I would love to see some longer more in depth videos on all sorts of sword related topics! hilts, blades, how swords were sharpened, researching the history of a blade etc etc all well worth an hour or two :o)
If I had to guess, developed hilts came from the decline in popularity of protective gear. You can afford to have a cruciform hilt on a longsword or arming sword, because they are generally used either with a large shield or while wearing gauntlets. A 14th century man at arms may have plate gauntlets, or at worst riveted plate (brigandine style) gauntlets, so having plates or bows over the hilt of the sword is a bit redundant. A 12th century man at arms using an arming sword will likely have a large shield that he can withdraw his sword hand behind, so once again, a developed hilt is slightly redundant. Once people stop using protective gear, it has to be integrated into the sword.
I'd love to see a video comparing the different types of grips, such as a messer grip, vs a tulwar which is thicker in the middle vs a sansibar's ccurved grip
One comparison I find fascinating is the Falchon, and Messer, because in Germany (Switzerland, Austria/Hungary, Scandinavia...) for a long time they existed side-by-side. The Falchon was a knife bladed sword, for nobles (I believe chopping up the commoners) and the messer a knife handled sword. So, they could be nearly identical blades, the only real difference (Legally, a Hunter could carry a "Knife") being the hilt. Including the Tang, because the messer has a flatter one to rivet on side-plates, while the Falchon had a squarer one to slip on a grip, and peen in a pommel. Without the fittings, the shape of the tang would be the only way to tell whether it was ment to be dressed as a knife, or a sword. (Though i don't know of any examples, so more of a thought experiment.)
Another way to adapt the blade in order to compensate for the heavy hilt making it less effective at cutting would be to optimize it for thrusting. As seen with rapiers or with the 1908 cavalry sabre.
Another way to compensate for the heavier hilt is to make the sword comparatively longer. Now not just heavier, harder to wear, but also with more reach!
The Messer could "Cut better" also if it basically didn't have a Falchon blade. There's really no standard for Messers, beyond a knife handle, and Nagel, but the blades varied from Hanger to Dussack style, and so forth. However, it's still a Knife, that looks like a Falchon with a Langes messer hilt. Some of the ones I've seen, and handled have more of an sword length knife blade, a lot thicker at the back for strength, and even beaten to a hollow "Grind" with a fuller, if not fullered at the back. What you've got there is a Matchette. With a Messer hilt. If it had a Sword hilt, it would be a Falchon. Fine for cutting flesh, and even clothing, but thick leather, or thin wood (Like brush) or bone would wreck, and warp that blade. I never realized how thin that blade really was. Which is fairly accurate, or within the range of Messers they did make, but that's like a JagrMesser, for a hunter. (I've also seen them called a hirschMesser, or deerKnife.) for cutting flesh, and pretty much only flesh.
"The pointy end of the blade"... the word you are looking for is "distal" as in "distal taper" , the mezzo would be medial, and the forte would be proximal.
That is why we often find a yelman on baskethilted sabres or Dussack, Tessak, Dusägge etc. in the 16th/17th century, having good hand protection and countering the weight of it with that for increased cutting power. Though bladeshape in sense of thickness in the back like Backswords or in case of Highland Broadswords having very flat, broad choppers, is another possibility in bladedesign to get enough cutting ability with good handprotection. For me personally every sword without solid hand protection (unarmored combat of course) is just a tool for chopping wood, just a big knife. So long Messers, even being the forefathers of onehanded civilian fencing in Europe, is the post imperfect weapon to me. No Baskethilt, no glory 😁😉
You briefly mentioned gauntlets. I would guess that as the use of armour (mail or plate) declined, and people were more likely to be fighting with their hands bare (or at best with leather gloves on) they felt a greater need for hand protection built into the sword itself. Presumably from the point of view of the balance of weight, it would not make much difference whether the user has to manipulate heavy gauntlets or a heavy hilt, as they both add weight in much the same place.
Would maintaining a"light" hilt and compensating for the lack of hand protection with eg. a mailed glove.....also be detrimental to the momentum of "the pointy end"? The extra weight is not in the hilt per se...but it is in the grip holding the hilt.?
