This video is like a gladius,a good compromise between different important sides such a depth,semplicity and clarity, good as a first for a beginner,and still useful for someone with more experience.
I'm a follower of multiple sword channels (Shad, Lindy, Skall, Metatron, Schola) and I've been a practitioner of Kali for the past 12 years. I'd like to think I know my way around blades and swords better than most. This is probably the best video I have watched when it comes to explaining how swords work, and why they work the way they do, without getting too caught up in the historical minutiae. It's a good compromise between detail, practicality, and simplicity. Good video man, keep it up.
@@katokianimation I think weapon combat can really be figured out with simple physics principles and the large amount of historical documentation that we have. Since militaries were very incentivized to understand weaponry.. Hand to hand combat, however, is way harder to get a casual grasp of. Militaries have rarely cared about it, and traditional martial arts were almost never tested. And the demands on athletic ability are comparatively high. I think a weapon person trying to gain a good understanding of hand to hand, while only putting in casual research, is going to have a really hard time. Which is probably why those videos aren't good lol
@@женя-у7ш9т im not sure if Shad had video on hand 2 hand. He talked about practicing hema and martial arts and learning how to fight generally wich wasn't good. But I would go easier on shad than the other two who really had no idea what were they talking about but talked about a topic like they were experts in the topic anyway. Metatron is the worst. The guy had the worst heavybag work i have ever seen. And he said muhay thai is better than mma. And systema is better than boxing... and even though his technics stinks he would win a sword fight because he would use dirty technics... Also it is a common belive among hema guys that they were perform as good in a real fight to death as they are doing in fencing...
The very basic explanation of the curved blade's strength over the straight blade was great. The use of cam mechanism as a visual aid, and the basic demonstration of the blade self correction was very good.
This is false information. Blades do NOT self-correct in a cut. Go find a qualified tameshigiri teacher and learn to cut correctly. You will see that swords do not self-correct.
@@garron6775 this is because you rarely cut straight down in practice, in most sword systems you cut diagonally son any mistake with with the handling is going to make sword rotate and mess the cut, curved swords like to be edge as much as edge up. TLDR I agree with you, you need a sharp sword and a skilled user to prove those theories
@@yoshi658 Most proficient sword arts have a downward cut. It is one of the standard 8 directional cuts. Further to the point of a sword righting itself in a cut (nonsense), a shinken (Japanese sword); while there are many ways to use the entirety of the length of the blade, generally it is cut using the first 2"-4" of the blade. The curve (called sori) had many purposes none of which is to right the sword in the cut.
@@garron6775 what I meant is that the vertical cut( I mean cut number 7 in sabre or men strike in kendo) seems to be not that common in at least in drills or at least sparring(not counting kendo) and some systems like the one in fiore only counts two downward cuts(fendenti) that said I only practice german longsword, Iberian montante and a little bit of english sabre so my knowledge may be narrow or wrong
@@yoshi658 My primary sword art is kenjutsu. I study from a teacher with a direct lineage to samurai. A verticle cut is used as often as any other angle. The reason you may not see them as much in a bouting art is that a verticle shot is somewhat more difficult to land due to that particular angle offering the smallest target. Whereas an angled cut is presented with a much larger target area. However, I would argue this is a skill level rather than a practical issue. Of course, particular sword designs are going to influence the cutting options. Back to my original point, the content creator knows very little about sword fighting and curved swords do NOT right themselves in a cut. One cuts correctly or the sword tells you very quickly that you did not cut correctly.
As both a historical fencer and a physicist, I have to say this is one of the - if not *the* - best "layman's crash course" on sword blade design I've seen around. There may be a few nuances to add, but they are so specific that it's not even worth doing so for such a nicely compact and already information-packed video. Great job!
This video just filled the niche that all the youtube sword community could not answer ,explaining the most basic types of damage and swords,with scientific and exsaustive presentation. Also i would love for you to suggest traditional martial arts and weapons to Icy Mike,after seeing how much he liked the shield.
