I do love when you demonstrate the moves you can do with swords. I'm sure they're considered basics, but for a newbie like me they look quite cool. Great video again. As a former history student I find your videos very interesting and well documented. Cheers!
After watching a number of these videos and videos like scholagladiatoria, it seems to me that the best swordsmen are those that have a somewhat varied skill set with swords and are able to choose and effectively utilize different swords and techniques based on what the situation demands.
I'm not into HEMA myself, but I'm watching a lot of videos on it in order to write proper swordfighting scenes in my books. It's a very interesting topic!
One reason might be is that it's not your primary weapon - you might prefer a spear with your shield. Rather than carry around a longsword, you could lighten your carrying load whilst you're marching and camping, making you less worn out by the time you reach battle. If you've got a short sword you're not carrying that extra weight, but you still have a side arm in case you lose your spear, or axe, or mace, or whatever else you were using.
Knights had squires who carried their weapons for them when not in battle. Also a longsword only weights approximately 1.5 kg. (3.3 lbs) so walking around with it isn't going to tire you (sitting down to a table with it might be a little problematic)
Frost Blast Not every person in a battle was a knight. In fact, very few were. The vast majority of participants didn't have squires and so had to carry their own equipment. You're also forgetting that there was very little actual fighting in comparison to the walking around. It doesn't matter how much or little something weighs when you're spending weeks on end carrying it - as well as all of your other gear. The more you're carrying the faster you get worn out - the less effective you are in combat. This may surprise you, but trucks, chinooks and humvees are actually relatively new inventions.
Frost Blast I honestly think, for several reasons, that longswords and two handed swords were placed, like a rifle, in their scabbard, on your shoulder, it would make traveling with them easier and the draw could be comparable quick compared to the awkward to impossible hollywood across the back back carry.
Lars Egner He is saying that a one-handed sword is easier to carry. and in previous videos he talk about how swords were not "main battlefield" weapons. Vehementi If you are comparing a long-sword to no sword then sure, no sword is lighter. but if you are talking about carrying a one-handed sword. then. you only have the weight deference between the two. so to put it in numbers: The Ringeck is (1.5 kg) and the Poitiers is (1.19 kilos). as you can see, it's not that much. and if can't carry the added weight. then you probably should not be fighting anyway. sources: www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-ringeck-xva.htm www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-poitiers-xv.htm
Roman Gogueshvili well it depends on the time period and the character. me personally am pretty neutral when it comes to religion i just enjoy history in general. I can find myself enjoying story's of Charlemagne the great and Ólafur tryggvason just as much as i enjoy Egils saga or grettis saga for an example.
Good point. Just, it frustrates the fuck out of me to see people that are alt-historying non-batized Scandinavia. They think this is a universal cure for any national problem. Also, personally have no problem with neo-paganists, unless they pretend to be the hosts of ancient faith while barely knowing anything about the Old Norse culture. Which almost always the case!Óðinn
For me the most obvious reason is the nature of medieval warfare. Unless you have very expensive plate armour, you would be very vunerable to missile fire if you are not carrying a shield.
Jonathan Stummer Good point. I just want to point out that while customized full plate armor was indeed very expensive, the munition grade stuff was very affordable for the common soldier/mercenary by the Late Middle Ages. www.arador.com/armour/landsknecht-pikeman-armour/ And a lot of medieval soldiers that didn't wear much armor carried two handed polearms anyway, like the Swiss halberdier and Flemish militiamen, so they could deal with the rich guys that do. Fighting a guy wearing full plate armor with a sword and buckler is very challenging to say the least, you have very few attack that could threaten him.
Jonathan Stummer A lot of the swordsmanship that I and others study isn't really meant for the battlefield (though it can certainly be applied in that situation). It's more for civilian self-defense. On the battlefield yeah you'd definitely want a shield a lot of the time, unless you were an archer or a pikeman, etc, but you can't carry a shield around with you while your traveling because it's just too cumbersome.
Great video as always Matt. I think it depends not only on whether you have a shield, but, what the area you're in is like. Shorter swords are better in close quarters. Yes a long sword can be used, but, with even a buckler the one hander has something of an advantage up close and personal. Weilding a long sword outdoors is great, trying to use it in a low ceiling building of the period (such as a tavern or such) Our ancestors used lower ceilings because it made the building easier to heat in winter. It also made it more difficult to...settle accounts indoors. (not the super rich of course, they liked their drafty great halls and such)
Another alternate grip for 2 hands on a 1-handed weapon is to grip your own forearm. This works particularly well on a backhand strike, where you can really power through on a swing. (I've been nailed a few times with this one while sparring with the senior instructors at my school.) While not something permanent to do, it does seem to work pretty well as a temporary assist on a few shots. You can see a more elaborate version of doing this with some Escrima/Arnis styles, where they tend to slap their own forearms a lot. It's a bit of an affectation, but the underlying principle is that they're using their off-hand as a sort of brake to assist in stopping the follow-through of the strike, and to re-direct it back, or else they're adding a bit of power to the initial throw. The disadvantage being that your off-hand is out floating around in front of you, and can be picked off by your opponent. Also, all the power of the strike still has to go through your lead-hand wrist, so it's not as effective as having a longer grip. Also, it doesn't really work all that well for thrusting - just swings.
wish i could afford them :( i got a cold steel maa italian longsword and love it though, im a complete newb so it';s just fun having a "real" sword and something to work out with. 17 years of boxing i hope will benefit me when coming to learn the footwork as well as stamina! ;) Aesthetically and personally i love longswords but I can see your points here. Because of my size the lognsword looks like a one-handed sword comapred to some people i spar with yet they can put a whoopin on me good with either/or hehe... I wish i had the ability to make a choice on which kinds i trained with but for now ill have to just work with what i have until i start going to the local groups here regularly. Many of them have albion or darksteel (darksword?) armory and cold steel with albion being the highet-regarded.
Joe Cannabyte - I used to fight with friends in Belegarth (boffering with foam swords and more fighting than larping). I know it’s relatively different. One of the guys would instruct a newbie who could box (or punch) to apply that technique to foam sword strikes. It worked out relatively well. I don’t know if the same could be applied to real swords with any effectiveness. We used to have quite the smashing good time.
one more point on length of the hilt, there are medieval illustrations showing 1 handed swords with slightly longer hilts that were also used in both hands from time to time, even despite having overall 1 hander characteristics.
I would think longswords would be better mounted. In the same way that the light cav. 1796 can be more blade heavy than an infantry version, a one handed grip on a longsword will give you more reach and power than a one handed sword would, and the maneuverability would be less of an issue on horseback.
You are very good and helpful I loved those video I am thinking about buying a sword but it is hard to chose but after watching this video I think I will get a one handed sword
I once watched a guy try to tilt a bokken for an ukenagashi and almost break his own wrist in the process. I had to lecture him about personal safety, common sense and how the hand does not move that way afterwards.
Sir George Silver in Paradoxes of Defense after describing the "right and just" length of a one handed sword says: "The perfect length of your two handed sword is, the blade to be the length of the blade of your single sword." I would not suggest reading his works if you are Italian or like rapiers.
This actually explains why the katana/tachi is so short for a sword with a two-handed grip: the original samurai were mounted archers and their swords could easily be used in one hand while mounted while also having the leverage of a two-handed sword unmounted. One thing I would disagree with on Matt is that the longer handle gets in the way of carry and one-handed use. Katanas have a similar grip length to that of a longsword and I've worn my katana for hours on end during practice without it getting in the way of typical daily functions, Also, the long grip doesn't get in the way at all when I practice one-handed cuts often seen in iai and the few kata in the style I practice that feature using katana and wakizashi together.
The Tachi and Nodachi used in 14th century became long. Especially Nodachi bacame that long, that Samurai can't draw them by their own. Due to the lenght they needed to be carried on the back and be drawn by another person for the wielder (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cdachi#mediaviewer/File:Hiyoshimaru_meets_Koroku_on_Yahagibashi,_showing_nodachi_or_odachi.jpg and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cdachi#mediaviewer/File:Samurai_wearing_a_nodachi_%28field_sword%29.png). Katana started as Kodachi and were shorter swords (~70 cm) wich could be drawn by the wielder. The Katana took over because the shorter blade didn't disturb movent as much and could be drawn quicker. Thats why we ended up with about ~65cm blade lenght instead of Tachi with 85 cm up to over 1m blade length or 1,4-1,5 m of the nodachi. And that shorter swords are better for the mobility of the hole army. (Remember: basicly everyone on a japanease battlefield has carried a sword as secondary weapon) Some katana-variations were refered as katate uchi (katate: one hand ; uchi: strike) For civil use samurai were forbidden to own and to carry too large swords somewere in the 17th century. During this time many blades were cut down to katana-length.
A one-handed sword is better in my book because it gives you more options or it makes life more easy. On-handed sword are good with shields, spears / long staffs, bow and on horseback. The longsword is a great and awesome weapon but it is a pain in ass sometimes.
Hi Matt! Why do you think roman legionaries are depicted using a sword as their main weapon? It seems to me that a spear would be more effective as a main battlefield weapon, at least in theory.
Keep in mind that roman legionaries also had pila/heavy throwing spears which they would toss at their opponents before engaging in close combat. Plus they had an extremely large shield/scutum that they could protect themselves with during engagements with the sword.
