the groups that used longswords extensively. I refer of course to the ordinances of Luis the Bold of Burgundy in the 1470's (IIRC). There he stipulates the organisation and armament of his new armies. What stuck out to me was that the archers (or was it the crossbowmen, they kinda blended more together in reality than the ordinances) were required to be armed with a longsword, in addition to the long knife (I kinda assumes a messer kind of thing, but it might be more of a rondel/bollock dagger) everyone was carrying. The piqueneerso n the other hand carried bucklers for close combat.
Incidentily it is the piqueneers in Switzerland that typically carries longswords, not the archers.
That's a very specific video.
Hi Matt! Quick question: why would you choose a longsword over sword and buckler? I know the longsword has superior speed and leverage, but having a buckler just seems to be such a massive advantage. And then the shorter sword is also easier to carry.
Do you think changing conditions on the battlefield had an influence on what people carried as civilians (for lack of a more appropriate term)? So basically, when people wore mail, they would have used a shield and so a one-handed side arm makes sense, and with sword and buckler you had a similar weapon set for civilian use. Whereas, if you were a nobleman in later medieval times and owned plate armour, you wouldn't use a shield and therefore your sidearm of choice would be a longsword, which you could also carry as a civilian. Which would probably make sense regarding training (limitting the number of different techniques you need to master)...
Or is there more to it?
This is a very big question which I could make more than one video about, but in short I would say: The longsword and sword & buckler appear roughly equal in a one-on-one duel. We use them frequently against each other and they often face each other in competitions. The results indicate that they are more or less equal, just with different strengths and weaknesses.
thanks!
One thing that people forget when considering this match-up is that a buckler is an excellent defensive weapon, but it is also extraordinarily predictable (intercept an attack, bind hard, wind strong, unlikely to disengage). An inexperienced fencer will be stymied by it, but an experienced one will tend to treat it as just another obstacle to account for, or even a weakness to be exploited (there are many historical tactics and techniques designed for use against a predictable fencer who parries too strongly).
i'm curious, in your experience how long does it take someone to become an experienced fencer, or at lest experienced enough to counter a buckler like that? I'm familiar with the concept but have a hard time pulling it off in sparring.
Also in the context of a contemporary match off as a knight with access to a set of plate armour I'll take the long sword all day. Even if bucklerdouche has plate too. So I would agree with Matt in one on one 'unarmoured' duel they are broadly equal but at the time overall and as a battlefield sidearm I feel the Longsword is just better.
It is absolutely fascinating how analogous this is to modern gun culture in the United States. If you go to any shooting school, nearly everyone will be using a full size or mid size handgun of good quality, and it will usually be very optimized. In firearms media, everyone does the same. In practice, the vast majority carry something very small, lightweight, cheap, and all together different from what is portrayed. “There is nothing new under the sun”.
Hi Matt, I've been playing the Viking Conquest expansion for Mount and Blade lately and in some cases, I've been given a spear and shield to fight another opponent armed with spear/axe/sword and shield. I'm curious, would you personally want the shield as a spear user in a duel, or would you drop the shield to have both hands on the weapon and have more control?
Matt, one of the questions that was part of this recent debate on the HEMA Alliance forum was whether or not a knight or man-at-arms who owned a longsword would wear or carry it out of harness and off the battlefield (out tournament grounds) as a sort of "daily driver" or would they have carried an arming sword day-to-day and reserved the longsword as a piece of "battlefield" kit like a pollaxe, mace, harness, destrier, etc. In terms of time period and geography I'm primarily interested in the mid 14th to early 15th century in Italy. Any thoughts?
Excellent video.
I’ve read accounts that in the Burgundian army of the late 15th century, the standard equipment for longbowmen (many of them English mercenaries) included 2-handed longswords as secondary weapons.
To take one specific period and class of person, how common would it be for an English man at arms of the 15th century to have a longsword as their main sidearm?
I am under the impression that mounted English men-at-arms typically carried falchions to cut down lightly armoured targets. Wich is the role I believe that a longsword would serve in such a mans loadout. Then of cuorse they would have tools to deal with other armoured opponents like any other gendarme, like hammers, picks and such.
finally, a *whole video* about just CONTEXT!
In my research on northern rus armor, I found a few mentions that seems to point to the presence of some longswords in 1240. For longsword use, I think that armor is a big player and in the Rus they wore lots of lamellars with maille under or scale to replace lamellar if they were dedicated foot soldiers (wiith enough money for armor), in fact the rus people had the reputation to be over armored for a long time. That over armored style the rus had is the reason in my opinion that there most likely were longswords used in sufficient number to be drawn and mentioned in the 1240 in the northern rus (still way more in the 1300's and 1400's though).