Could you compensate for the increased mass in the hilt by reducing the distal taper, thereby shifting the weight forward without increasing it's total mass?
Do you think the necessity of a more forceful blow may have contributed to the lacking development for hand protection back when you could expect having to deal with mail armour or a gambeson?
I think, given the choice, I'd take a slightly slower sword with hand protection than a slightly faster one without it. It's not much of a victory if you get 1-2 of your most important fingers cut off (especially if there are more guys to kill right after).
DaaaahWhoosh Also consider how important it was to her functioning hands back then. People worked with their hands, and a debilitating cut to the arm or hand could ruin a career.
Given my family background (Scottish, from around Kintail) I have to wonder about a peculiarity of sword use; the penchant for using a targe and a basket-hilted broadsword or backsword. Are we Scots just a "belt and suspenders" sort of people, or does the style of fighting warrant such double protection?
morallyambiguousnet In the context of the Jacobite uprisings, it made sense. They used the targe in a similar way as the Zulus would use their shields against the British. It was meant to catch or deflect the point of the bayonet while executing the Highland charge. This would leave the redcoat exposed for a follow-up attack with the broadsword. As for the double protection of the hand with the basket hilt, it probably has to do with the overall swordsmanship trends of the time.
morallyambiguousnet, you need to remember that the basket hilt was a gradual adaptation of the sword following the mass adoption of firearms. Pistols in particular saw the end of the common use of armored gauntlets and the use of shields also was much reduced given the need to maintain hand dexterity and the pointlessness of all but the thickest shields vs lead shot. This meant that integral hand protection on a sword became a much more important consideration. Another factor was growing industrialization of manufacture which meant that swords became far more widely available to the common man. Swords were being wielded by people will little or no professional training in fencing and these people did not give a damn about the loss of agility of the blade a full basket hilt causes.
I might not have seen enough sabres, but from what I've seen the three bars are really common. Why pick those over the shell/half-basket hilt? If it was awkward with carrying I suppose you could just make it smaller on the thumb side.
Could you develop this discussion towards trusting weapons. What differens does mass do to a trusting weapons preformance? Is there a significant differens between somthing like a rapier an for example a spear?
Here you say that adding mass to the hilt reduces the power of the weapon. In your video on Scottish broadswords, you seemed to argue the opposite position. Is there an additional factor that you didn't mention that makes both of these true?
What do you think are the reasons for the shashka's lack of hand protection? In what contexts does it makr sense to forego hand protection entirely? I imagine it (1) makes the weapon somewhat easier to get at when riding a horse and (2) shifts center of percussion forwards. Cossacks obviously knew the benefits of hand protection because they sparred with the equivalent of gymnasium sabre with basket hilts.
Somewhat funnily, a Russian envoy to Khiva (1819-1820) was told by one of the Khan's retainers that he could not wear a sword in the presence of the Khan. His response regarding his shashka was basically, "what sword? This is a circassian knife."
I can't remember where I heard it, but I've been told because Cossacks were predominantly mounted, keeping the hand higher than most men and contact with other blades would be minimal, thus not requiring hand protection
But doesn't making the hilt heavier (and moving the center of balance closer to the hand) make the point quicker? Didn't many swords (especially earlier ones) have deliberately weighted pommel caps for specifically this reason?
You need the point of balance to be at the "right" spot, not just "as far back" or "as far forwards" as possible. Viking swords have the point of balance much further up the blade than the more thrust oriented swords of the 14th/15th centuries. Just like how shashkas or falchions have the point of balance further up than spadroons. The later blades are lighter, so then the hilt also need to be lighter in order to have the balance at the right spot for chopping.
Is it really tested and confirmed that if you add a mass to the hilt without changing the blade then the cuts have less energy? I am sure they will be slower, but there will be some additional mass in the sword. If a less mass is always good then spadroons would be the best cutters.
It's not about keeping the mass low, but keeping it concentrated at the correct place. If you have a light blade and heavy grip, it will make for a poor cutter, but will give you a lot of point control - like a spadroon, smallsword or rapier. It is all about the relation of the weight forward and backward on the blade. This is irrespective of the total weight of the blade. A lighter weapon doesn't make it a better cutter, but it will make it (most likely) a better weapon. You can move less mass faster, you tire less using it and it is easier to move it around.