A point about katanas - from what I recall of reading about their historical use, one of the ways you could determine who the sword was made for was to look at the size of the handle. If it was short, it was probably a courtier's blade: worn mostly as a badge of office, and was optimized for comfort when wearing. If the hilt was long, it was likely the blade of a soldier, or at least made for use against an opponent - but would be a serious hassle to wear for 12 hours while sitting and waiting for the emperor to finish his tea ceremony.
I think you mean "size of the blade" not handle. Shorter katana were often worn by wealthy merchants and other individuals as a badge of rank. Proper bushi were the only ones allowed to wear full length daito. To be honest though, the full length daito weren't that cumbersome to wear even while sitting on you butt all day waiting for the emperor's tea ceremony. :P
JZBai, again, from what I recall, they were actually talking about the handle itself - in context, it was about banging your elbow on the hilt if it was too long. That being said: this is the interweb. As I can't recall exactly where I read it, it would very well have been at Crazy Frank's House of Things My Squirrel Told Me.
Longshore hilts make archery very combersome this is why you would see most longbowmen in medieval artwork wearing the arming sword on their hip rather than a long sword
If you use a 2H-Sword with one hand, you get Agi and Str handicaps if your skill points for 1H-Sword isn’t high enough for your current Str. Also 1H-Swords are cheaper, so it gives you more budget for skins.
Usability or status 👍. I've actually learned with my jian it can be held with two hands or even two swords in the same hand. I'm only practicing for dexterity and show, but I can swap from side by side to a two ended weapon with one hand and spin them like a big staff or back to side by side again with one hand. It's visually impressive even if impractical for battle. It maybe good for a sci-fi film 🤣 Anyway I've tried three ok so next I'm thinking of trying to wield "four" swords ! Still got both ears so far !
Final thought - although it's more of a re-iteration of what scholagladitoria said in the video - unless you've trained with having a large pommel, there's a non-trivial chance that you'll whack yourself with it if you use it 1-handed. This chance increases exponentially if you try to do something with your off-hand, such as trying to grapple or pass/redirect a strike. yes, you can use it to pass/hook - but you can do that just as easily with a 1-inch pommel. It actually gets a bit harder to do with anything longer, as moving a pommel of that size in close quarters is a bit difficult. I found this out, much to my chagrin, when practicing double-stick drills, and on occasion would gouge the pommel of my stick into the back of my off-side hand. And that was with just a 1/2 inch pommel - if you extended it out to a fist-length or more, it was pretty much guaranteed that you'd slam it right into the side of your forearm at least once every couple of minutes, until you got used to them. That being said, having a large pommel is something of a nice defensive measure, as it ends up acting like a 3rd quillion, and will on occasion catch an upward strike that would otherwise tag your lead forearm. Also, it makes it easier to "pummel" (ie, to strike with the pommel in close quarters), as you've now got more range there.
I'd imagine a knight who's mounted and using a lance as his main weapon would take the one handed sword for convenience if it's his backup weapon. Whereas someone who knows they're going to be using their sword as their main weapon might opt for the longsword for better each and leverage with two hands.
On horseback, usually you have only one chance to kill/wound a person before your horse carries you away. Longswords have more reach than one-handed swords so wouldn't they be preferable to one-handed swords in this case? You aren't going to swing it around much anyway, only once per engagement.
Lances have even longer grips and they were the main weapons on horseback. And you can grip the sword using the lower part of the hilt, which gives you even more reach and elliminates the long hilt problem (altough holding it further away from the point of balance might increase the chance of losing the weapon). Btw that thing with the hilt is just an inconvenience and as Matt explained it, you can get used to it.
I don't suppose it really matters; if you're going to hold the sword out in front of you, in the Hussar fashion, the smaller reach is going to be more than compensated by the speed at which the horse moves towards your opponent, unless of course your opponent is carrying a pike or other long polearm, in which case it is fairly pointless trying to outreach them anyway. If you are going to swing the sword around during the charge though, a one-handed sword most definitely is a better idea, simply because it's lighter and more nimble.
+1 on this comment. I was thinking the same thing. As we have seen in Matt's other videos the sabers designed for cavalry are longer than the foot sabers, heavier, and, one would assume, less nimble. Seems pretty unlikely that it took until the age of reason for people to figure that out. My impression (which is just my ill informed opinion) is that the longsword was specifically meant to be used one-handed while on horseback, and in two hands while on foot. If you are using the speed of the horse to provide the velocity of the strike then you don't care that much about nimbleness - just reach. You don't want to be waving your sword around wildly anyway lest you cut your horse's ears off (or worse). Hmmmm, maybe this explains somewhat the shortness of the impact weapons such as the mace or hammer.
There is also a slight but noticeable difference in range between using a sword one handed and using the same sword with two hands - the second hand will hold you back slightly because you are not using the blade in an entirely straight line with the shoulder - so it's not always a good idea to go for two-handed weapons anyhow.
Agreed, it's why I'm not a fan of the katana. It is a two handed weapon but have about the same blade length as most medieval one handed swords, you end up losing quite a bit of range. On the other hand, european longswords used in two hands are considerable longer than their one handed counterparts so they make up for it.
I've mostly handled two handed swords for most of my collecting years, so I've become more accustom to using two hands. Nothing against one handed swords, I just like the leverage (though it does take a lot of practice and getting used to, admitting I can still use some)
Matt, I don't think that was your intention, but you managed to convince me that longswords are quite useless, especially if you are a medieval knight. Can't use it with a shield or a secondary weapon, can't use on horseback, why would any knight would prefer a longsword over a one handed sword in a combat?
rasnac A longsword is generally superior to a single-handed sword when used on foot. It is longer, heavier and you can apply both hands to it. Fully armoured knights in the period of the longsword did not need shields or bucklers, because they had full armour instead. Therefore you may as well apply both hands to the weapon.
I see. Yet, a knight is basically heavy cavalry. A sword you can't use on horseback doesn't seem like a very good choice. But then again, like you said many times, against full plate armour, sword is only a secondary weapon. :/
I was under the impression that the knight on horseback dominated medieval warfare for about 250 years, from the Battle of Hastings to the mid-14th Century, when the crushing defeats of mounted knights at the Battle of the Spurs, at Bannockburn, and at Crecy and Poitiers by pikemen and longbowmen combined with advances in plate armor resulted in a change in tactics. From then on, as far as I know, it was knights on foot who had no need for shields or to control the reins, even in pitched battles. In fact apparently the armor of the French knights at Agincourt was so strong that arrows could not pierce it, and they lost for several other reasons.
***** What about the Mongols? A combination of cavalry and bowmen. I think their armies consisted of nothing else. IMO it wasn't until artillery became powerful enough ~1450 that the nomads could no longer defeat European armies.
valinor100 You are forgetting about Ottomans, whose professional army consisted almost exclusively armoured cavalry archers, and specialized infantry units with rifles and cannons.
One very minor point, when you were talking about horsemanship (4:15) it is entirely possible to control a horse with just your legs. Not that I'm disagreeing, I wouldn't want to try using a two handed sword on horseback either but my point is that you wouldn't necessarily need one hand on the reigns.
True - any sort of mounted bowman would have to release the reins to fire his bow. I suspect that precise horsemanship such as using a lance or fighting in a melee would require rein control. Certainly, there's nothing to stop a horse from bolting if you don't have the reins. Maybe someone with more horsemanship experience can chime in.
if you join the group 'horsy HEMA' on fb im pretty sure you would be able to find people who can describe it much better, i only have a limited ability in regards to describing in english..
Another point I think about when I read some historical accounts is the fact that in the battlefield horses very often go crazy and unpredictable when reins were cut off.
There is a German saying: "The best tool is barely adequate for the job". I guess that also applies to swords. If your job requires a one-handed sword, getting a two handed sword is a handicap.
I remember seeing a depiction of a scandinavian warrior using a viking era sword "two-handed" by gripping his right wrist with his left hand while striking, and i also remember someone saying that's probably what's being described in the icelandic saga. I apologise for not being able to cite sources, that was a long time ago.
hey matt, i really love your sword handling (not only in this video, generally.) can you make a few videos just with a few sword hadling drills/cuts/ thrusts from different angles?
To go along with the economy thing: I think it's not just the one-handed sword that's cheaper (it's really not that much less metal), but with the really expensive armor that you'd need to buy to protect yourself using a longsword, whereas with a one-handed sword, you can get away with wearing less armor if you use a shield.
PRESS AND HOLD LB OR L1 BUTTON to guard with your shield, then PRESS THE RB OR R1 to light attacks with your one handed sword, PRESS RT OR R2 to heavy attacks and trusts
You forgot the balance, the center of gravity(sorry google Translator) of a Longsword is farer away from the parry than the center of a single-hand-sword. This makes the left hand and its weight and additional force on theLongswordhilt even more important.
Other thought on why you wouldn't want to wield a 1-haned weapon with 2 hands: it shortens up the reach of the weapon. Basically, the full reach of your weapon is determined by where your back-hand grips the hilt. If you grip the hilt in the same location as your lead-hand (or even above it), then you've shorted up the reach of your weapon by up to a foot or more (depending on how long your stance is.) The only way to avoid this is to stand completely square to your target - which means you've sacrificed a great deal of mobility, and you've made yourself something of a target due to your wide profile. However - if you've got a long (2-handed) hilt, you can start floating your rear foot back more; the longer the hilt, the longer your stance can be without sacrificing range. Of course, if your stance is too long you'll end up standing sideways to your opponent - which is basically what fencing does. But if you've got a good-sized hilt that's specifically designed for 2 hands, you can stand pretty long without sacrificing reach.