In my opinion the Longsword is not a very good self-defense weapon, except when you´re wearing armor. You can´t defend against projectiles, you are always open on one side. I think that a buckler in combination with a shorter sword makes a more reliable choice. And on the battlefield a shield is always a better option IF you are not wearing heavy armor. Not to mention that a longer sword is usually more expensive and uncomfortable to carry around. So for me it wouldn´t be a surprise if they weren´t that common in the middle ages.
it wasnt abt self defence...its like a burgher's sophisticated duelling weapon that kinda also looks somewhat noble and knightly. That's my take on it
you're not going to defend against projectiles with a buckler tho, you need a full shield for that. In a civillian self defence context, where you're probs not going around with a shield, the longsword is pretty decent. You're fucked if someone attacks with with a crossbow or bow, but again, in a civillian context your fucked anyway since your probs niether armoured nor shielded. As a singular piece of equipment for self defence, it's pretty good against most things. Rapiers are better, but you have a fighting chance with a longsword against them in you can parry and engage in grappling. longswords are amazing versitile, you can use them to get to a clinch, but can also choose to keep distance,you can use them against armour through half swording for accuracy against weakpoints and using the crossguard as a blunt truma weapon, you have great slashing abilty against unarmoured opponents. it's real problem is that is an amazing general weapon, but for any specialised purpose there are better options
@@internetenjoyer1044 Horse archers used bucklers to block arrows actually, you do know most people aim for centre of mass? Longswords are for men at arms in full plate or the rich man with an arsenal picking one for a judicial duel. IT is not the regular self defence weapon. The weapon set of the medieval period was sword and buckler or dagger. If you are going to praise the longsword so much, go and carry it all day everyday for the next year and tell me how it goes. And your thoughts on this superior weapon.
@@chroma6947 It makes sense for horse archers to get a much protection as they can. they cant use a shield, so they use a buckler. that hardly means that a buckler is going to block arrows as a matter of course, especially not in a civillian setting when someone will be aiming for your specifically and you wont have armour. The sword and buckler is a perfectly good weapon, the longsword was as well. I didnt make a judgement as to what the best was
@@internetenjoyer1044 it was a good weapon in full plate. Outside of that you were being suicidal. Even one handed swords have the advantage of grappling or grabbing the opponents blade. Plus two hands means less reach therefore you need to compensate with more blade length along with longer hilt. Pain to wear.
Likely due to their size and lack of ability to block arrows or thrown weapons. Plus a shield is nice to stop polearms etc.
I think the reason for treatises (and hard-ons) is the same as why we see so many longswords in movies.
They are simply eye-catching even if not the more "effective"
Dear Sir: Could you please make a video describing why the Dark Ages is a misnomer, and how the idea of the Dark Ages came about? Thank you.
I don't know now because I have also heard the same explanation that you're talking about, and that's the one I can actually back up. I think I had a professor that told me the other explanation, but it doesn't make as much sense.
Also, I'm Canadian, I'm not sure what the U.S. Americans are taught, I think I just repeated incorrect information.
You can look it up for full detail in Wikipedia: search "dark ages historiography'. I'm British and we were taught that after the Romans left Britain, and before the Normans invaded, there was a period which was referred to as the "dark ages". The word "dark" carried lots of connotations: dark in that there were few written records; dark in that the civilising effect of Rome was lost; dark in that brutal Saxon and Viking raiders attacked our coasts; dark in that people worshipped "the old gods"; and so on. We now know a lot more about that period and understand that they were a lot more civilised and sophisticated than previously thought. We have also stopped using "dark ages" because it was felt that "dark" implied a judgement (the old idea that dark = bad). All of these terms are artificial. For example, "mediaeval" (US = medieval) refers to the "middle" (medi) age - but of course as time goes on, it will no longer be "in the middle" of anything. No one living at the time thought they were mediaeval; they believed they were modern. Every generation believes it is modern. The term "migration era" is descriptive and factual. The term "dark ages" is judgemental ad says more about "our" view of that period than about the period itself. The term "mediaeval" is subjective because it is "in the middle" between the Romans and "us". In 10,000 years, it will not be in the middle.