I think both metric and imperial both works as long as it´s clear what is what. if the chanel use imperial, I can show of in the coments. I learned Metrics first and live in a country that use metrics, but as a history nerd i learned Imperial.
Why don't Messers have two nails rather than one? Wouldn't it be slightly safer with one sticking off the other side, in case a blade ended up there, as well as bringing the weight a bit closer to the hilt?
Matt has talked about this in the past. Basically it is probably because a nagel on the thumb side would be a pain when wearing it (which is what you do with a sword 99.9% of the time). Also, I believe the langmesser styles focus on parrying with the outside flat of the blade, so a nagel on the thumb side flat really isn't too necessary.
Yeah but during the 18th and 19th century they weren't using armor anymore and longbows were cheaper, easier to maintain, and had a higher rate of fire.
Interesting thought. Muskets are so good that nobody wears armor what makes longbows somewhat effective again. So why not switch back to longbows? But I think you see why that doesn't work in the long run.
I think it would have been a good choice for guerrilla fighters at least if not the rest of the military. And are you saying it would have made militaries go back to full plate armor, brigandines, mail, etc?
which is more durable? a pinned handle construction or a full tang knife like handle like of the messer.. i never owned a pinned sword or dagger so thats why im curious.. my collection pretty much consist of the china made variety... because of well cost :) we got to start somewhere right? :)
Issue with aluminum and steel is the corrosion prompted by contact of those metals. Dunno how that works with various aluminum alloys; you could for insane weight savings use aluminum-magnesium alloys. The actual issue with these materials is how are you actually going to make the damn thing?
Aluminum is indeed lighter and fairly cheap, but its softness would be a problem. At a Moh's* hardness of 2-2.9 (depending on the specific alloy/heat treatment) is softer than steel (anywhere from 5-8.5) so a steel blade can literally cut an aluminum guard. It wouldn't be easy to chop right through, but the opponent would certainly be able to bend it a little, and if you are guarding many times with it against steel edges, one of them will eventually make it through: and that's a deadly lottery to win. This is exactly the reason steel weapons and armor completely supplanted the softer bronze despite it being so much cheaper (not true any more, but good iron ore was hard to find for most of history), easier to work (bronze can be worked cold and only has 1 crystal structure, so heat treating is only needed to remove crystal lattice boundaries), and easier to maintain (bronze's oxidation doesn't eat through the metal like other rusts, and can easily be bent back into shape in the field if it bends): and that stuff's got a hardness ~3, so your average aluminum would have an even worse time of it. Matt has shown in several videos that front-line fighters would often choose non-regulation steel hilts instead of regulation brass ones specifically because they were better able to take a beating. *the original Moh's scale only goes from 1-10, the modified one goes 1-15, and slightly adjusts placement to better reflect common hardnesses for non-gem materials. Same reference materials for the minimum (talc) and maximum (diamond) though. The site I was looking at didn't specify which it was using. As to titanium, the table I was referencing didn't list the Moh's number, but my understanding is that it's harder than some steels, softer than others. You'd want to get a sample of a both a common steel for swords and titanium to see which scratches the other to test. Also note that while titanium is stronger than steel by mass, it is weaker than steel by volume, so the guards would have to be thicker to account for that.
Fair enough then. I guess it looks much more exposed in the video than it would be in fight because Matt is holding it to display the cutlass rather stab the camera.
I totally agree with you. I am a feroceous metric defender. But, what I suggest is using at least once a conversion so people not understanding metrics can understand what we are talking about. For instance : "This sword is 1000g, roughly 2,2 pounds" will help anyone converting 500g, 2000g and so forth. 500g is half, 2000 is double, 1500g is a half more, etc, etc. Some people just don't know what a gram is in their own mesurement system.