It’s honestly incredible how much work and thought must have gone into this video. Nearly 30 minutes of great info, and really entertaining. Your channel is great!
There’s a final piece of this puzzle that you sort of allude to in the ‘chopping’ section and that’s the percussive element of swords. A heavier blade can sometimes be useful because in the event the blade is not able to penetrate, it is still imparting force into the target. If I swing a big old arming sword at your head I don’t need it to penetrate your helmet to knock you down or out.
To my understanding, this is part of the reason why a good number of Migration-Era and Viking-Era swords could get pretty hefty by sword standards. You're not going to cleave through a mail hauberk with a sword, but if you hit a guy's collarbone hard enough to break it, he's in trouble.
@@женя-у7ш9т Generally, I was thinking more about how the swords were balanced rather than their literal mass. Most swords from the Early Medieval Period were primarily chopping swords, and as such were balanced further away from the hand to ensure a harder impact. This came at the cost of *some* agility. No, they weren't top-heavy like an axe or a mace, but you're not going to be using one like a 15th-century langmesser either. And that's okay, because that's not the kind of context the sword was developed for. To my understanding, while there were *some* that would feel more nimble in the hand than average, those are the exception rather than the rule.
thing is the exact same design that makes it good for chopping makes it good for impacts so it makes sense to just include that with chopping swords but you are right, it is a point worth mentioning, especially regarding the advantages of a chopping sword
I love what you decided to focus on in this video and the mechanical details. As a sword nerd I learned a lot of facts about them but it's never explained "from the ground up" like you did here. (With fantastic examples too!) I expected generic info and I came out learning quite a bit!
This right here is the kinda stuff that gets me frisky 🤣 Also, physicist, and can confirm your hypothesis. It's the same reason most axe bits have a curved blade rather than a flat one. The greatest concentration of mass on an axe is directly behind the blade so you want as much of that mass hitting the target over as great an area as possible. For historical context, thrusting and cutting swords were primarily (though not exclusively) used against unarmoured opponents and so were popular for civilian use, while chopping swords were primarily (though not exclusively) used against armoured opponents
@@yoshi658 Polearms have ALL kinds of blade shapes. Standard axe heads, 2' straight axe blades like a lochaber, hooking blades like the English bill, which was derived from an agricultural tool for pruning trees.
Not quite true. Thrusting or cut and thrust swords (using the thrust) were the most commonly used swords against armoured opponents. Essentially, plate armour would be pretty much invulnerable to a sword (cut, thrust or chop), but mail could be penetrated with a thrust (why long, stiff-bladed daggers were important anti-armour weapons in the medieval era). They could break the mail links with a strong thrust and drive through into the target. Chopping swords (like the falchion) generally had fairly thin blades, like a modern machete. They were primarily used against unarmoured or lightly-armoured opponents, and would have no impact against armour.
This was an awesome video and probably the best explanation of how swords work for the average person. Can I recommend you do this type of explanation for how strikes differ and why you would use a straight punch vs a hook or a front kick vs a round house…. It might help people who don’t understand why they throw these different strikes or learn them in the first place
In the SCA I was once tasked with teaching a young man with Ausberger (?) in rapier. He was great at drawing so I drew a pic of a sword and labeled the parts and how they were used to help him. Wish I had this video to show him
Fantastic analysis! Instant subscriber here and now. Of course you now have me imagining a Viking warrior at the sword dealership... "Y'know, the thrusting model sure is sexy, but I'm not sure it would work in a shield-wall. I think I'm'a have to stick with the good ol'-fashioned cutter."
@@leofriclac thats too simplistic to the many nuances that exist other than simple power that impact the effect each strike has to its target jabs are comparably unlikey to cause knockouts, but still cause decent superficial damage hooks measure less energy than crosses but in practice have higher knockout chance power alone won't explain why this is the case
This video is excellent. I'm a health professional and have had years of science but I'm in awe of engineers who really figure out how things work and figure out practical solutions to problems.