I think its true that term was created with a judgemental motive, but it doesn't mean it's not descriptive and factual. The civilization regress that happened after the fall of Rome is undeniable, and the best example of that is scarcity of written historical sources. The Dark Ages are a pretty much a blank page in history - we have way more sources even from early classical period that was 1000 years earlier.
The problem with that term that I fully acknowledge is that it does kinda create false image for people who know little about medieval history. It creates a notion that people back then were particularly primitive, supersticious and just plain stupid. Not really though. It were just very chaotic times. In a vaccum left by fall of one the greatest empires in history, new kingdom were beeing literally build from scratch by tribes who travelled hundreds kilometers.
For the record, I believe Dark Age to be period from 5th to 9th century, or even 8th.
I doubt it hurts anyone's feelings, but that was never the point. The age was indeed "dark" in many senses. The danger (which is too strong a word, but I'll use it) is that using a label that is based on a judgement (those times were dark, bad, benighted, etc.) might colour our perceptions and therefore we may think about it in the wrong way - just like by calling someone "the Great" we automatically focus our perceptions on their greatness and may fail to take full account of their weaknesses, failures, and the bad things they did. A non-historian, hearing the expression "dark ages" might make assumptions and never realise the beauty and complexity of their poetry and mythology, or learn about the exquisite gold and jewellery that was made. They may not appreciate the complexity and perfection of design of the Viking longship, or the subtleties of weapons and tactics, or the sophistication of their laws. Call a Viking a dark age barbarian and you visualise him as a hairy savage hacking at his foes with clumsy brutality. Call him an early medieval elite warrior and perhaps you see him in a wider and fairer context and gain a clearer understanding..
What you are all forgeting is that it was only Dark in Northern/Western Europe. In Greece and Italy, as well as Anatolia and the Islamic world, arts, sciences and technology kept advancing. The far east was also prosperous and this period was also important in Messo American history with Mayan conquests and what not. So the age itself wasnt dark at all, you Germanics were
Interesting stuff - Thanks!
I can imagine individuals of many periods asking the blacksmith or other sword-maker to make an arming sword with a longer hilt just to change the balance a little bit. At what point anyone would attach a different designation to that type of sword, I'll leave to those who study that subject more seriously.
Can you do a video on Italian longsword techniques and the history of it?? I would like to know your opinions on it!
I think that longswords were used in defending the gates,bridges,walls,stairs, building entrence, and similar situations where you need to keep enemy away and they can't easily surround you. You can also use them when you are surrounded, you can draw them quick if you're ambushed and you need to fight at that moment. But primary weapon on battlefield, mostly NO.
To me it makes the most sense that they would be popular during a time when shields could be safely discarded in favour of full plate, which would further imply that they were specialized weapons used by the "elite." Then again, I'm basing this off a fairly jumbled memory of my European history, so take it for what it's worth. Cool video!
and those who wished to be seen as being wealthy enough to join the elite
When it comes to King Arthur, surely anything goes including light sabres if it takes your fancy considering as most of it is mythical. May as well have tanks in Camelot while you are at it.
Except King Arthur is not a myth; it is a legend with a clear historical context and setting. In this case, 5th-6th century Britain during the initial Saxon invasions. Ideally, he should be carrying around a Celtic sword.
There is no such thing as a 'celtic sword' at this period. In the 6th century Romano-British warriors would have carried a form of Spatha.
scholagladiatoria Huh. Funny enough, in another comment I mentioned the Spatha. I have researched the time period as much as I could, but I always can still be wrong. I do recall reading that Romano-British soldiers in post-roman Britain could still have had Celtic swords, though I can't remember where. But thanks for the correction.
Now I want a post apoc King Arthur film where the Knights operate a tank company.
or a migration era sword
I've actually been thinking of about this for a while. Can you do a video speculating on how people would fight in war vs fencing since most treatises are unarmored fencing? Were cuts completely negligible in war because even padded armour stops most cuts and weaker thrusts? How would most people be killed on the battlefield, and so on?
Are there any books you can recommend that take on the topic of the lifespan of various swords throughout the eras?
I was looking at Landsknechts in art and I noticed that most of them depicted with What I suppose might be called Zweihanders (are they or are these just long swords?) didn't have blades of the great length often brought up when mentioning them. They seem more like Long swords with grips large enough for three hands. Commonly they seemed to have a two handed space then a ridge to stop your hand slipping below. Then another one handed space, ending with the pommel. One imagines they'd have very good leverage in a melee. I'd be interested to to hear your or anyone else's clarification on these weapons.