A good video, as always! I would really like it if you could make a video concerning the messer! Periods, the categorization of the different names(which seems impossible), and the different models. Also the laws around them. I've been told that guilds had a monopoly on swords and that is where the messer comes from, I've also been told that it's from the law against longswords, prices on double edged being higher, all sorts of different rumors are flying around. It'd be very nice to clear things up! =)
I would have to wonder about about just how incovenient the long sword is. I've seen, forgive me for not providing sources at the moment, which have definite..... straps, an area for the sword to be carried, sheathed, close to the rider and in what I believe is a pretty reasonable, easy draw if you needed to fit on horseback. I've also got some sources which would suggest that warhorses were trained to be directed with the knees, rather than the reins. Certainly you could fight one handed from horse back, but it's not the only way possible. How else would jousting have been done if you needed one hand for the reins? Certainly there's a difference using a one handed, shorter weapon. There's something to be said for them when fighting with a shield. I don't think it takes anything away from the long sword, which so happens to my preference. So, take the above with a little bias.
Sometimes one-handed swords are also preferable ... because of length. Odd as it may sound, one-handed blades can give almost as much reach as two handers while allowing the off hand to grip a shield or dagger. Gripping a sword with two hands necessitates pulling it closer to the body, whereas, in a traditional thrusting position, a one-handed sword has massive reach, especially a rapier or longer arming sword (Albion Gaddhjalt is 41 inches, for example). Of course, a longsword can be held in one hand, but this makes the user's grip significantly weaker and severely impairs the blade's use for quick defensive purposes.
Long swords are also know as bastard swords or hand-and-a-half swords. They are designed to have a blade and hilt to be long enough for two hands, while still being light enough to be used with one. A very fun sword to practice with one handed to make you faster with the short, one-handed swords.
+camwyn256 Not really. Medieval people made the distinction between hand-and-a-half swords and longswords, to the point some tournaments featured separate competitions for the two.
I happen to have a very cheap replica of Charlemagne sword but no shield nor horse so next time I take it off the wall for a little play I'll try and grab it two hands as you showed they did use to and see if it works better.
I wonder if maybe a common reason for using the two-handed grip on a shorter blade (or using a proper one-hander with two hands) was to fight in confined spaces. You do have slightly better control that way, which is important, say, indoors or in the gateway of a castle you're storming or some such. Also, since putting both hands on the hilt tends to draw your elbows in closer and shorten your reach relative to the length of the blade, you'd be much less likely to, for instance, swing wide and bury your blade in a wooden beam, thus risking being blind-sided by your enemy while you pulled it free. Just a thought.
The longsword could be wielded well enough one handed from horseback and with it's reach would be superior. It seems you missed the logic of that. This is not complex fencing that would have an advantage with lower weight. Horseback is very different.
Not to mean offense but Matt is probably well aware of the advantages of a longer blade upon horseback, he even does a few videos about the 1908 and 1912 cavalry swords used by the british which while not longswords espouse the same advantages of a longsword: length, stiffness, point, etc. What he's talking about is more likely about cav vs cav and inf in melee. Certainly if you're just fighting infantry in a shock or hit and run attack, a longsword would probably be better on horseback. Whereas if you expect to need to fight in a melee on horseback, you probably want an arming sword.
I have a custom longsword somewhat bassed off of a Svante-Nillson sword, and it sure is pain to carry around. The handle along with the pommel is around 30cms long and it stick out like crazy :)
This is the opposite of what you said before: that the longer (as with the rapier, which is also heavier) weapon is faster and nimbler, the same hand motion creates a faster tip motion, the shorter blade is slower because you have to move your feet and that is always very much slower than moving your hand, and so on.
David Blue The rapier has a very nimble tip because its point of balance is close to the hand and it has relatively less mass in the blade (and more in the hilt). The longsword in contrast has a much more substantial blade and the point of balance is further from the hand. It also has a higher total weight in general.
Rapier is heavy, but its the balance of the sword that effects it the most. Rapier has all the wight close to the handle, meaning you can move the blade-section of the rapier very fast with less movement in the hand. However a Longsword, since it can be use both 1 and 2 hand, has the balance point further away from the handle, roughly 3 inchs from the guard. While this allows you to do some nice pivoting strikes and all, the problem of a long sword being heavier as a whole weapon means that its slower, and you have to use bigger movements in your hand to get the momentum needed to do a good strike. 1 Handed sword however, which has similar balance point to a long-sword, being shorter and lighter, can do this much faster, meaning you can do the same movement in your hand faster.
Another good reason would be fighting in close quarters. The Romans had an advantage over Germanic tribes in extreme close quarter combat because the german swords were long to use effectively in such a tight space, unlike the shorter roman stabbing swords
This right here when explaining the problems of large or significant HILT size in moving or grappling IS WHY THE SHARP LIGHT SABER HILT POINTS on the SW 7 move fantasy blade is ridiculous but then I hated Darth Maul's two end blades basically two long swords taped into a staff not a two spear ended staff.
Surely there are two separate reasons to hold a sword with both hands. The simpler reason is for power or strength, whether in attack or parry. The other reason will only apply with the longer grip: a longer grip means that you can hold your front hand still and use it as a fulcrum while you redirect the point with your back hand (or vice versa) meaning that you can redirect the point very quickly, rather than having to swing it as you would with a single handed weapon. Although the longsword precludes the use of a shield, its extra length and weight make it a powerful defence in its own right. I think our view of how swords were used is still coloured too much by bad Hollywood fight scenes. Matt's videos (and others) help to show that fighting with a sword was a much more sophisticated and nuanced set of skills than we used to assume. A longsword had some of the properties of a large sword, a short spear and a short but strong quarterstaff, plus all the hooking and grappling techniques that were not "instead" of sword fighting, but a fundamental part of it.
You can control horses without hand on reins. Experience horse riders can use bodies to ride horses. I agree with Frost Blast that longsword would give longer and better reach from horse back.
Actually hooking index finger of the second hand by the pommel of one handed viking era sword, gives your blows incredible force and even greater control over the sword. Those pommels are not circle-shaped, so it's easier to grab them effectively. And philosophical raptor question: Is the short longsword just a sword? :D
Just out of interest, why would you want to use an arming sword in two hands? I see that you physically can but what are the advantages over using it one-handed? You gain minimal leverage (especially if you clasp the hands together), lose range and make your forearms massively vulnerable, even more so than a normal longsworder because you have a shorter blade.
It would be cool to see you do another video from the other perspective. Give some examples of times where longswords may be preferable to one-handed swords
MegaHasmat Reach is one obvious thing that favors the longsword and was also mentioned in the video. If you're not going to carry a shield or some such around anyway, you will have 2 hands to use your sword with and you might want to have that extra reach. Also it's bigger and so looks more badass. Maybe it can cut a bit more powerfully (through armor) too because of that?
hyhhy You can also beat through someone's guard with a longsword easier then you can with a one handed sword. Again reach is a huge advantage, and you have a better defense.
Size the sword around would be a big thing while wearing it. Especially if you were already carrying a spear and shield as your primary weapon. Do you really need a massive 2 handed sword clanking around getting in the way. If you are a noble and that was your only weapon then the extra length was great.
I just had a thought. HEMA wouldn't be nearly as big if it weren't for the advent of the internet and social connectivity. I mean, how many people in the world have actual physical access to the historical treatises that we base it on? To narrow it down even further, how many of those people have the know-how to spark an international following and intrest in the sport? Not too many.
You're probably right. I used to do the hema thing with a small group back when I was in high school. The internet was pretty newfangled back then and we *really* didn't have much in the way of reference stuff and most of what we did have was a huge pain in the ass to track down. Truth be told, there probably wasn't very much in the way of real history in our techniques, as we had to figure out almost everything ourselves. Even if I was still at the same level of skill as I was back then, I'm pretty sure somebody that has had proper training using better the sources available now than we had back then would flat out hand me my backside. Probably just as soundly as I could trounce the random passerby that decided it would be fun to challenge me to a swordfight. I also get the sense that it's gotten to be a much bigger thing with the internet allowing the small groups to communicate and find each other better than ever before. It's probably still pretty far from the norm, but we where considered weirdos back then. Not just wierdos, but the people that made the wierdos seem normal. Also, damn you for making me feel old :P.
I love the idea of a one handed sword and shield. I've never actually used any kind of weapon, outside of firearms though. I'd love to, but swords, even today, are expensive. Being broker than a joke, it makes it hard. LOL
+Az I'm talking for the average citizen, who's not in the militia, let's face it, most home invaders won't have body armour, so a handgun or SMG would penetrate quite easily. So I don't really see the NEED for an assault rifle as opposed to want
Also because swords were generally side arms and you don't always need to carry a longsword around. It's like asking 'why don't people carry puny 9mm handguns when they could just use a .357 or a Desert Eagle'
I fight with small (9") buckler and large buckler (14"); I've tried to learn drills with both longsword and smallsword with each. I think it's worthwhile to learn what to do if you must discard either shield.