7 лет назад+2
Logical with accommodations is better for a lot of people including myself :)
Hmmmmm.... I never thought I would say this but... Katanas come to mind. I always wondered about the benefits of a hilt so minimal as a katanas; why make a sword where your hand is protected by little more than a brass Oreo? And yet you say that less weight in the hilt translates to more power in the cut. Sooo, the katana is already a cut-biased design, and perhaps (by trial and error or design) the pathetic guard is meant to be another tweak in that direction? (I do know why they're so popular though. Cuts tend to be a bit more dramatic than stabs, and cutty battles with lots of flourish are more interesting to watch than tight, stabby battles. Like the difference between ballet and step-dancing, ballet is more popular to watch because of the wide, arm-swinging, leg-swinging motions, and step is much tighter in. Doesn't make ballet a better dance, and step sounds prettier with its in-built beat, but that's my theory.)
I think it has to do with the Japanese fighting philosophy, where you go all in and either kill the other guy or die. So fuck defense, offense trumps all, put everything into the cut :P
I would think cut centric fighting is very defensively oriented. In most cuts, you can attack in sucha way that you defend yourself at the same time. While a cut-centric style will focus on sneaiking the point past the opposing defences, leaving little of your own blade to protect you. I may be wrong, but I think it looks like sabres are way more defensive than smallswords.
No, their armor was decent, it's just one of those strange preconceptions, just like "plate armor was too heavy and clumsy to run in". You couldn't cut through their full armor any more than you could through European full armor.
I think I speak for everybody when I say that a day long podcast about hilts would be the greatest thing ever!!
Some people drop the F-bomb.
Matt seems to have opted for the Precision F-Strike.
I would gladly pay to listen to you talk about hilts for 24 hours
Man, this channel is great.
I would love to see some longer more in depth videos on all sorts of sword related topics! hilts, blades, how swords were sharpened, researching the history of a blade etc etc all well worth an hour or two :o)
If I had to guess, developed hilts came from the decline in popularity of protective gear. You can afford to have a cruciform hilt on a longsword or arming sword, because they are generally used either with a large shield or while wearing gauntlets. A 14th century man at arms may have plate gauntlets, or at worst riveted plate (brigandine style) gauntlets, so having plates or bows over the hilt of the sword is a bit redundant. A 12th century man at arms using an arming sword will likely have a large shield that he can withdraw his sword hand behind, so once again, a developed hilt is slightly redundant. Once people stop using protective gear, it has to be integrated into the sword.
Do another one of those Q&A things, they are wonderful.
Also consider getting drunk before it.
I'm fairly sure he's high half the time anyways.
Captain Dickmann Best idea
Drunk? Just play the video on 0.5 speed. Close enough in my opinion
That's a nice shirt. Really fits you
Oskar Stålberg Yeah, he looks sexy as fuck, no homo
Very good video. Far too many assume that a 'bigger weapon some how translates to a better weapons. Everything has a cost to it.
I'd love to see a video comparing the different types of grips, such as a messer grip, vs a tulwar which is thicker in the middle vs a sansibar's ccurved grip
One comparison I find fascinating is the Falchon, and Messer, because in Germany (Switzerland, Austria/Hungary, Scandinavia...) for a long time they existed side-by-side. The Falchon was a knife bladed sword, for nobles (I believe chopping up the commoners) and the messer a knife handled sword. So, they could be nearly identical blades, the only real difference (Legally, a Hunter could carry a "Knife") being the hilt. Including the Tang, because the messer has a flatter one to rivet on side-plates, while the Falchon had a squarer one to slip on a grip, and peen in a pommel. Without the fittings, the shape of the tang would be the only way to tell whether it was ment to be dressed as a knife, or a sword. (Though i don't know of any examples, so more of a thought experiment.)
I do believe this is the first time I've ever heard Matt curse.
Another way to adapt the blade in order to compensate for the heavy hilt making it less effective at cutting would be to optimize it for thrusting. As seen with rapiers or with the 1908 cavalry sabre.
Another way to compensate for the heavier hilt is to make the sword comparatively longer. Now not just heavier, harder to wear, but also with more reach!