European medieval swords actually *can* also be used for hooking and percussion: you just have to turn it upside down XD Great video! (Also, I'd like to add: you correctly say that "percussion-based" blades need to gather momentum to be affective, but their shortness also means that that momentum can be pretty likely gathered just rotating your wrist)
I also once taught and believed that cutting/slashing and chopping are different types of attack. Yet after researching a ton about it (and also mainly reading Michael Edelsons awesome book sbout sword cutting mechanics) I now believe that the pulling motion of a slice is only going to pull from the force of the sword going forward. As it hits the target, the counter force will move your sword backwards or stop it from going deeper. If you are not trying to go right through the target, you will unlikely to have a deep cut. There is no reason to make the cuts less powerful in a life or death situation. The pulling motion of a slicing may be explained as removing your sword from a body or an obstackle like another swords block. Other than that I think I noticed some anachronistic explanations that does not take in to consideration the cultural context that is around some spesific sword for their period of use. In general I think this is more than a great compilation of sword mechanics and I hope you keep up the goodwork
While thrusting swords are less wide to lower the cross-sectional area, the material is still thick. One of the most important things for penetration is to prevent the blade from flexing. There is a huge difference between swords made for actual fighting and training weapons, like the one you showed in the video. Training weapons are made to flex easily, to make practicing safer. The ones made for fighting are very stiff
Very nice video! I only have one addition to make: where swords were used by people in heavy armour (knights), they were not really used in the way described. There are few places to cut a knight, so instead of cutting you were basically pommeling the opponent with a metal bat. Furthermore, it is hard to stab through even a thin metal plate. Thus you had to find gaps in the armour, which is difficult at a distance against a moving opponent. Hence apart from pommeling, the other effective use was half-swording at close distance. Basically, you grab your own blade with a gloved (!) hand somwhere in the middle, and now have a weird spear / long knife that you can stab into gaps with more precision and force. So, for swords used by nobles in knight armour there was another design compromise for their sword based on how often you were trying to shred unarmoured / lightly armoured peasants and how often you were trying to beat up and stab a fellow human tank.
Honestly, this is really good. You should be proud of what you’ve learned and the video you produced with the information. I hope mr. Easton gives you the shoutout you deserve.
that was REALLY good, I think you got the important stuff covered; the rest is actual specifics in the design, some stuff in swords is influenced by fencing style, whether the sword was designed for a specific battlefield and/or overall military strategy (i.e. gladius), etc. All that stuff comes on top and wouldn't belong in this video imho
Pretty good video overall! I am not a longsworder, but I feel like the cutting mechanics can be a little more complex here than you imply. I am fairly knowledgeable on chinese weapons like hook swords. You are correct that they were mostly a 19th century weapon used by civilian or criminal martial artists, but I wouldn't say that they are necessarily bad weapons. Many aspects of their design (like the hooks) are more optimized for manipulating the opponents weapon as opposed to inflicting damage onto the target.
Without sounding overly pretentious I haven't learned anything I didn't already know. But I have discovered quite literally the most comprehensive, succinct and well explained newb friendly guide to just about everything I've ever tried to explain to someone. This video is an absolute fucking niche gem. It'll definitely be getting recommended.