A very good video, and it brings up a good question: If two swordsmen of equal skill faced each other, one wielding his sword in one hand with a shield, the other wielding his sword in two hands, who would have the advantage?
The Ringeck is a sword meant for two hands for the most part, but you seemd a little dexterous with it when you used it in one hand, much of that probably comes down to your skill, but seems like it can be used as a bastard sword at times.
i use a one handed greek hoplite xiphos sword from ancient times. basically a spartan sword with a 22 inch blade. could you please post a video addressing more ancent sword styles as opposed to medieval styles if you know any? im very interested in learning to fight as an ancient greek. from what i understand they have a particular style in there movements. i found the solo training videos you posted very helpful. i wish to learn to roll out of the way of attacks and come up behind opponents as well as disarming, backward thrusts, pommel attacks, and some blocks and parrys. if you know any of these techniques, or can shed light on others i may have missed please show me your expertise. thank you ~Jamie, son of Apollo
I think most standard sword and shield/buckler techniques would be applicable. One thing to keep in mind is that the early Greek and Roman short swords were primarily thrusting weapons. They were also generally a secondary weapon with the spear being the primary weapon, due to its greater reach. Standard military technique would be the very close formation with interlocked shields forming an impenetrable barrier - sometimes called the 'turtle'. Because you were so close to your companions, there was little room for wide swings - disciplined thrust through a small gap while maintaining formation was the order of the day. When (if) the enemy line got too close for the spear, the shortsword gave you an effective backup. The method is actually shown quite realistically early in the movie 300, before it degenerates into Hollywood fantasy.
very true. the true military strength of the spartans was their unshakable phalanx formation. and while i assume most battles were fought in formation (im not positive as none of us were there at the time) it would be foolish to think that they maintained formation 100% of the time during the chaos of close quarters combat. in fact, i would hazard a guess that most battles started in formation, and when they broke the enemies ranks, they would pursue them and break their own formation to rout the enemy. The comment i posted originally was actually talking more about solo swordsman and/or traveling warriors, who were not engaging in full phalanx battles, and were more likely to fight 1 - 3 attackers than a few thousand. While its true that the xiphos is a primarily thrusting weapon in the context of phalanx warfare, it was also pretty much the only sword that was easily produced during those times. the shortness of it is actually because of the smelting qualities of bronze being unfavorable, so any solo warrior would still carry the same sword. I tell you from experience that the leaf shaped blade is excellent for cutting and has more momentum than one might think. I actually think its funny that they stumbled on one of the most effective slashing designs, yet used it almost exclusively for thrusting, but i digress. I still maintain that the solo greek warriors from those times had a particular fighting style with the short sword that was completely different than the way it was used in a phalanx. Ive yet to see it for myself, but ive done alot of research attempting to learn more about it, so any new information on these techniques would be appreciated.
All of the talk about pommels made me realize, why not put a pommel on an axe? This would make it far more maneuverable while still having the superior striking capabilities.
I have never heard of such a thing. looked it up and couldn't find a single source of something like this. The main reason I replied was to follow where this goes if anyone has a good answer.
Axes were used because: 1. They were cheap and easy to made/remade. 2. They deliver great impact force. Putting a pommel on the axe removes all advantages of the axes and leaves you with a "inferior sword".
Łukasz Kos Surely if the axe head weighs the same the amount of force delivered would be the same, possibly more with the added wight of the pommel. The point about it being expensive is fairly void. You could just glue a steel ball or even a heavy stone to the end. The only reason I can think of for not having one is because of the added weight and resultant extra tiredness of your attacking arm.
Bill Buck Actually, you'd reduce the force, because the added weight of the pommel at the back end of the axe would shift the point of balance toward the back. The axe's force isn't so much the weight as how it's distributed. By having a heavy head, the chops/cuts you make are very powerful, similar to maces and warhammers. Shifting the point of balance back does make it more nimble, but at the cost of power, and then you've removed the main advantage the axe has over a sword. Also, if you just glue the pommel on, it's liable to come off during a fight, and you stand a good chance of being hit by it when that happens.
Fantastic video. Several points were mentioned that I hadn't ever considered... especially something as obvious as cost. I asked this question on facebook so I apologize for asking it twice. Can "master cuts" be performed with one hand? I have only ever seen two handed examples.
What type of pommel do you consider to be the most convenient if you want to use your one-handed sword with two hands? I have the Albion The Knight and I don't find it to be comfortable with that Oakeshott Type J wheel pommel. I guess The Poitiers with its type I pommel is better suited?
Hello Matt ! I have two questions : 1) When fighting with the saber, the left hand is always behind the hip . My question is : Is it possible to keep your hand behind your hip in a melée ? i mean when fighting in melée , u can be attacked by several opponents .So how can a swordsman keep his hand in a real fight ? 2) Is it possible to do a video of cavalryman vs Infantryman in single combat with some historical accounts as examples. Thnx for answering and sorry for asking questions that aren't related to the video above :)
In Escrima/Arnis, we're taught to keep it covering the "center line" by default - basically have your off-hand covering your heart. Actually, it's your forearm covering your heart - as The Swezzo mentioned, your hand actually ends up covering your throat. If you extend your lead out a bit farther, your stand narrows, and you end up protecting the lead side of your neck. Which also works. The other advantage is that it means your off-hand is ready to assist if you step into close range and need to check/pass/grapple/punch. We calls this the "dead hand" position - because it's where you put your hand if it isn't doing anything. The disadvantage of this position is that, in one-on-one scenarios (or non-lethal "first blood" duels), it means your had and forearm are legitimate targets. If you're playing a game of inches, stepping back an inch or so may be enough to avoid a strike - but if your elbow is poking out an additional 2 inches, you may be hit anyway. When we do point-sparring (as opposed to continuous), it's pretty easy to pick off the hand when it's in this position - we wear hockey gloves, so the hand as a target actually sticks out 4 inches from the chest or so. In contrast - if you have a "live hand" - that is, if you are actively looking for a block/check/strike, the off hand tends to be up and behind, near your ear - or else it's moving around, in a counterpoint to the weapon, shifting between various guard positions and whatnot. Again - the disadvantage is that the off-hand and forarm become legitimate targets, but they (in theory) end up being tools in the fight. However - as a practical matter - stepping into short-range without being hit is kinda difficult. As such, we tend to start out at long (hand-picking range), move into medium (you can hit the body), then back out. The off-hand really doesn't come into play all that much unless you're being super-aggressive "physically run the person down" style. Which is legit if you can pull it off - one of the instructors is a police officer, and he tends to do this really, really well.
Whats the advantage of holding the same short grip with both hands (as you showed us at last)? I have seen it also at indian martial arts, but it makes absolutly no sense to me.
love your videos! I have a question regarding this video. Would one handed swords have made more sense in an urban combat situation? I'd imagine if someone were to be storming a castle or raiding a village, more weapon would get in the way of the environment.
I do love when you demonstrate the moves you can do with swords. I'm sure they're considered basics, but for a newbie like me they look quite cool.
Great video again. As a former history student I find your videos very interesting and well documented. Cheers!
After watching a number of these videos and videos like scholagladiatoria, it seems to me that the best swordsmen are those that have a somewhat varied skill set with swords and are able to choose and effectively utilize different swords and techniques based on what the situation demands.
Black bear
I'm not into HEMA myself, but I'm watching a lot of videos on it in order to write proper swordfighting scenes in my books. It's a very interesting topic!
I bet your book is terrible, if it was ever written in the first place
Keep these videoscoming Easton! You're educating me.
A one handed sword is better in one hand?
Makes sense
Yes, better than using a two handed sword in one hand.
@@gantfrost7749 context
One reason might be is that it's not your primary weapon - you might prefer a spear with your shield.
Rather than carry around a longsword, you could lighten your carrying load whilst you're marching and camping, making you less worn out by the time you reach battle.
If you've got a short sword you're not carrying that extra weight, but you still have a side arm in case you lose your spear, or axe, or mace, or whatever else you were using.
Good point i think he missed. A sword is generally not a primary weapon and you want to be able to carry it comfortably.
Knights had squires who carried their weapons for them when not in battle.
Also a longsword only weights approximately 1.5 kg. (3.3 lbs) so walking around with it isn't going to tire you (sitting down to a table with it might be a little problematic)
Frost Blast Not every person in a battle was a knight. In fact, very few were. The vast majority of participants didn't have squires and so had to carry their own equipment.
You're also forgetting that there was very little actual fighting in comparison to the walking around. It doesn't matter how much or little something weighs when you're spending weeks on end carrying it - as well as all of your other gear. The more you're carrying the faster you get worn out - the less effective you are in combat. This may surprise you, but trucks, chinooks and humvees are actually relatively new inventions.
Frost Blast
I honestly think, for several reasons, that longswords and two handed swords were placed, like a rifle, in their scabbard, on your shoulder, it would make traveling with them easier and the draw could be comparable quick compared to the awkward to impossible hollywood across the back back carry.
Lars Egner He is saying that a one-handed sword is easier to carry. and in previous videos he talk about how swords were not "main battlefield" weapons.
Vehementi If you are comparing a long-sword to no sword then sure, no sword is lighter.
but if you are talking about carrying a one-handed sword. then. you only have the weight deference between the two. so to put it in numbers: The Ringeck is (1.5 kg) and the Poitiers is (1.19 kilos). as you can see, it's not that much. and if can't carry the added weight. then you probably should not be fighting anyway.
sources:
www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-ringeck-xva.htm
www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/nextgen/sword-medieval-poitiers-xv.htm
I am a simple viking. someone mentions the Icelandic saga's i press like!