The Messer could "Cut better" also if it basically didn't have a Falchon blade. There's really no standard for Messers, beyond a knife handle, and Nagel, but the blades varied from Hanger to Dussack style, and so forth. However, it's still a Knife, that looks like a Falchon with a Langes messer hilt. Some of the ones I've seen, and handled have more of an sword length knife blade, a lot thicker at the back for strength, and even beaten to a hollow "Grind" with a fuller, if not fullered at the back. What you've got there is a Matchette. With a Messer hilt. If it had a Sword hilt, it would be a Falchon. Fine for cutting flesh, and even clothing, but thick leather, or thin wood (Like brush) or bone would wreck, and warp that blade. I never realized how thin that blade really was. Which is fairly accurate, or within the range of Messers they did make, but that's like a JagrMesser, for a hunter. (I've also seen them called a hirschMesser, or deerKnife.) for cutting flesh, and pretty much only flesh.
"The pointy end of the blade"... the word you are looking for is "distal" as in "distal taper" , the mezzo would be medial, and the forte would be proximal.
Distal taper is the thickest part to the edge.
I did under abut this and did want to share it.
The wife would love a day all about hilts.
when i run someone through, i always bury it up to the hilt!
me too
Thomas Allen my blade's too long and broad to go more than halfway through :(
Sifuben Don't flatter yourself
@@Sifuben
Then stop thrusting with Conyers falchions, dammit!
That is why we often find a yelman on baskethilted sabres or Dussack, Tessak, Dusägge etc. in the 16th/17th century, having good hand protection and countering the weight of it with that for increased cutting power. Though bladeshape in sense of thickness in the back like Backswords or in case of Highland Broadswords having very flat, broad choppers, is another possibility in bladedesign to get enough cutting ability with good handprotection. For me personally every sword without solid hand protection (unarmored combat of course) is just a tool for chopping wood, just a big knife. So long Messers, even being the forefathers of onehanded civilian fencing in Europe, is the post imperfect weapon to me. No Baskethilt, no glory 😁😉
You briefly mentioned gauntlets. I would guess that as the use of armour (mail or plate) declined, and people were more likely to be fighting with their hands bare (or at best with leather gloves on) they felt a greater need for hand protection built into the sword itself. Presumably from the point of view of the balance of weight, it would not make much difference whether the user has to manipulate heavy gauntlets or a heavy hilt, as they both add weight in much the same place.
Would maintaining a"light" hilt and compensating for the lack of hand protection with eg. a mailed glove.....also be detrimental to the momentum of "the pointy end"? The extra weight is not in the hilt per se...but it is in the grip holding the hilt.?
Could you compensate for the increased mass in the hilt by reducing the distal taper, thereby shifting the weight forward without increasing it's total mass?
Do you think the necessity of a more forceful blow may have contributed to the lacking development for hand protection back when you could expect having to deal with mail armour or a gambeson?
I think, given the choice, I'd take a slightly slower sword with hand protection than a slightly faster one without it. It's not much of a victory if you get 1-2 of your most important fingers cut off (especially if there are more guys to kill right after).
DaaaahWhoosh Also consider how important it was to her functioning hands back then. People worked with their hands, and a debilitating cut to the arm or hand could ruin a career.
It can depend on your equipment and style.
A good gauntlet? A buckler to take on the majority of blocks? Then you might focus more on a light blade.
One does not simply "put aside" ending a man rightly with a pommel.
it has been quite a while since I had to compare hilts...
24 hr Matt hilt stream confirmed. BRACE YOURSELVES
Given my family background (Scottish, from around Kintail) I have to wonder about a peculiarity of sword use; the penchant for using a targe and a basket-hilted broadsword or backsword. Are we Scots just a "belt and suspenders" sort of people, or does the style of fighting warrant such double protection?
morallyambiguousnet
In the context of the Jacobite uprisings, it made sense. They used the targe in a similar way as the Zulus would use their shields against the British. It was meant to catch or deflect the point of the bayonet while executing the Highland charge. This would leave the redcoat exposed for a follow-up attack with the broadsword.