This is a really good video, you've clearly done a lot of work to simplify physics/engineering concepts without just repeating the inaccurate explanations that are so common on the interwebs. Since I am an engineer and being pedantic is basically my job, a couple of "but actually" comments: 1. The Center of Percussion demo is great, but keep in mind the Center of Percussion for any object is different based on where you locate the pivot point/dead zone. Since people tend not to hold swords by the pommel, the center of percussion is going to be (slightly) different if you test it based on your actual grip location. 2. I actually have a spreadsheet that calculates Center Mass, Center of Percussion, and Radius of Gyration for objects based on weight distribution along the length. You know, if you are into that sort of thing. 3. I like that you kept the the BLADE MECHANISM of chopping and cutting separate from the MOVEMENT of chopping and cutting. How you are swinging a blade vs. what it is doing at the edge can be two different things. That said, the difference between chop vs. cut is just the angle between the edge of the blade and the direction that blade is moving, so almost every damaging blow is going to be some combination of the two. 4. The phrases "it depends", "context", "penetration", and talking about shamshirs show just how desperate of a cry for validation from Matt Easton this is.
Very useful video, even helped me understand cutting and thrusting techniques better. The technique can make up for design. Like, the explanation on momentum got me thinking about the curve used in almost all thrusting motions with the Jian in Chinese martial arts. More range to build up momentum. The cuts with the straight blade of the jian likewise employ round drawing motions which I figure from this video might make up for the lack of roundness on the blade itself. By the way, your pronounciation of jian was solid!
ok, as a physicist who practiced martial arts (armed ones too) for almost 30 years, this video was orgasmic from start to finish. Also you expose in a very entertaining and funny way. I stumbled on this video by chance but I instantly subbed :)
Hook swords are the example of a zerg swarm tactic versus any kind of small squad or 1v1. It's a slicey prybar. Ship fighting to tug and throw in narrow spaces on unstable terrain, or just using lots of humans as meat sledgehammers to get past large shields. China had a wild history with bizarre weaponry, and one of the governments liked to block small mountain passages with big shields on wheels or large wicker shields supported by 1-2 dudes. The hook would let a couple of nerds hook with a slight distance for safety, pry loose or rotate the shield, and let 3-4 other nerds crawl over each other and take out the shield-bearer to open the formation. The shield bearers had pike like weapons, and there were a variety of crossbows (I've never had which types shown to me definitively), so it was not a practical thing for 1v1, just a cheap sword form for your chaff to break defenses with. Keep in mind they were probably just hammered into something similar to the shape used today, and were most likely not that fancy, goofy looking shape IMO. I've seen something showing the other sharp bits being used for transport of hay or straw packaging, but it seems impractical and a weird punch knife design and I've never seen that explained well IMO. Keep in mind I'm not an expert and probably full of it, but this is what explanation I was given for hookswords at some point.
A tibit about curved cutters - I've read that another very miniscule aspect of the curved wedge is that, when hit at the COP (and presuming the apex of the curve runs along it), the edge is encouraged to enter slightly askew of perpendicular. This makes the contact area even smaller, which not only further focuses the impact point but also allows the wedge to enter at an even more acute angle than it is ground to. So basically, albeit on an arguably arbitrary and near-microscopic level, your taper is even MORE gradual and allows for a little more penetration through the cut
Great video bro, I've never seen anything from your channel but this was fantastic, I know a fair amount, in theory and practice, about this subject and from my perspective you conveyed pretty technical concepts succinctly and eloquently, a well deserved thumbs up from me ::)
OK, there is one more important use. Horse policemen in east Europe used the sword's flat for crowd control. And those swords usually did not have much of an edge or point either, but for slapping, they were great. One could do more chopping than cut with it, and it was also possible to stab, but the primary use was slapping with the side.
Small correction, the Aztec and Mayan peoples most certainly DID have metalworking, in fact their jewellery was considering far and away more technically impressive than European and revolutionized Europe's jewellery making when it was imported via Spanish conquest. They had copper and bronze and could've theoretically made weapons from it. However, part of the reason the Macuahuitl existed as it did was because killing power was deemphasized in Meso-American warfare. They favoured capturing as many POWs as possible so they could ransom them back and then use the rest as slaves or for appropriate sacrifice or service. One of the reasons they had so much trouble with Spaniards was the steel to stone/wood discrepancy, but it was also noted by warriors at the time that the Spanish were just seen as cruel and ruthless in their more lethal-focused warfare.