+Óðinn and just to confirm your statement Egils saga for one mentions Egil using his sword two handed after his shield broke.
Ok. Do you think Christianity's cooler than Pagan? Just for the record, for the good old record
Roman Gogueshvili well it depends on the time period and the character. me personally am pretty neutral when it comes to religion i just enjoy history in general. I can find myself enjoying story's of Charlemagne the great and Ólafur tryggvason just as much as i enjoy Egils saga or grettis saga for an example.
Good point. Just, it frustrates the fuck out of me to see people that are alt-historying non-batized Scandinavia. They think this is a universal cure for any national problem.
Also, personally have no problem with neo-paganists, unless they pretend to be the hosts of ancient faith while barely knowing anything about the Old Norse culture. Which almost always the case!Óðinn
I am an asshole
I like to imagine all the nobles wearing their longswords and knocking everything off tables whenever they turn too quickly.
For me the most obvious reason is the nature of medieval warfare. Unless you have very expensive plate armour, you would be very vunerable to missile fire if you are not carrying a shield.
Jonathan Stummer
Good point. I just want to point out that while customized full plate armor was indeed very expensive, the munition grade stuff was very affordable for the common soldier/mercenary by the Late Middle Ages.
www.arador.com/armour/landsknecht-pikeman-armour/
And a lot of medieval soldiers that didn't wear much armor carried two handed polearms anyway, like the Swiss halberdier and Flemish militiamen, so they could deal with the rich guys that do. Fighting a guy wearing full plate armor with a sword and buckler is very challenging to say the least, you have very few attack that could threaten him.
John Huang Thanks for the info. Somehow I just don't feel comfortable fighting without a shield, I feel so exposed!
Jonathan Stummer A lot of the swordsmanship that I and others study isn't really meant for the battlefield (though it can certainly be applied in that situation). It's more for civilian self-defense. On the battlefield yeah you'd definitely want a shield a lot of the time, unless you were an archer or a pikeman, etc, but you can't carry a shield around with you while your traveling because it's just too cumbersome.
Gambesons can easily stop arrows
@@aierce No they can't, brigantine is a good choice but you aren't fully protected.
"when you use your weapon with two hands you can manage more length" ;)
pierce deeper as they say :P :P
interesting point.
Great video as always Matt. I think it depends not only on whether you have a shield, but, what the area you're in is like. Shorter swords are better in close quarters. Yes a long sword can be used, but, with even a buckler the one hander has something of an advantage up close and personal.
Weilding a long sword outdoors is great, trying to use it in a low ceiling building of the period (such as a tavern or such) Our ancestors used lower ceilings because it made the building easier to heat in winter. It also made it more difficult to...settle accounts indoors. (not the super rich of course, they liked their drafty great halls and such)
I'm basing that on the colonial American homes I've seen. They brought the same housing styles across the pond. For the same reason.
Even some monastaries used wood planks to lower to ceiling of a larger building for heating purpose
Another alternate grip for 2 hands on a 1-handed weapon is to grip your own forearm. This works particularly well on a backhand strike, where you can really power through on a swing. (I've been nailed a few times with this one while sparring with the senior instructors at my school.) While not something permanent to do, it does seem to work pretty well as a temporary assist on a few shots.
You can see a more elaborate version of doing this with some Escrima/Arnis styles, where they tend to slap their own forearms a lot. It's a bit of an affectation, but the underlying principle is that they're using their off-hand as a sort of brake to assist in stopping the follow-through of the strike, and to re-direct it back, or else they're adding a bit of power to the initial throw.
The disadvantage being that your off-hand is out floating around in front of you, and can be picked off by your opponent. Also, all the power of the strike still has to go through your lead-hand wrist, so it's not as effective as having a longer grip. Also, it doesn't really work all that well for thrusting - just swings.
What about hand and a half swords?
If they ever did a live-action Tekken film I would cast you as Bryan Fury
ManofChrist101 Doesn't he have hair? lol
Eh..close enough. We could glue some onto you temporarily.
+ManofChrist101 There are actually 2 live action tekken films lol.
TheGuileRaven show me plz
,jfebvkljegtehglkeur
Where do you get a beautiful longsword like that one, anyways?
NotARobot Albion swords
wish i could afford them :( i got a cold steel maa italian longsword and love it though, im a complete newb so it';s just fun having a "real" sword and something to work out with. 17 years of boxing i hope will benefit me when coming to learn the footwork as well as stamina! ;)
Aesthetically and personally i love longswords but I can see your points here. Because of my size the lognsword looks like a one-handed sword comapred to some people i spar with yet they can put a whoopin on me good with either/or hehe... I wish i had the ability to make a choice on which kinds i trained with but for now ill have to just work with what i have until i start going to the local groups here regularly. Many of them have albion or darksteel (darksword?) armory and cold steel with albion being the highet-regarded.
Joe Cannabyte - I used to fight with friends in Belegarth (boffering with foam swords and more fighting than larping). I know it’s relatively different. One of the guys would instruct a newbie who could box (or punch) to apply that technique to foam sword strikes. It worked out relatively well. I don’t know if the same could be applied to real swords with any effectiveness. We used to have quite the smashing good time.
Wait until you see Albion Gallowglass lol, you'd want to hug it when you sleep.
"The gods gave you two hands and you use both on your weapon, I can respect that"
one more point on length of the hilt, there are medieval illustrations showing 1 handed swords with slightly longer hilts that were also used in both hands from time to time, even despite having overall 1 hander characteristics.
Well done, as always, Matt. You do this with such elegance.
I would think longswords would be better mounted. In the same way that the light cav. 1796 can be more blade heavy than an infantry version, a one handed grip on a longsword will give you more reach and power than a one handed sword would, and the maneuverability would be less of an issue on horseback.
Damn Matt. You've got some strong wrists. XD
Do you plan on making a video about falchions and messers?
Let me just voice my support for this. I'm not sure if Matt actually owns a falchion, but I'd love to see him talk about it at some point...
Good ol' Daley I know!
there is usually one on the wall behind him.
These oldschool vids are great. Straight info and well presented without me having to care about your Soundgaren shirt. Soundgarden's cool btw
You are very good and helpful I loved those video I am thinking about buying a sword but it is hard to chose but after watching this video I think I will get a one handed sword
I once watched a guy try to tilt a bokken for an ukenagashi and almost break his own wrist in the process. I had to lecture him about personal safety, common sense and how the hand does not move that way afterwards.
Sir George Silver in Paradoxes of Defense after describing the "right and just" length of a one handed sword says: "The perfect length of your two handed sword is, the blade to be the length of the blade of your single sword." I would not suggest reading his works if you are Italian or like rapiers.
Will nonya Indeed, though for most adult males his single-handed sword has a blade of around 38 inches - it's pretty long.
Bro had absolutely sick chops back then, should really get back to them.
they're nice swords.
This actually explains why the katana/tachi is so short for a sword with a two-handed grip: the original samurai were mounted archers and their swords could easily be used in one hand while mounted while also having the leverage of a two-handed sword unmounted.
One thing I would disagree with on Matt is that the longer handle gets in the way of carry and one-handed use. Katanas have a similar grip length to that of a longsword and I've worn my katana for hours on end during practice without it getting in the way of typical daily functions, Also, the long grip doesn't get in the way at all when I practice one-handed cuts often seen in iai and the few kata in the style I practice that feature using katana and wakizashi together.
The Tachi and Nodachi used in 14th century became long. Especially Nodachi bacame that long, that Samurai can't draw them by their own. Due to the lenght they needed to be carried on the back and be drawn by another person for the wielder (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cdachi#mediaviewer/File:Hiyoshimaru_meets_Koroku_on_Yahagibashi,_showing_nodachi_or_odachi.jpg and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cdachi#mediaviewer/File:Samurai_wearing_a_nodachi_%28field_sword%29.png).
Katana started as Kodachi and were shorter swords (~70 cm) wich could be drawn by the wielder.
The Katana took over because the shorter blade didn't disturb movent as much and could be drawn quicker. Thats why we ended up with about ~65cm blade lenght instead of Tachi with 85 cm up to over 1m blade length or 1,4-1,5 m of the nodachi. And that shorter swords are better for the mobility of the hole army. (Remember: basicly everyone on a japanease battlefield has carried a sword as secondary weapon)
Some katana-variations were refered as katate uchi (katate: one hand ; uchi: strike)
For civil use samurai were forbidden to own and to carry too large swords somewere in the 17th century. During this time many blades were cut down to katana-length.
man that long swors is beautiful
A one-handed sword is better in my book because it gives you more options or it makes life more easy. On-handed sword are good with shields, spears / long staffs, bow and on horseback. The longsword is a great and awesome weapon but it is a pain in ass sometimes.
Hi Matt!
Why do you think roman legionaries are depicted using a sword as their main weapon? It seems to me that a spear would be more effective as a main battlefield weapon, at least in theory.
Keep in mind that roman legionaries also had pila/heavy throwing spears which they would toss at their opponents before engaging in close combat. Plus they had an extremely large shield/scutum that they could protect themselves with during engagements with the sword.