As for the double protection of the hand with the basket hilt, it probably has to do with the overall swordsmanship trends of the time.
morallyambiguousnet, you need to remember that the basket hilt was a gradual adaptation of the sword following the mass adoption of firearms. Pistols in particular saw the end of the common use of armored gauntlets and the use of shields also was much reduced given the need to maintain hand dexterity and the pointlessness of all but the thickest shields vs lead shot. This meant that integral hand protection on a sword became a much more important consideration. Another factor was growing industrialization of manufacture which meant that swords became far more widely available to the common man. Swords were being wielded by people will little or no professional training in fencing and these people did not give a damn about the loss of agility of the blade a full basket hilt causes.
I might not have seen enough sabres, but from what I've seen the three bars are really common. Why pick those over the shell/half-basket hilt? If it was awkward with carrying I suppose you could just make it smaller on the thumb side.
i don't think i've ever heard you swear, matt. it kinda caught me off-gaurd, and brought out a chuckle.
Phillip Booth watch his video from a whilr back about perceived French military deficiencies
You should do a video with Pixelated Apollo. That would be interesting. Probably squash his brain.
Could you develop this discussion towards trusting weapons. What differens does mass do to a trusting weapons preformance? Is there a significant differens between somthing like a rapier an for example a spear?
Here you say that adding mass to the hilt reduces the power of the weapon. In your video on Scottish broadswords, you seemed to argue the opposite position. Is there an additional factor that you didn't mention that makes both of these true?
I LOVE MY HILTS.
What do you think are the reasons for the shashka's lack of hand protection? In what contexts does it makr sense to forego hand protection entirely?
I imagine it (1) makes the weapon somewhat easier to get at when riding a horse and (2) shifts center of percussion forwards.
Cossacks obviously knew the benefits of hand protection because they sparred with the equivalent of gymnasium sabre with basket hilts.
Somewhat funnily, a Russian envoy to Khiva (1819-1820) was told by one of the Khan's retainers that he could not wear a sword in the presence of the Khan. His response regarding his shashka was basically, "what sword? This is a circassian knife."
I can't remember where I heard it, but I've been told because Cossacks were predominantly mounted, keeping the hand higher than most men and contact with other blades would be minimal, thus not requiring hand protection
would you say it is the opposite for a rapier? having a heavier hilt bringing the point of balance back making the point more nimble etc?
But doesn't making the hilt heavier (and moving the center of balance closer to the hand) make the point quicker? Didn't many swords (especially earlier ones) have deliberately weighted pommel caps for specifically this reason?
You need the point of balance to be at the "right" spot, not just "as far back" or "as far forwards" as possible. Viking swords have the point of balance much further up the blade than the more thrust oriented swords of the 14th/15th centuries. Just like how shashkas or falchions have the point of balance further up than spadroons. The later blades are lighter, so then the hilt also need to be lighter in order to have the balance at the right spot for chopping.
I agree, metric makes comparisons so much easier.
I wonder if Mount and Blade Bannerlord's weapon crafting will have this level of detail?
Is it really tested and confirmed that if you add a mass to the hilt without changing the blade then the cuts have less energy? I am sure they will be slower, but there will be some additional mass in the sword. If a less mass is always good then spadroons would be the best cutters.
It's not about keeping the mass low, but keeping it concentrated at the correct place. If you have a light blade and heavy grip, it will make for a poor cutter, but will give you a lot of point control - like a spadroon, smallsword or rapier. It is all about the relation of the weight forward and backward on the blade. This is irrespective of the total weight of the blade.
A lighter weapon doesn't make it a better cutter, but it will make it (most likely) a better weapon. You can move less mass faster, you tire less using it and it is easier to move it around.
By the gods, that shirt! :O
Embracing the Disco Grey persona?
Does a cutlass hilt offer any more protection than a swept-hilt rapier? Seems like the sides are awfully ungraded comparatively. o.o
So,early fighters used sword and shield,than the shield became a "worn shield"so an armour,then the armor became a bigger handguard for sword
Yeah but the tsuba remained small
Would a blade cut better with more distal taper just because it's thinner at the cutting portion or is there another reason?
I believe that distal taper is just for reducing the weight of the blade and it also seems to affect balance and handling as well.
Does wearing a gauntlet have a similar effect to increasing mass at the handle?