There actually is a sword known for it's abrasion as a function, but it's one of a kind so i understand having not heard of it. It's refered to as the samehada, and was weilded by one of the seven great swordsmen. Altho it's arguable that it could be considered a club as well since striking someone with an abrasive object leads to the abrasion being a secondary damaging source while the strike itself is the primary source of damage.
As usual, you did a very good video! The perfect sword does and can not exist. I would love a video from you where you take on the "knife defense experts" Do you what I find interesting? Almost no modern "swordman" ever cares about the bayonet, even though a bayonet works very similarly like their beloved medieval longswords and it adds better close combat capabilities to your rifle
I think bayonets are cool, but bayonets are functionally pretty niche. Bullets are typically more effective damage dealers, and close enough ranges where you would use a bayonet on a rifle are not the typical engagement ranges we see in modern combat. In most self-defense scenarios, you would likely be using a pistol, and it would be rather silly to attach a bayonet to a pistol over just using a knife in another hand or just shooting them. Perhaps a pistol bayonet might deter some from grabbing your gun, but it would also be significantly harder to conceal in that case
I think the history and development of swords over time did show that thrusting ended up being the superior of the three methods. It's also the most lethal of the three when it comes to body hits.
Nah, trusting swords only appeared when armor disappeared, which means they were worthless against armor. In terms of damage you trade a chance for instadeath/critical injury to next to no damage, as being impaled with a thin object is not a big deal, as long as it doesn't hit anything important.
@@deliq9607No, you're both wrong. Against full plate armor, the only way for a sword to win was to thrust between the gaps. This is because most of a sword's uselessness versus armor has to do with how far back the center of mass is, even on the most front-heavy swords. Thus, swords in western Europe were optimized for skinny points that you could finagle into gaps, usually while holding the blade with one hand for more control. Alternatively, you could turn the entire sword around, hold it by the blade, and club an armored opponent wherever you want. But all of this was because the sword is a defensively oriented backup weapon. Yes, you can kill with it, that's what it was for, but it was also a lot quicker than your primary weapon, which was a spear (hey, ho, thrusting!) or some kind of heavy polearm, like a bill, axe, or hammer. All of which were very front-heavy and primarily for delivering maximum percussive force, even those that still have a top spike as a thrusting option. People used armor because it worked. Anti-armor weapons were developed because armor worked. A sword is useless against armor unless you use it weird.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that there ARE in fact instances of fairly large chopping swords which compensated for their bulk by adopting a longer handle - the first things that come to mind (and only things that come to mind cause I haven't looked into this much yet) are the Chinese war sword, the medieval chopper, and one or two "zombie apocalypse machetes" that Skall reviewed Also zombies don't exist, I'm pretty sure they never will, and anything which is marketed as good for stopping them is beyond lame
Would really love If you could make videos on the best ways to increase your athleticism and power on punching. also how important technique is to actually delivering power
I'm almost tempted to say that technique would be inversely correlated with power. At least for punches. I think a giant, windmilling overhand is probably the most raw power you can get out of a punch. But raw power might not be the most important aspect of a strike.
An abrading sword is essentially how Kisame's shark skin sword works in Naruto. It's ridiculous and trying to recreate it in reality would make very little sense. I want to put sandpaper on a baseball bat now.
Correct, the gladius isnt a pure chopping sword. Good that you mentioned it in the end. Its a hybrid between chopping and thrusting design. If it were a pure chopping sword, it would have been curved. But in the roman shieldwall was no place for wide swinging moves as you showed with it. The soldiers would have chopped off their neighbors head. The romans mainly used the gladius like a dagger from behind their shields, pushing it upwards between the shields or downwards over the shields to stab the opponent. But it is also not a pure thrusting sword, otherwise it would have been thinner and longer. When the wall broke and the battle became chaotic the romans used it also as chopping sword. Chopping, not cutting, because at this point you are in a very crowded environment. You re still better off with a short sword that can easily be used like a dagger. Thats the reason why its designed as a thrusting-chopping hybrid and no thrusting-cutting hybrid. It is a bad design for riders and a bad design for duel situations.. But its a perfect compromise for its purpose.