Actually I'd love to hear your thoughts on when you think this projection began, of giving longswords a longer period and greater distribution and popularity than they had. Did the Victorians do this? It seems like it must be bound up with a broader medievalism in literature and art.
May be connected to the use of shields?
Thanks for the video, Matt. Do you think may be a two handed sword could not possibly come about for as long as shields were a permanent fixture in the battlefield, because you need your left arm to carry the shield? Dissing the shield to fight two handed against a fellow wearing a shield and a regular sword would put you at a disadvantage despite the extra reach of your longer sword, right? The evolution of plate armor may then be to thank for the arrival of the two handed sword. When harnesses become so protective that you don’t need a shield anymore, your left hand is suddenly freed! When you were listing people who favored two handed swords, Swiss pikemen didn’t wear shields because they wielded their pikes two handed... city dwellers may not carry a shield around in their daily lives, but just a side weapon, which may give wielding a longer weapon an edge... I don’t know. It’s just a thought. What do you think?
So, would a plate-armored knight use a longsword? I know that it is shown alongside spear and buckler in treatises, but I have heard those are for judicial duels specifically. From your comparison to a rapier, it would seem that the longsword was *only* used as a dueling weapon?
No, it was used in war, but as a sidearm.
Longswords are the predominant sword type shown in the armored fighting texts. But again, mostly as a sidearm. This is of course just going by the texts, which does give a narrow view of things. But swords really aren't the best thing for armored fighting though, a pollaxe is superior to get into armor. But a sword is easy to wear and versatile.
Nice thoughts Matt!
With all this trend of HEMA etc. it's good that a scholar and practitioner makes the difference by pointing out the unexpected, that longswords where not so common!
Apart from any historical value , such thoughts also encourage HEMA clubs to start practicing a little bit more other weapon combos...like 1-h sword & shield or axes vs shields...spears etc. Weapons used more in warfare and feel more "martial" perhaps than "fencing" arms and symbols of status.
HEMA clubs generally aren't interested in the weapons used in war, but in the weapons trained for in fencing clubs. They recreate how certain people certain places trained, based on the historical documentation they left behind. And it is not to stick under a chair that the longsword has some of the best written and most numerous treatsies about it. Military folk were not trained at clubs with a reading requirement, but by their drill sergeant (or whatever that position was called) where they were deployed. It is also worth mentioning that the best treatsies are from a period where fighting was either very drill based (rather than indivisual skill), sucha as in pike formations or duels (formal or informal). Those going to fencing practice were for the most part interested in the latter kind of fighting.
Individual prowess being valued highly on the battlefield was more common at the time where we have very little documentation about how they fought. And it is only really reconstructions of how we think they fought based prior knowledge and hints in narrative text. It's a bit like reconstructing karate from kon-fu movies, when all you know is boxing. A very good attempt at recreating how vikings fight are being made by Roland Warcheca (Dimicator), I advise to check him out.
Oh but I have! Very good job both of him and testing drills with Thrand also. It is not bad I think, trying to reconstruct something based on common "material"... as long as it fits and you can apply solid principles from a fitting source. I don't think your example would be a good idea (kung-fu from boxing..) but Pugilism from boxing why not? As a hema practitioner myself I am just frustrated with all this fuss around clubs about accuracy and legitimacy. Roland's work might also not be accurate or "legitimate"...but it is still something, in overall..."stable". Don't know if you get my point...hope so. It's bad to limit something you call Historical and Martial...to "fencing" logic. That's all really...
Big question then: WHY was it preferred or liked among certain people in certain times? What is it that made it preferable above a sword&buckler combination? The longsword has advantages over regular swords in length and leverage, but what made it popular?
I think long swords were primarily battlefield weapons. At least in the same period that was the main purpose of the kriegsmessers which are basically long swords. They both pretty much died out when muskets became widespread.
Metallurgy and armor advances probably gave longswords more practically. Steel is hard to produce reliably back then and longer blades are less forgiving of flawed steel. And armor made shields less of a necessity.
"When you see a movie about "King Arthur" and people using longswords; that is totally freaking wrong!"
Wait, does that mean Monty Python's King Arthur and the Holy Grail was now 100% accurate!
I feel we need a similar video talking about the popularity of the rapier!
Very good video. At the longswords in Germany subject i'd like to add that Germany at the time is a lot of different countries united under one emporer, Italy, Austria, Parts of the Tschech republic, Poland, parts of France and the Core country of modern Germany were all at some point parts of the German empire. And every region had its own traditions and preferred weapons and swords. Or weapons if a similar type looked very differently depending on the regio. Just look at the late 16th early 17th century broadswords and backswords...
a review about that trailer for "Knightfall" would be nice.