I think both metric and imperial both works as long as it´s clear what is what. if the chanel use imperial, I can show of in the coments. I learned Metrics first and live in a country that use metrics, but as a history nerd i learned Imperial.
Why don't Messers have two nails rather than one? Wouldn't it be slightly safer with one sticking off the other side, in case a blade ended up there, as well as bringing the weight a bit closer to the hilt?
Matt has talked about this in the past. Basically it is probably because a nagel on the thumb side would be a pain when wearing it (which is what you do with a sword 99.9% of the time). Also, I believe the langmesser styles focus on parrying with the outside flat of the blade, so a nagel on the thumb side flat really isn't too necessary.
I suspect that it might have something to do with comfort when wearing sheathed and on your belt, but I could be wrong.
when can we see a 360 view of your office,
Hey Matt, the "a" in "Nagel" is pronounced just like in "hat" (british), unless it's plural: "Nägel". Nice video.
More like in "father", actually.
RUclipsVoice I tend to just call it a nail, since that's what "Nagel" literally means.
Could you please talk about why longbows weren't used instead of muskets in the 18th and 19th century?
More damage. Muskets made armor absolete, longbows didn't.
Yeah but during the 18th and 19th century they weren't using armor anymore and longbows were cheaper, easier to maintain, and had a higher rate of fire.
Interesting thought. Muskets are so good that nobody wears armor what makes longbows somewhat effective again. So why not switch back to longbows? But I think you see why that doesn't work in the long run.
I think it would have been a good choice for guerrilla fighters at least if not the rest of the military. And are you saying it would have made militaries go back to full plate armor, brigandines, mail, etc?
Maybe. Shields would do the trick, too.
which is more durable? a pinned handle construction or a full tang knife like handle like of the messer.. i never owned a pinned sword or dagger so thats why im curious.. my collection pretty much consist of the china made variety... because of well cost :) we got to start somewhere right? :)
Honestly, I wish the metric system was used in the USA. It's better for anything! Conversions are an absolute nightmare using the imperial system...
Has anyone tried Titanium hilts?
Issue with aluminum and steel is the corrosion prompted by contact of those metals. Dunno how that works with various aluminum alloys; you could for insane weight savings use aluminum-magnesium alloys.
The actual issue with these materials is how are you actually going to make the damn thing?
Aluminum is indeed lighter and fairly cheap, but its softness would be a problem. At a Moh's* hardness of 2-2.9 (depending on the specific alloy/heat treatment) is softer than steel (anywhere from 5-8.5) so a steel blade can literally cut an aluminum guard. It wouldn't be easy to chop right through, but the opponent would certainly be able to bend it a little, and if you are guarding many times with it against steel edges, one of them will eventually make it through: and that's a deadly lottery to win. This is exactly the reason steel weapons and armor completely supplanted the softer bronze despite it being so much cheaper (not true any more, but good iron ore was hard to find for most of history), easier to work (bronze can be worked cold and only has 1 crystal structure, so heat treating is only needed to remove crystal lattice boundaries), and easier to maintain (bronze's oxidation doesn't eat through the metal like other rusts, and can easily be bent back into shape in the field if it bends): and that stuff's got a hardness ~3, so your average aluminum would have an even worse time of it. Matt has shown in several videos that front-line fighters would often choose non-regulation steel hilts instead of regulation brass ones specifically because they were better able to take a beating.
*the original Moh's scale only goes from 1-10, the modified one goes 1-15, and slightly adjusts placement to better reflect common hardnesses for non-gem materials. Same reference materials for the minimum (talc) and maximum (diamond) though. The site I was looking at didn't specify which it was using.
As to titanium, the table I was referencing didn't list the Moh's number, but my understanding is that it's harder than some steels, softer than others. You'd want to get a sample of a both a common steel for swords and titanium to see which scratches the other to test. Also note that while titanium is stronger than steel by mass, it is weaker than steel by volume, so the guards would have to be thicker to account for that.
With that cutlass, why is the hand guard so far away from the hand? It sticks out much further than needed.
But it looks like it would allow a thrust to actually get inside the hand guard - or is that just unlikely?