One small remark: That a falchion is a chopping sword is at the same time wrong as right. Depending on the region falchion can be forward curved or backward curved or even straight. The most common description is single edged with a sword handle, relatively broad blade but very thin widths......there are some expections were the widths are quite broad but that are always chopper. In most cases falchion are more "working" swords, because they are easier and cheaper to manifacture compared to "normal" arming swords. If you compare an italian falchion with an english falchion you will find out that most italian swordsmith prefer the backward curved while english swordsmith prefer more are forward curved, but not always. There is even a complete nomenclature for that the elmsly typology. The same is happen with the messer (german "knife"), the only difference between a messer and a falchion is just the handle.....falchion have a sword handle and messer a knife handle. And that messer appeared later. The existence of the messer was just a circumvention of existing guild law that forbid knifesmith to produce swords, there was never a law how long a knife could be and a sword was defined by his handle.
the diagram is wrong because it says a curved handle maximizes swing angle with minimal wrist rotation. which is not true, first because the length of the handle affects that but not its shape. also because you don't hold an axe by the tip like it's a damn sword lol. Do I get a cookie?
One point you didn't mention in regards to slashing vs thrusting swords. With thrusting, the tip of your sword can only go as fast as your arm. But with a slashing or chopping sword, the tip of your sword can move much faster than your arm. Very hard to make a wooosh sound when you thrust, but very easy when you swing.
Vid was great one criticism despite the end-of-vid preclusion to it -- you missed an opportunity to evoke the wacky waving inflatable tube man of swords: the flamberge. Would have taken the vid to 11.
Great video. As someone who lately practices a lot with straight blades to increase reach, and go in blade-first to protect the hand I certainly notice edge alignment can be difficult on oddly shaped targets. Good point about the self-correcting in curved blades. I strongly disagree with your suggestion that it is necessary to pull after hitting to create a proper slicing motion with a straight blade. And that that is somehow a separate movement. There are two main ways of cutting with straight swords and while perhaps not as deep as a curved scimitar, both produce very noticeable slicing motion. If you actually did use a longsword as a mace and then had to pull to slice, you would probably do little damage as you already lost all the energy of the swing. Luckily, the slice happens precisely at the time the sword impacts, making it reasonably effective, even if not specialized in cutting per se. Cutting without slicing at the same time is actually somewhat hard and would require some practice. First way is blade first scissor cut. This means your blade is going forward and up upon impact and will slice about 5-10cm at a decent angle, even if you immediately stop afterwards and never push or pull. You could extend the slicing distance considerably with proper momentum with same smooth motion forward with body and arm motion , not as two moves! If you are not hitting at your maximum reach, you have the possibility to lean into it and send your body after the blade, making the cut deeper. If you cut not with the tip but with the last 5cm of your blade barely reaching the target, already at max extension, then fine, it will be a weak and shallow chop-cut because your body mechanics will naturally stop the blade. In most instances, if you make a scissor cut, you will slice pretty far without noticing you even did it. Not slicing would require a perfect circular motion which apart from being ineffective would also put you in danger of counter cutting since it's very slow. Nobody actually does that if they have even a bit of practice with swords. The other way is a classic downward cut where you first launch the blade at he target and then begin to pull back already before impact, again creating an angle where the blade bites in, much like a curved one, making the wound deeper and slicing. In this case you will probably not stop the blade and will probably follow through until it leaves the wound. Even if shallower and longer, a lot of the blade length will still likely pass through the same spot, cutting pretty deep. Just as you don't chop and stop with a curved blade, you don't chop and stop with a straight one. Even dedicated choppers will often still slice quite far in the same motion. This would require a bit more nuance though depending on the exact blade shape. Another thing to consider is a long history of accounts where entire arms or sometimes even legs were cut off with a straight blade, even through mail or other armour. This was certainly not done by just impacting the target statically, nor by pulling or pushing with your wrist. It was a slicing cut going clean through metal, fabric, muscle and bone. Also, I might have missed something in the video but you seem to suggest single edge katana is more resistant to bending than say a longsword. This seems odd, since longswords are typically more flexible and very unlikely to bend, while a katana, known as a cutting sword, tends to be stiffer and therefore strong but more likely to bend (or break if unable). The funny part is that many curved cutting swords are equally flexible, while stiff swords are often more specialized in thrusts, the katana being the outlier. So not sure where this idea of warping is coming from. Maybe some low quality steel in a particular weapon you own or something? If you meant purely the natural flex (again typical for cutting swords), than this merely comes back to the point of edge alignments. Good edge alignment = little to no flex. Slightly off = a lot of flex.