Can you talk in detail about different types of spearheads? If you haven't already.
As I understand it, between Lichtenaeur and Meyer there's about 200 years (end of 14th to end of 16th century). And if Lichtenauer was a longsword master, it must have been used before him, same for being used after Meyer (otherwise who's paying him). So, to me that seems closer to 200-250 years (though it was used in war for considerably less time than that).
Well Meyer was basically the dusk of the longsword's days in everyday carry, as rapiers and sideswords started to become more prevalent. In fact, Meyer has an entire section dedicated to sidesword
some learn the new hot stuff, and other have a intrest in their grandfathers stuff. It´s not like it´s a hard start and a hard stop. crossbows was used well in to the 19th century for hunting, if not even longer and if they arn´t forced military tend to keep their weapon in inventories long after that a new model should have replaced them.
Silver also references them as well.
DaaaahWhoosh You can totally invent a weapon from scratch and become a master in its use yourself, not saying that's what Lichtenauer did, but to say that 'he was a master therefore someone must have come before him' is totally flawed logic.
Oh, yeah I guess I misspoke. I just meant that as a master, he must've been practicing for a long time before his manual was written.
I was actually very proud of the folks who did the "Underworld" vampire/werewolf movie franchise. The opening of the 2nd one is set in AD1202, and I remember thinking "oh no, get ready for the anachronistic longswords!". But I was pleasantly surprised to see that they at least made an effort at some historical accuracy- the swords were all single-handed, and, even though they were still a bit fantasy-ish(they literally cannot help themselves!), they weren't over-the-top. Now, if only polearms, especially spears, could receive some more attention!...
Although, now that I watch it again, the armor is absolutely RIDICULOUS! Basically full plate harness in 1202!?!?🤣
Hey can you tell me what morris dancing has to do with swordsmithing or smithing in general?
Were armor-piercing swords like the Estoc used before the invention of full plate, or were they made specifically to deal with the mail in the gaps of it?
You really think you can pierce plate armor with an estoc?
Mat.....Given what you've said about these swords, what sword in your opinion, enjoyed the longest continuous use and most widespread popularity throughout the middle ages overall?
Hi Matt, I just wanted to say that I found a link to your book on Amazon, Major Elliott's Art of Attack and Defence - but I only see it in print! Any chance you can make an e-book version? You've got thousands of fans who might be more than happy to fork over a few dollars to get your book, even if physical books are now overpriced and cumbersome and take days to deliver! If you digitalized it and included a link (even just a title) I think you might be pleasantly surprised by the bump in income! - Just a thought. I, for one, would love a copy!
This discussion makes me think, are there treatises discussing sword and buckler vs longsword ? If the arming sword was more popular than the longsword, then surely the longsword treatises would describe facing it ? (I know there are some describing how to face polearms for example)
Hey Matt, I have a question about armor. I understand that leather armor as commonly portrayed in movies and games did not really see use.
However, would a moderatly thick layer of leather, thin enough to not impede movement, sewn to the outside of a gambeson add to it's defensive properties in any meaningful way? Or would it only really help with waterproofing the garment?
Yes, leather (particularly buff leather) is better at resisting penetration and protecting the linen or cotton from abrasion. For this reason fencing jackets were faced with it and some still are. Buff coats were very popular in the 17th century.
scholagladiatoria wow, thank you so much for such a swift reply. And of course for the information, keep up the good work, I love your content.
Oh my GOD that is Amazing 😄😄😄😄
Could you please do the same about bows and other weapons?
Longsword is like full sized pistol, still carry-able as a sidearm. But a huge pain in the butt compare to compact pistols.
Ghastly Gibbus I know what you mean but it is not that much difference - in case of firearms.
How easy was it to buy a sword during the early modern period?
Very easy.
Assuming you have the money to buy one, of course.
Almost anyone could afford a sword (for certain values of "sword") if they wanted one.
How expensive were swords anyway?
I think Mr. Easton has done a video or two on this. IIRC, the low end was a plain, beat-up but still functional sword, which could be gotten for a penny or two (bear in mind that a foot archer was paid about three pence a day in the early fifteenth century). The high end was probably the presentation swords commissioned by Henry V, which cost £2,000 each -- a significant fraction of England's annual revenue.
As I say, anyone could afford a sword, if they were willing to settle for the late-medieval equivalent of a beater.