@@JZBai it'd be a big brain move to throw the pommel instead then equip the spear as a secondary weapon
A point about katanas - from what I recall of reading about their historical use, one of the ways you could determine who the sword was made for was to look at the size of the handle. If it was short, it was probably a courtier's blade: worn mostly as a badge of office, and was optimized for comfort when wearing. If the hilt was long, it was likely the blade of a soldier, or at least made for use against an opponent - but would be a serious hassle to wear for 12 hours while sitting and waiting for the emperor to finish his tea ceremony.
I think you mean "size of the blade" not handle. Shorter katana were often worn by wealthy merchants and other individuals as a badge of rank. Proper bushi were the only ones allowed to wear full length daito.
To be honest though, the full length daito weren't that cumbersome to wear even while sitting on you butt all day waiting for the emperor's tea ceremony. :P
JZBai, again, from what I recall, they were actually talking about the handle itself - in context, it was about banging your elbow on the hilt if it was too long.
That being said: this is the interweb. As I can't recall exactly where I read it, it would very well have been at Crazy Frank's House of Things My Squirrel Told Me.
Longshore hilts make archery very combersome this is why you would see most longbowmen in medieval artwork wearing the arming sword on their hip rather than a long sword
If you use a 2H-Sword with one hand, you get Agi and Str handicaps if your skill points for 1H-Sword isn’t high enough for your current Str. Also 1H-Swords are cheaper, so it gives you more budget for skins.
Very interesting. I hadn't thought about the possibility of using a shortsword as a longsword.
Usability or status 👍.
I've actually learned with my jian it can be held with two hands or even two swords in the same hand. I'm only practicing for dexterity and show, but I can swap from side by side to a two ended weapon with one hand and spin them like a big staff or back to side by side again with one hand.
It's visually impressive even if impractical for battle.
It maybe good for a sci-fi film 🤣 Anyway I've tried three ok so next I'm thinking of trying to wield "four" swords !
Still got both ears so far !
Final thought - although it's more of a re-iteration of what scholagladitoria said in the video - unless you've trained with having a large pommel, there's a non-trivial chance that you'll whack yourself with it if you use it 1-handed. This chance increases exponentially if you try to do something with your off-hand, such as trying to grapple or pass/redirect a strike. yes, you can use it to pass/hook - but you can do that just as easily with a 1-inch pommel. It actually gets a bit harder to do with anything longer, as moving a pommel of that size in close quarters is a bit difficult.
I found this out, much to my chagrin, when practicing double-stick drills, and on occasion would gouge the pommel of my stick into the back of my off-side hand. And that was with just a 1/2 inch pommel - if you extended it out to a fist-length or more, it was pretty much guaranteed that you'd slam it right into the side of your forearm at least once every couple of minutes, until you got used to them.
That being said, having a large pommel is something of a nice defensive measure, as it ends up acting like a 3rd quillion, and will on occasion catch an upward strike that would otherwise tag your lead forearm. Also, it makes it easier to "pummel" (ie, to strike with the pommel in close quarters), as you've now got more range there.
I'd imagine a knight who's mounted and using a lance as his main weapon would take the one handed sword for convenience if it's his backup weapon. Whereas someone who knows they're going to be using their sword as their main weapon might opt for the longsword for better each and leverage with two hands.
On horseback, usually you have only one chance to kill/wound a person before your horse carries you away. Longswords have more reach than one-handed swords so wouldn't they be preferable to one-handed swords in this case? You aren't going to swing it around much anyway, only once per engagement.
Then you'd make a longer blade. A longsword length hilt would just get in the way.
Lances have even longer grips and they were the main weapons on horseback. And you can grip the sword using the lower part of the hilt, which gives you even more reach and elliminates the long hilt problem (altough holding it further away from the point of balance might increase the chance of losing the weapon). Btw that thing with the hilt is just an inconvenience and as Matt explained it, you can get used to it.
Frost Blast True, but still there is no point of having a two handed grip for a weapon used in one hand.
I don't suppose it really matters; if you're going to hold the sword out in front of you, in the Hussar fashion, the smaller reach is going to be more than compensated by the speed at which the horse moves towards your opponent, unless of course your opponent is carrying a pike or other long polearm, in which case it is fairly pointless trying to outreach them anyway. If you are going to swing the sword around during the charge though, a one-handed sword most definitely is a better idea, simply because it's lighter and more nimble.
+1 on this comment. I was thinking the same thing.
As we have seen in Matt's other videos the sabers designed for cavalry are longer than the foot sabers, heavier, and, one would assume, less nimble. Seems pretty unlikely that it took until the age of reason for people to figure that out.
My impression (which is just my ill informed opinion) is that the longsword was specifically meant to be used one-handed while on horseback, and in two hands while on foot.
If you are using the speed of the horse to provide the velocity of the strike then you don't care that much about nimbleness - just reach. You don't want to be waving your sword around wildly anyway lest you cut your horse's ears off (or worse). Hmmmm, maybe this explains somewhat the shortness of the impact weapons such as the mace or hammer.
There is also a slight but noticeable difference in range between using a sword one handed and using the same sword with two hands - the second hand will hold you back slightly because you are not using the blade in an entirely straight line with the shoulder - so it's not always a good idea to go for two-handed weapons anyhow.
Agreed, it's why I'm not a fan of the katana. It is a two handed weapon but have about the same blade length as most medieval one handed swords, you end up losing quite a bit of range. On the other hand, european longswords used in two hands are considerable longer than their one handed counterparts so they make up for it.
I've mostly handled two handed swords for most of my collecting years, so I've become more accustom to using two hands. Nothing against one handed swords, I just like the leverage (though it does take a lot of practice and getting used to, admitting I can still use some)
Matt, I don't think that was your intention, but you managed to convince me that longswords are quite useless, especially if you are a medieval knight. Can't use it with a shield or a secondary weapon, can't use on horseback, why would any knight would prefer a longsword over a one handed sword in a combat?
rasnac A longsword is generally superior to a single-handed sword when used on foot. It is longer, heavier and you can apply both hands to it. Fully armoured knights in the period of the longsword did not need shields or bucklers, because they had full armour instead. Therefore you may as well apply both hands to the weapon.
I see. Yet, a knight is basically heavy cavalry. A sword you can't use on horseback doesn't seem like a very good choice. But then again, like you said many times, against full plate armour, sword is only a secondary weapon. :/
I was under the impression that the knight on horseback dominated medieval warfare for about 250 years, from the Battle of Hastings to the mid-14th Century, when the crushing defeats of mounted knights at the Battle of the Spurs, at Bannockburn, and at Crecy and Poitiers by pikemen and longbowmen combined with advances in plate armor resulted in a change in tactics. From then on, as far as I know, it was knights on foot who had no need for shields or to control the reins, even in pitched battles. In fact apparently the armor of the French knights at Agincourt was so strong that arrows could not pierce it, and they lost for several other reasons.
*****
What about the Mongols? A combination of cavalry and bowmen. I think their armies consisted of nothing else. IMO it wasn't until artillery became powerful enough ~1450 that the nomads could no longer defeat European armies.
valinor100
You are forgetting about Ottomans, whose professional army consisted almost exclusively armoured cavalry archers, and specialized infantry units with rifles and cannons.
after playing Blade and Sorcery, I appreciate the arming sword alot more
One very minor point, when you were talking about horsemanship (4:15) it is entirely possible to control a horse with just your legs. Not that I'm disagreeing, I wouldn't want to try using a two handed sword on horseback either but my point is that you wouldn't necessarily need one hand on the reigns.
True - any sort of mounted bowman would have to release the reins to fire his bow. I suspect that precise horsemanship such as using a lance or fighting in a melee would require rein control. Certainly, there's nothing to stop a horse from bolting if you don't have the reins. Maybe someone with more horsemanship experience can chime in.
if you join the group 'horsy HEMA' on fb im pretty sure you would be able to find people who can describe it much better, i only have a limited ability in regards to describing in english..
Another point I think about when I read some historical accounts is the fact that in the battlefield horses very often go crazy and unpredictable when reins were cut off.
There is a German saying: "The best tool is barely adequate for the job". I guess that also applies to swords. If your job requires a one-handed sword, getting a two handed sword is a handicap.
I remember seeing a depiction of a scandinavian warrior using a viking era sword "two-handed" by gripping his right wrist with his left hand while striking, and i also remember someone saying that's probably what's being described in the icelandic saga. I apologise for not being able to cite sources, that was a long time ago.
Good points
hey matt, i really love your sword handling (not only in this video, generally.) can you make a few videos just with a few sword hadling drills/cuts/ thrusts from different angles?
To go along with the economy thing: I think it's not just the one-handed sword that's cheaper (it's really not that much less metal), but with the really expensive armor that you'd need to buy to protect yourself using a longsword, whereas with a one-handed sword, you can get away with wearing less armor if you use a shield.
PRESS AND HOLD LB OR L1 BUTTON to guard with your shield, then PRESS THE RB OR R1 to light attacks with your one handed sword, PRESS RT OR R2 to heavy attacks and trusts
You forgot the balance, the center of gravity(sorry google Translator) of a Longsword is farer away from the parry than the center of a single-hand-sword. This makes the left hand and its weight and additional force on theLongswordhilt even more important.