But if you punch them with the guard, you're likely to ensure they notice the severity of the wound, shock sets in, brain freaks out, opponent falls over. Paraphrased from Salvatore Fabris - Lo Schermo, overo Scienza d'Arme 1609
You are absolutely killing it with your videos. They are so packed with important information that I feel like I'm in a combat master class. Can't wait to see what else you post!
Really interesting stuff. Only thing I gotta disagree with is the self alignment of the katana. Sure when it’s in free fall it will re-aline itself, but the same is not true when you actually swing it.
18:00 - I think you're working off some misconceptions about how a thrust is typically delivered. The extension of the arm typically takes place prior to making any contact with a target and the force of the thrust itself comes from the entire mass of the body moving forward behind the extended arm. The sword will typically bend before the arm does on contact and this is actually a design feature of the sword as it acts like a spring storing the energy and then relaying it back into the target, in fact the spring energy stored in the sword gets released after the skin is penetrated to increase the depth of the wound. Not to mention that the amount of force delivered to a target is a function of the surface area transferring the force and the extremely small surface area of the point gives and extremely concentrated amount of force to the thrust. I could put a jacket on you and bring a strong cut down on you and you'd feel it, probably pick up a bruise but if I caught you with a clean thrust and you didn't have a supplemental plastron you'd be in a lot more pain. Also, and this is more obscure but there is actually post sword penetration technique, especially for rapier (The Spanish LVD guys talk about it a bunch but it's in other systems as well) and that is that once a thrusting weapon like a rapier has penetrated it's expected that the edge will get caught on bone (probably a rib) so once there is an internal leverage point you more the blade around in a tight circular motion to open up a large internal wound roughly in the shape on an inverted cone. That said, overall I would absolutely agree with most of what you've said. Source: I've been practicing HEMA for many years and have won and placed highly in several HEMA tournaments with several different weapons. Also, here's a video from one of the number one rated rapier fighters in the world showing proper thrust/lunge technique: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-s7I_OxKHPN8.html&ab_channel=RobertChilds
Great video, randomly popped up and expected another cringe awful typical RU-vid video of some creep in a dojo setting. I've since spent the past few hours watching all your videos... Awesome stuff man. Figured I should say something, you do great long form videos, do more!
Kendo was my first serious martial art. I have 2 years experience in Kendo and I still don't know how they work. Sparing was difficult since I had to hit a moving opponent who also had a weapon in front of him.
I’m now practicing Taijiquan, Krav Maga Kickboxing, and Shotokhan Karate Do. Open Hand martial arts would be more viable and there’s less things to tie in open hand arts.
