Is There Perfect Sword Blade Width to Thickness Ratio? 

As a non-historian, the similarity I see is that the most of those were cavalry weapons, which probably ties into your video about why curved swords are good on horseback. I mean, the 15'th century kilij (not the broad 19'th century ones) have similar curve and proportions, and are used by a primarily horseback culture, by mounted sipahi. The Japanese tachi appears at a time when the samurai were primarily horse archers, and will continue to be for centuries. The shamshir was mainly used by Persian cavalry. The tulwar ok, was used eventually by both infantry and cavalry, but has its origins in the shamshir, and was originally used by the Mughals whose dominant arm was the cavalry. The curved and thick, therefore heavy European sabres are cavalry sabres. Kinda makes me wonder basically about your favourite word: context. Is it possible that this is the perfect geometry (or at least ratio) in specifically the context of cavalry?

the japanese even made some sabers that were basically western style saber hilts and scabbards with a katana-shaped blade. the blades are similar enough that very little adaptation was required. (see the Type 32 saber)

Interestingly the 1796 light cavalry had a wider blade than most later sabers. It was praised as a cutting sword; showing that wide blades certainly can cut well. It's also interesting that the 1796's blade is very similar to Viking era single edged swords only curved.

If you get 5, 6, 7 years down the line studying swords ( or anything really) without having to go back and revise an opinion or two - there's something wrong! The great thing about people that enjoy learning is that they're not afraid to say "Hey, I got that wrong because....." All of life is a journey padawan 😂 Great vid as usual, I guess there are many instances of weaponry evolving simultaneously and separately but having ubiquitous designs, these blades you discussed and bows / arrows being another. I wonder what came first.....calling it a rainbow and then naming the weapon a bow because it had a similar shape, or the other way around??

We also have to remember that steel technology was also very different in what certain countries and cultures preferred. In Japan, the blade geometry is very dependent on how they made their swords. A thin flat and wide blade would not be so good if made in the traditional Japanese method. In Europe, springy-er steel technology was more popular and allowed for a much larger variety of blade shapes.

More questions than answers. Realizing you can go still deeper and deeper. Understanding that more understanding is required. This is an ongoing adventure like an archaeology dig - new discoveries every few centimetres. I LOVE it. metallurgy, History, context, physics, culture, even fashion. You create superior content, sir.

my personal theory based on my own experience with swords, machetes, and knives, is that thinner blades do better with softer materials, a wide broad thin sword will go through more layers of gambison than a narrow thick sword, which would be wedged in it's own cut. so depending on the type and level of armor of your opponent, it may be better to have a thinner blade.

you are a legend man. kept me watching for 13minutes without telling anything. absolute legend.

I have recently been wondering about this myself. I have a knife that's almost impossible to sharpen because the blade is both very thick AND very narrow, so the so-called "edge" is really more of a "wedge". If it were either thinner or wider, there wouldn't be a problem. But this particular blade just has the worst possible geometry. Oh well. Great video as always, Matt! Thanks!

Wow! This video definitely hits home with my line of thinking...well said Matt. Definite food for thought

Love this channel ⚔️

The Chinese jian have always been this proportion, length and width wise, since Han dynasty (~2000 years), but it's a straight double edge sword so people might not notice the similarity

I’ve been looking at width, I’ve been looking at thickness -Matt Easton, Schola gladstoria cerca 2023

Thanks for the video ⚔️

There's a perfect context for every sword and a perfect sword for every context.

I’ve only recently started collecting swords and my intention was to collect one of each type 😵‍💫. I now know I’m on a fools errand, it’s an amazingly interesting subject that I’ve not even scratched the surface of. Thank you my friend, your knowledge and opinions regarding edged weapons is a brilliant help to a newby enthusiast like myself 👍.

I do have one thought on why you might want a less acute edge for a cutting sword: Much like how a wood axe blade can't have too acute an edge or it'll get stuck in a piece of wood and will fail to "crack" the wood, is it possible that blades more of the typical Japanese proportions are intended to be more effective against bone? Even if that just means it's less likely to get wedged in a bone. This is one of those things that could easily be missed to a modern audience as most of us don't have any experience of cutting live targets lol

My guess is that the narrower, thicker blade is a more all purpose, robust design against light to medium armor, that still can hold it's place even against harder hits on heavy armor. While the very thin but broad designs are more specialized against textile armor, compromising sturdiness for cutting effectiveness. And there's still flourished in the age of very heavy armor, because some might wanted a dedicated weapon for killing lighter armored troops while still carrying specialized anti armor weapons as a first and third option (poleaxe, dagger for example)

Do a video about chausses that lace up at the back of the legs, full mail hose that covers all of the leg, and other styles and types of leg chainmail/supplementary armor. Cool vids as usual Matt

From what I know, China seems to have stuck to that narrow/thick saber pattern for awhile as well. Han Dao, Sui Dao, and Tang Dao all have similar profiles lasting somewhere from the 1st Century BC to the 10th Century AD. The Song and Liao Dynasty are where we start seeing the daos become wider/thinner Zhanmadaos; from then on, the narrow/thick only makes brief reappearances in the Ming Dynasty in the form of Miao Daos and Yao Daos, then moving back to the wider/thinner blades in the Qing Dyansty in the form of Oxtail and Dadao.