Other thought on why you wouldn't want to wield a 1-haned weapon with 2 hands: it shortens up the reach of the weapon.
Basically, the full reach of your weapon is determined by where your back-hand grips the hilt. If you grip the hilt in the same location as your lead-hand (or even above it), then you've shorted up the reach of your weapon by up to a foot or more (depending on how long your stance is.)
The only way to avoid this is to stand completely square to your target - which means you've sacrificed a great deal of mobility, and you've made yourself something of a target due to your wide profile.
However - if you've got a long (2-handed) hilt, you can start floating your rear foot back more; the longer the hilt, the longer your stance can be without sacrificing range. Of course, if your stance is too long you'll end up standing sideways to your opponent - which is basically what fencing does. But if you've got a good-sized hilt that's specifically designed for 2 hands, you can stand pretty long without sacrificing reach.
A good video, as always!
I would really like it if you could make a video concerning the messer!
Periods, the categorization of the different names(which seems impossible), and the different models.
Also the laws around them.
I've been told that guilds had a monopoly on swords and that is where the messer comes from, I've also been told that it's from the law against longswords, prices on double edged being higher, all sorts of different rumors are flying around.
It'd be very nice to clear things up! =)
I would have to wonder about about just how incovenient the long sword is. I've seen, forgive me for not providing sources at the moment, which have definite..... straps, an area for the sword to be carried, sheathed, close to the rider and in what I believe is a pretty reasonable, easy draw if you needed to fit on horseback.
I've also got some sources which would suggest that warhorses were trained to be directed with the knees, rather than the reins. Certainly you could fight one handed from horse back, but it's not the only way possible. How else would jousting have been done if you needed one hand for the reins?
Certainly there's a difference using a one handed, shorter weapon. There's something to be said for them when fighting with a shield. I don't think it takes anything away from the long sword, which so happens to my preference. So, take the above with a little bias.
man that longsword of yours looks soo good!
+mikael meland And the arming sword ! Love em both :)
great vid my guy
Sometimes one-handed swords are also preferable ... because of length. Odd as it may sound, one-handed blades can give almost as much reach as two handers while allowing the off hand to grip a shield or dagger. Gripping a sword with two hands necessitates pulling it closer to the body, whereas, in a traditional thrusting position, a one-handed sword has massive reach, especially a rapier or longer arming sword (Albion Gaddhjalt is 41 inches, for example).
Of course, a longsword can be held in one hand, but this makes the user's grip significantly weaker and severely impairs the blade's use for quick defensive purposes.
Long swords are also know as bastard swords or hand-and-a-half swords. They are designed to have a blade and hilt to be long enough for two hands, while still being light enough to be used with one. A very fun sword to practice with one handed to make you faster with the short, one-handed swords.
+camwyn256 Not really. Medieval people made the distinction between hand-and-a-half swords and longswords, to the point some tournaments featured separate competitions for the two.
I happen to have a very cheap replica of Charlemagne sword but no shield nor horse so next time I take it off the wall for a little play I'll try and grab it two hands as you showed they did use to and see if it works better.
You forget the barbarian ability to dual wield swords. This advantage is key! You are smart to have that smaller sword for you off hand.
I wonder if maybe a common reason for using the two-handed grip on a shorter blade (or using a proper one-hander with two hands) was to fight in confined spaces. You do have slightly better control that way, which is important, say, indoors or in the gateway of a castle you're storming or some such. Also, since putting both hands on the hilt tends to draw your elbows in closer and shorten your reach relative to the length of the blade, you'd be much less likely to, for instance, swing wide and bury your blade in a wooden beam, thus risking being blind-sided by your enemy while you pulled it free.
Just a thought.
I do think this is a very good idea actually! it does depend on the swords and hilt types you talk about too even
The longsword could be wielded well enough one handed from horseback and with it's reach would be superior. It seems you missed the logic of that. This is not complex fencing that would have an advantage with lower weight. Horseback is very different.
Not to mean offense but Matt is probably well aware of the advantages of a longer blade upon horseback, he even does a few videos about the 1908 and 1912 cavalry swords used by the british which while not longswords espouse the same advantages of a longsword: length, stiffness, point, etc.
What he's talking about is more likely about cav vs cav and inf in melee. Certainly if you're just fighting infantry in a shock or hit and run attack, a longsword would probably be better on horseback. Whereas if you expect to need to fight in a melee on horseback, you probably want an arming sword.
Longsword fanboys. The new weeaboos
The Albion is very versatile. Can be handled as the weight of a dagger. Humane.
You may be able to hold that pommel, but can you end someone rightly with it?
omg you could start a side grill with those side burns
Matt you have the coolest sideburns i'v ever seen
Medieval soldier usually use spear or pike and bow or crossbow to fight in battle. Sword rarely use unless for self defense when enemy come too close.
Thank you
Another advantage of the one handed sword is being able to turn sideways towards the opponent...exposing less of your body to attack, as in boxing.
I have a custom longsword somewhat bassed off of a Svante-Nillson sword, and it sure is pain to carry around. The handle along with the pommel is around 30cms long and it stick out like crazy :)
This is the opposite of what you said before: that the longer (as with the rapier, which is also heavier) weapon is faster and nimbler, the same hand motion creates a faster tip motion, the shorter blade is slower because you have to move your feet and that is always very much slower than moving your hand, and so on.
David Blue The rapier has a very nimble tip because its point of balance is close to the hand and it has relatively less mass in the blade (and more in the hilt). The longsword in contrast has a much more substantial blade and the point of balance is further from the hand. It also has a higher total weight in general.
Rapier is heavy, but its the balance of the sword that effects it the most. Rapier has all the wight close to the handle, meaning you can move the blade-section of the rapier very fast with less movement in the hand. However a Longsword, since it can be use both 1 and 2 hand, has the balance point further away from the handle, roughly 3 inchs from the guard. While this allows you to do some nice pivoting strikes and all, the problem of a long sword being heavier as a whole weapon means that its slower, and you have to use bigger movements in your hand to get the momentum needed to do a good strike. 1 Handed sword however, which has similar balance point to a long-sword, being shorter and lighter, can do this much faster, meaning you can do the same movement in your hand faster.
Wonderfully informational :)
Another good reason would be fighting in close quarters. The Romans had an advantage over Germanic tribes in extreme close quarter combat because the german swords were long to use effectively in such a tight space, unlike the shorter roman stabbing swords
This right here when explaining the problems of large or significant HILT size in moving or grappling IS WHY THE SHARP LIGHT SABER HILT POINTS on the SW 7 move fantasy blade is ridiculous but then I hated Darth Maul's two end blades basically two long swords taped into a staff not a two spear ended staff.
Surely there are two separate reasons to hold a sword with both hands. The simpler reason is for power or strength, whether in attack or parry. The other reason will only apply with the longer grip: a longer grip means that you can hold your front hand still and use it as a fulcrum while you redirect the point with your back hand (or vice versa) meaning that you can redirect the point very quickly, rather than having to swing it as you would with a single handed weapon. Although the longsword precludes the use of a shield, its extra length and weight make it a powerful defence in its own right. I think our view of how swords were used is still coloured too much by bad Hollywood fight scenes. Matt's videos (and others) help to show that fighting with a sword was a much more sophisticated and nuanced set of skills than we used to assume. A longsword had some of the properties of a large sword, a short spear and a short but strong quarterstaff, plus all the hooking and grappling techniques that were not "instead" of sword fighting, but a fundamental part of it.
You can control horses without hand on reins. Experience horse riders can use bodies to ride horses. I agree with Frost Blast that longsword would give longer and better reach from horse back.
Actually hooking index finger of the second hand by the pommel of one handed viking era sword, gives your blows incredible force and even greater control over the sword. Those pommels are not circle-shaped, so it's easier to grab them effectively.
And philosophical raptor question: Is the short longsword just a sword? :D
I guess you also would like a shorter blade & hilt in more confined spaces, like bildings and maybe close formations.
Just out of interest, why would you want to use an arming sword in two hands? I see that you physically can but what are the advantages over using it one-handed? You gain minimal leverage (especially if you clasp the hands together), lose range and make your forearms massively vulnerable, even more so than a normal longsworder because you have a shorter blade.
It would be cool to see you do another video from the other perspective. Give some examples of times where longswords may be preferable to one-handed swords
MegaHasmat Reach is one obvious thing that favors the longsword and was also mentioned in the video. If you're not going to carry a shield or some such around anyway, you will have 2 hands to use your sword with and you might want to have that extra reach.
Also it's bigger and so looks more badass. Maybe it can cut a bit more powerfully (through armor) too because of that?
hyhhy You can also beat through someone's guard with a longsword easier then you can with a one handed sword. Again reach is a huge advantage, and you have a better defense.
Size the sword around would be a big thing while wearing it. Especially if you were already carrying a spear and shield as your primary weapon. Do you really need a massive 2 handed sword clanking around getting in the way. If you are a noble and that was your only weapon then the extra length was great.
Crystal clear
Great vid
I think a good reason for a one-handed sword is if you're hunting goblins. They live in caves, where you cant use a long sword.
I just had a thought. HEMA wouldn't be nearly as big if it weren't for the advent of the internet and social connectivity. I mean, how many people in the world have actual physical access to the historical treatises that we base it on? To narrow it down even further, how many of those people have the know-how to spark an international following and intrest in the sport? Not too many.