Fair enough then. I guess it looks much more exposed in the video than it would be in fight because Matt is holding it to display the cutlass rather stab the camera.
Well that guard doesn't just protect your hand. It's big like that so it closes the line to your arm as well.
Matt, I always heard it pronounced Kill-eege. Maybe that's wrong though. Dante.
I think you said that you was just about give that Messer back to Todd ... a week ago ... ! :-)
I recorded lots of videos at the same time. This was the last one to publish.
Matt Easton - "Context" that's all
I wonder, are basket hilts and the like something uniquely european?
Please keep using metric.
I totally agree with you. I am a feroceous metric defender. But, what I suggest is using at least once a conversion so people not understanding metrics can understand what we are talking about.
For instance : "This sword is 1000g, roughly 2,2 pounds" will help anyone converting 500g, 2000g and so forth. 500g is half, 2000 is double, 1500g is a half more, etc, etc.
Some people just don't know what a gram is in their own mesurement system.
Logical with accommodations is better for a lot of people including myself :)
Thing is, most "english speakers" on the internet, are not from USA ;)
I just discovered that i've became american!
What ? They freed you and gave you DEMOCRACY ?
So why is The Hanger called a Hanger?
Cool video.
[ˈnaːɡl̩] for pronunciation of NAGEL...
At what point does a simple hilt, become complex?
The best way to keep the blade light is to throw the pommel...
just dawned on me: I think I know where the new easton gym saber is being produced...
Wait, so I don't have to unscrew the pommel to end someone rightly?
... ... ... My world is soooooo changed... ... ...
Hmmmmm.... I never thought I would say this but...
Katanas come to mind.
I always wondered about the benefits of a hilt so minimal as a katanas; why make a sword where your hand is protected by little more than a brass Oreo? And yet you say that less weight in the hilt translates to more power in the cut.
Sooo, the katana is already a cut-biased design, and perhaps (by trial and error or design) the pathetic guard is meant to be another tweak in that direction?
(I do know why they're so popular though. Cuts tend to be a bit more dramatic than stabs, and cutty battles with lots of flourish are more interesting to watch than tight, stabby battles. Like the difference between ballet and step-dancing, ballet is more popular to watch because of the wide, arm-swinging, leg-swinging motions, and step is much tighter in. Doesn't make ballet a better dance, and step sounds prettier with its in-built beat, but that's my theory.)
I think it has to do with the Japanese fighting philosophy, where you go all in and either kill the other guy or die. So fuck defense, offense trumps all, put everything into the cut :P
I would think cut centric fighting is very defensively oriented. In most cuts, you can attack in sucha way that you defend yourself at the same time. While a cut-centric style will focus on sneaiking the point past the opposing defences, leaving little of your own blade to protect you.
I may be wrong, but I think it looks like sabres are way more defensive than smallswords.
Nope. The Japanese just had shitty armor, and so they could use cutting swords which suck against armor.
No, their armor was decent, it's just one of those strange preconceptions, just like "plate armor was too heavy and clumsy to run in". You couldn't cut through their full armor any more than you could through European full armor.
So why would you use a cutting sword against armor that makes you invincible to cuts? Makes no sense.
Are you related to Bashar Al-Assad?
The Memes at 8:06
Yeah a pre-nerfed Cleveland
I'm here so early RUclips can't even understand and is just showing me the loading spinner :).
(it did eventually load :))
Entire day of hilts, plz?
Call it something like "Hilting deep" or something. After all you are Mat "Context PHRASING Thrusting The Butt Cat Easton"
The "nagel" is pronounced with an "a" as in "bath" ;)
An Oxford English "bath".
I'd specify that this goes for the common British pronunciation of "bath", since not all viewers here are Brits or have learned British English.
Hilts belong in the cooler!
Daniel Taylor
*Thud*-*Thud* *Smack*
Pause, look back, head shake and walk away.
Tventy Days!
Metric works better for everything. *sticks to American units anyways*
If you speak English, you use imperial measurement. That is all, carry on.
What an unfortunate name, "marey monge"....
Second. It is early.
Like a lot of continental things Metric is indeed better.
Electric sockets.
Disliked for metric