I wonder how production, repairability, durability. and cost factor in. Cheaper blades may mean you could make more or practice more without worry of damaging it or spend money elsewhere (like better armor, main weapon, etc.). Thinner blades may be easier to repair, and thicker and more durable. Thickness may make it harder or easier to work with, or faster to make blades or slower. It actually might be harder to make thin stuff well bc of precision needed (making this up)

I've always thought traditional Japanese swords and military sabers were quite similar. In fact, in my collection, my very limited number of Japanese swords are hung with my antique military sabers because their collective curvature is nearly identical and they therefore "flow" together on the wall quite nicely.

Thick wedge sections are naturally durable. The same thing that make it is good cross section for less than ideal materials makes it a easier design blank for mass production, those outfitters. The same pressures of limited iron supply apply for mass production. When you are turning greater numbers of something, a smaller foul up has bigger implications. Just go back in time and see how similiar the Roman gladius are to each other for how long. When thinks are private purchased in a material place of plenty, there is allot more room for experientatiom and variety.

Great content! Please make more videos on the subject of katana and saber ! I know how to use a katana - but the saber i can't understand.

Maybe there is a point of diminishing returns with thin blades where the blade starts to wobble too much to take further advantage in cutting performance ?

So the immediate thought that I had wrt katanas and cavalry sabres (or however they're officially defined) is that they're both more or less exclusively used in situations where shields were rare to non-existent. (The lack of shields in Samurai conflicts is a fascinating topic itself!) So a stiff, narrow blade is excellent for cutting and can be drawn lightning fast, and while you *can* stab someone with it if you feel the need, the main point of the weapon is to deliver rapid edged strikes potentially to many opponents in quick succession - as opposed, say, to a rapier, which is fantastic for dueling one opponent in an open area. But if these sorts of blades get stuck in a shield and flex, they're a LOT more likely to actually snap than to just bend badly. So if you're a samurai in the midst of a group of peasant spearmen, or a pirate on the deck of a ship, that's a great shape for a sword - easy to carry, fast to draw, lightning fast to cut with. But for guys who are fighting against other soldiers, in formation, carrying proper shields, something about this sword really sucks. And it's quite possibly that either it just doesn't perform well against wood in the first place - hitting someone's shield should really inconvenience the shield bearer - or that a careless thrust that gets stuck in a shield will frequently result in a broken blade, instead of something you can bend back into shape quickly with your boot. I dunno. But the fact that, as soon as you're not facing a whole lot of heavy shields, everyone's sword immediately turns into a sabre/katana/etc does seem to hint at something.

A wide, thin blade is stronger against bending and shear forces along the blade, but weaker with respect to lateral forces. A wide, thin blade does not need to wedge apart the cut material as far apart while making the cut, though it is more susceptible to friction from increased surface area. I suppose it comes down to how one fights and what one expects to cut.

Thank you for the info as it adds to my existing repertoire of knowledge. I am still searching for the type of sword I would be most comfortable with. 1st thing I look at is under what various circumstance I would use it. ( Use the right tool for the job as they say). 2nd, the balance , which is not only of the sword but in conjunction with the body strength combination. This is followed by the fighting style, one in which one is most comfortable width and can deal with various types of opponents. Length of sword would also fall into the fighting style I prefer. My observations is based on my own personal understanding, to this date and subject to change.

I think the "typical" shape of the Japanese sword, and the evolution of the European sword towards the sabre, a similar sword from blade dimension perspective, can probably be accounted for under the idea of universality of effectiveness against what ones opponent is most likely, on average, to be presenting against you, in the form of their arms and armour. So, because of the need for mass production of a state's arms, importantly, as armies and forces became larger, the direction of design was honed towards what does best, all round, against whom-so-ever, all round, for best effect, all round. The main difference with early European design was that typical force, and thus production, size was much smaller, and thus looked towards design differences and exaggerations in this direction or that, to gain advantage against equally idiosyncratic opponents. Ie. Force size (higher population) offers success through convergent evolution, whereas lack of force size offers success though diversity.