You're probably right. I used to do the hema thing with a small group back when I was in high school. The internet was pretty newfangled back then and we *really* didn't have much in the way of reference stuff and most of what we did have was a huge pain in the ass to track down.
Truth be told, there probably wasn't very much in the way of real history in our techniques, as we had to figure out almost everything ourselves. Even if I was still at the same level of skill as I was back then, I'm pretty sure somebody that has had proper training using better the sources available now than we had back then would flat out hand me my backside. Probably just as soundly as I could trounce the random passerby that decided it would be fun to challenge me to a swordfight. I also get the sense that it's gotten to be a much bigger thing with the internet allowing the small groups to communicate and find each other better than ever before. It's probably still pretty far from the norm, but we where considered weirdos back then. Not just wierdos, but the people that made the wierdos seem normal.
Also, damn you for making me feel old :P.
I love the idea of a one handed sword and shield. I've never actually used any kind of weapon, outside of firearms though. I'd love to, but swords, even today, are expensive. Being broker than a joke, it makes it hard. LOL
Some places people aren't allowed to carry assault rifles, only a handgun or smg. :(
Why the fuck do you need an assault rifle?
Lord Nublet Exactly, its the modern equivalent to what was discussed in the video! ^___^ hahah.
+Lord Nublet Very effective home defense, or militia practice and defense are possible uses.
+Az I'm talking for the average citizen, who's not in the militia, let's face it, most home invaders won't have body armour, so a handgun or SMG would penetrate quite easily. So I don't really see the NEED for an assault rifle as opposed to want
Lord Nublet That's the fun aspect of worst-case scenarios, you don't really nééd an assault rifle; until you do.
Also because swords were generally side arms and you don't always need to carry a longsword around. It's like asking 'why don't people carry puny 9mm handguns when they could just use a .357 or a Desert Eagle'
I fight with small (9") buckler and large buckler (14"); I've tried to learn drills with both longsword and smallsword with each. I think it's worthwhile to learn what to do if you must discard either shield.
A very good video, and it brings up a good question: If two swordsmen of equal skill faced each other, one wielding his sword in one hand with a shield, the other wielding his sword in two hands, who would have the advantage?
+Scott Freeman, assuming they're both using arming swords, then definitely the guy with the shield.
The Ringeck is a sword meant for two hands for the most part, but you seemd a little dexterous with it when you used it in one hand, much of that probably comes down to your skill, but seems like it can be used as a bastard sword at times.
i use a one handed greek hoplite xiphos sword from ancient times. basically a spartan sword with a 22 inch blade. could you please post a video addressing more ancent sword styles as opposed to medieval styles if you know any? im very interested in learning to fight as an ancient greek. from what i understand they have a particular style in there movements. i found the solo training videos you posted very helpful. i wish to learn to roll out of the way of attacks and come up behind opponents as well as disarming, backward thrusts, pommel attacks, and some blocks and parrys. if you know any of these techniques, or can shed light on others i may have missed please show me your expertise. thank you
~Jamie, son of Apollo
I think most standard sword and shield/buckler techniques would be applicable. One thing to keep in mind is that the early Greek and Roman short swords were primarily thrusting weapons. They were also generally a secondary weapon with the spear being the primary weapon, due to its greater reach. Standard military technique would be the very close formation with interlocked shields forming an impenetrable barrier - sometimes called the 'turtle'. Because you were so close to your companions, there was little room for wide swings - disciplined thrust through a small gap while maintaining formation was the order of the day. When (if) the enemy line got too close for the spear, the shortsword gave you an effective backup. The method is actually shown quite realistically early in the movie 300, before it degenerates into Hollywood fantasy.
very true. the true military strength of the spartans was their unshakable phalanx formation. and while i assume most battles were fought in formation (im not positive as none of us were there at the time) it would be foolish to think that they maintained formation 100% of the time during the chaos of close quarters combat. in fact, i would hazard a guess that most battles started in formation, and when they broke the enemies ranks, they would pursue them and break their own formation to rout the enemy.
The comment i posted originally was actually talking more about solo swordsman and/or traveling warriors, who were not engaging in full phalanx battles, and were more likely to fight 1 - 3 attackers than a few thousand. While its true that the xiphos is a primarily thrusting weapon in the context of phalanx warfare, it was also pretty much the only sword that was easily produced during those times. the shortness of it is actually because of the smelting qualities of bronze being unfavorable, so any solo warrior would still carry the same sword. I tell you from experience that the leaf shaped blade is excellent for cutting and has more momentum than one might think. I actually think its funny that they stumbled on one of the most effective slashing designs, yet used it almost exclusively for thrusting, but i digress.
I still maintain that the solo greek warriors from those times had a particular fighting style with the short sword that was completely different than the way it was used in a phalanx. Ive yet to see it for myself, but ive done alot of research attempting to learn more about it, so any new information on these techniques would be appreciated.
All of the talk about pommels made me realize, why not put a pommel on an axe? This would make it far more maneuverable while still having the superior striking capabilities.
I have never heard of such a thing. looked it up and couldn't find a single source of something like this. The main reason I replied was to follow where this goes if anyone has a good answer.
Axes were used because:
1. They were cheap and easy to made/remade.
2. They deliver great impact force.
Putting a pommel on the axe removes all advantages of the axes and leaves you with a "inferior sword".
Łukasz Kos Surely if the axe head weighs the same the amount of force delivered would be the same, possibly more with the added wight of the pommel.
The point about it being expensive is fairly void. You could just glue a steel ball or even a heavy stone to the end.
The only reason I can think of for not having one is because of the added weight and resultant extra tiredness of your attacking arm.
Bill Buck
Actually, you'd reduce the force, because the added weight of the pommel at the back end of the axe would shift the point of balance toward the back. The axe's force isn't so much the weight as how it's distributed. By having a heavy head, the chops/cuts you make are very powerful, similar to maces and warhammers. Shifting the point of balance back does make it more nimble, but at the cost of power, and then you've removed the main advantage the axe has over a sword.
Also, if you just glue the pommel on, it's liable to come off during a fight, and you stand a good chance of being hit by it when that happens.
Bill Buck
Read about "torque".
Fantastic video. Several points were mentioned that I hadn't ever considered... especially something as obvious as cost.
I asked this question on facebook so I apologize for asking it twice. Can "master cuts" be performed with one hand? I have only ever seen two handed examples.
As a civilian, I would carry a one-handed sword with a scent stopper pommel.
+thesmokingmirror well i am a direct decent of a an icelandic noble so bow down to me you filthy peasant!
Óðinn But I'm not Nordic! Nor am I a peasant, as civilian does not imply such.
What type of pommel do you consider to be the most convenient if you want to use your one-handed sword with two hands? I have the Albion The Knight and I don't find it to be comfortable with that Oakeshott Type J wheel pommel. I guess The Poitiers with its type I pommel is better suited?
Hello Matt ! I have two questions :
1) When fighting with the saber, the left hand is always behind the hip . My question is : Is it possible to keep your hand behind your hip in a melée ? i mean when fighting in melée , u can be attacked by several opponents .So how can a swordsman keep his hand in a real fight ?
2) Is it possible to do a video of cavalryman vs Infantryman in single combat with some historical accounts as examples.
Thnx for answering and sorry for asking questions that aren't related to the video above :)
In Escrima/Arnis, we're taught to keep it covering the "center line" by default - basically have your off-hand covering your heart.
Actually, it's your forearm covering your heart - as The Swezzo mentioned, your hand actually ends up covering your throat. If you extend your lead out a bit farther, your stand narrows, and you end up protecting the lead side of your neck. Which also works. The other advantage is that it means your off-hand is ready to assist if you step into close range and need to check/pass/grapple/punch. We calls this the "dead hand" position - because it's where you put your hand if it isn't doing anything.
The disadvantage of this position is that, in one-on-one scenarios (or non-lethal "first blood" duels), it means your had and forearm are legitimate targets. If you're playing a game of inches, stepping back an inch or so may be enough to avoid a strike - but if your elbow is poking out an additional 2 inches, you may be hit anyway. When we do point-sparring (as opposed to continuous), it's pretty easy to pick off the hand when it's in this position - we wear hockey gloves, so the hand as a target actually sticks out 4 inches from the chest or so.
In contrast - if you have a "live hand" - that is, if you are actively looking for a block/check/strike, the off hand tends to be up and behind, near your ear - or else it's moving around, in a counterpoint to the weapon, shifting between various guard positions and whatnot. Again - the disadvantage is that the off-hand and forarm become legitimate targets, but they (in theory) end up being tools in the fight.
However - as a practical matter - stepping into short-range without being hit is kinda difficult. As such, we tend to start out at long (hand-picking range), move into medium (you can hit the body), then back out. The off-hand really doesn't come into play all that much unless you're being super-aggressive "physically run the person down" style. Which is legit if you can pull it off - one of the instructors is a police officer, and he tends to do this really, really well.
If I were to buy another sword, it would be the one handed sword in this video. Mainly because it is beautiful! :p
Whats the advantage of holding the same short grip with both hands (as you showed us at last)?
I have seen it also at indian martial arts, but it makes absolutly no sense to me.
love your videos! I have a question regarding this video. Would one handed swords have made more sense in an urban combat situation? I'd imagine if someone were to be storming a castle or raiding a village, more weapon would get in the way of the environment.