Great video. The only correction I would make is your definition of a cut. It's technically slashing that you're referring to. Hacking and stabbing are all cuts, since a cut is just a separation in skin. Also I have owned Chinese Hook Swords and they can slash, but they require the 2 step motion like longswords.
super job! the ax with the curved ax-handle, won't pivot-overall via the curve/angle of the HANDLE, but WILL pivot via the angle of the overall ax-tool MASS, which is roughly the mean-angle of the handle. Kid-- I KNEW ya were GOOD-- but, I didn't know ya were THAT good. Sem!Per!Fi! Oorah.
Excellent work! I hope Mr. Easton notices. But I wanna cookie! A full-sized wood axe (about 4.5#) is a TWO-HANDED TOOL. The only person that ever swung one with just one hand was Paul Bunyan. You hold it with your off hand a couple inches up the handle, just past the point in the middle drawing labeled "grip", and your dominant hand about 4" from the head. As you swing it you dominant hand slides down to 4 - 0" from your off hand. So all those cute angles and math go right down the toilet. But hey, it's fun to theorize when you're high, right? There're a couple of errors in your section on axes. You only show axes being used to split wood, going with the grain. Historically axes chopped down trees and chopped branches from felled trees, across the grain. Big saws didn't come into use until the 19th century cuz you need lots of good steel to make 3 - 8' sawblades. An important note is that the "sledgehammer back" axe head evolved in the American colonies, and is pretty recent. What we think of as a "Viking axe" was a standard wood axe all through Europe for centuries. The "bearded" axe was a weaponizing development, and the "Dane axe" was specifically a weapon, but the others were just tool/weapons. Fun fact: axe heads were iron, with only the edge made of steel. The head was forged with a V groove and a diamond-cross-section fillet of steel was forge-welded in. Cheap, resilient axe head with a sharp, hard edge. I got all this about axes from a book about the Mountain Men. Sorry, don't remember actual name, author, or publisher. But really, I did read it in a book once. ;-) Gotta say once more, excellent video! You explained a lot in ways that regular folks can understand. And tied a bunch of stuff together that usually isn't, though it should.
Hi there - very good video. As for the hooked Chinese swords: I once read an article that they where originally designed for use in infantry units with shields against horses. The idea being that a shield man and a sword man (in formation with many other sich pairs) worked together. She sword man using the INSIDE of the hooks to cut at the horses hooves - especially agains chariots of all things. from very close to ground level. I have however never be able to verify or falsify that. But it does at least sound plausible. The Roman legions allegedly could make a shield wall that could withstand the onslaught of a chariot. So it seems feasible to take a cut at the horses legs from down low where the horses might not be armoured. And if the sword gets ripped out then a sharp object is stuck to the horse. Typical case of very specialised equipment. Cheers - Martin
Imagining a sawing/abrading sword brings me to the thought of a chainsaw, which also makes me wonder how well each of these mechanics would do when enacted not by body mechanics but by some engineered machine. Obviously guns are a pretty good example of thrusting mechanics but I wonder if the others have any merit?
For weapons, not really. You need a way to reload a mechanical system that executes a cut or a chop. But there are mechanical "tools" that execute these motions. The guillotine for example is a very effective mechanical chopping device
@@jc-kj8yc I think he means something like Jetstream Sam from Metal Gear lol, an accelerating sheathe for your blade to allow for faster draw and stronger cuts or chops.
My personal favorite sword is the jian, as a well balanced civilian weapon that is a good enough cut & thrust weapon while being lightweight and aesthetically pleasing.
There are some things that are a little oversimplified here, albeit understandably so. Straight swords are more than capable of making a clean cut without necessitating the pulling motion, they just encounter more resistance at a certain point of the cut than curved swords do. Also, if your handle is vibrating uncomfortably in your hands, it's most likely because you're using a poorly made weapon. Well made swords tend to have two of those nodes of percussion, one of them being the one you mentioned, and the other being the handle. In fact, significant hand shock is usually a major indicator of a poorly made sword. Also, one of the first things you're taught in most swordsmanship styles is to not lead with the hand when cutting, that's practically begging for your opponent to lop off your hand. It's also telegraphing.