Rigidity scales cubically with changes in thickness opposing the vector of force, and the closer to the edge you get the greater the order of magnitude to which specific geometry affects cutting performance. Because of these two factors, a single edged sword is able to be both stiffer and more penetrating in the cut than a double edged sword may be for equal distal distribution of mass. That is to say, that for the same amount of steel at any given point you can make a single-edged blade that is simultaneously more rigid by virtue of having a greater maximum thickness while also putting more distance between that thickness and the edge itself, and the blade having altogether lower and more penetrating angles.

People were trying to style on each other. I imagine future historians will look at our choice of cars in a similar way - we have way more brands and types than necessary, people often choose ones that don’t fit their context at all, and some really impractical types are super popular. Like maybe some 1200 german-equivalent celebrity said something about wide blades being more manly and the langmesser craze took off for 400 years.

Hi Matt, this question is so what I have been working on for the past decade as both a fencer (for 30 + years - seeing much in the development of re-enactment and HEMA) and more recently as an amateur sword maker that it's scary. In fact I' love to talk to you more about it . I've been working for some time to try and find a good thickness to width to length ration that is both authentic and effective. Having used the data that is available on period swords (I live in Australia with limited swords to measure myself, but have some excellent stats from an insanely talented fencer and sword maker in Europe) there is a great deal I have been exploring and reconstructing. It turns out that its a very interesting and complicated question, involving much thicker basic stock and complex distal taper. Reproductions and sword makers generally do not follow the authentic models, with a few notable exceptions, and even then you can expect to pay extra $ as what is required for authenticity is not the standard expectation. I think this is a bad thing as the market will tend to lean towards a balance between what is affordable and marketable and what produces a good 'point scorer' for HEMA competition, which is not quite the same as a blade with the dimensions you would trust to keep you alive, Interesting indeed!

I would really like to see a science test. Cutting arc, pressure applied and thickness cut to see which sword has the best cutting against a quantifiably unified target.

My guess is that its because big broad bladed swords look intimidating🤷‍♂️

It is important to remember that making a sword hundreds of years ago was very much an art form. The sword design was based on what worked and what did not. Additionally, it is easy to take for granted how changes in local steel (which is just iron and carbon) affects the design of a blade. A bladesmith in Syria could make a blade that was thinner (and therefore lighter) that a comparable European sword simply because Syrian steel often had enough tungsten in it to make their steel harder than European steel. Even if impurities are ignored, steel can have different properties based on cold working and heat treatment. One might think that combining iron and carbon to make steel is a simple. If all you want to do is make steel then I guess it is. If you want steel with the right properties to make a sword then creating the steel can be a very complex process. As a bonus, some sword makers may not have been eager to share their techniques with other sword makers. My point is that the design of the sword is based on the quality of the steel and the skill of the bladesmith.

Great thought provoking topic, Matt! I wonder, is there any correlation to the quality of steel and / or method of construction with the resultant cross section to width ratio? For instance, was a broader blade required further back in history to achieve strength due to lower quality mono-steel whereas higher quality steel allowed the development of narrower styles such as sabres? Further, did the "laminate" use of different steel types combined with differential hardening as practiced by the Japanese smiths eliminate the requirement for broader blades of lower quality steel?

Fascinating video Matt. I can't help wonder if tradition played a big role in what swords were used for longer. In the case of Japan, I could also see how they might value weapon proficiency in technique over having the latest and greatest. As they say, it's the warrior, not the weapon

Could it be an aesthetic phenomenon, at least partially? The shape of the Japanese sword is very particular to their cultural sense of aesthetics where they heavily tend to prefer symmetric, harmonic shapes where everything is lined up and balanced. They could have made broader blades but they really liked it when the width of the saya matched the tsuka, which basically requires the blade to be slender. With the 19th century European sword, it may have been as simple as people liking narrower blades because they appeared more refined and modern. We do know that people back then had this misconception of medieval swords as very heavy and brutish things. Whereas back in medieval times, perhaps some people preferred very broad blades for pretty much that very reason - because they _looked_ more imposing and powerful, even if they weren't actually more massive than other swords. Basically, I don't think we should assume a purely practical reason. Fashion has always been a powerful influencer, sometimes even to the detriment of practicality.

I'd like to explore the question by asking: "What is the average amount of steel that went into a single handed sword across cultures and history?" I guess you'd measure its weight or mass or volume? "What is the minimum thickness necessary for this sword of an average mass so that an average height man of average strength could wield it without a serious chance of it breaking when it hits something?" "How does this change based on the shape of the sword?" How do you measure the forces involved in swinging a sword and how do they change based on the shape and weight distribution of of the material(s) that the sword is made of? There's a lot of physics involved and it has all been studied and categorised, but I don't remember it if I ever even knew it. "Centre of percussion" might be the name for the best place on a sword to to hit something with based on its shape and weight distribution. Our host probably has a video about it. This sort of thing might be something to start with.

I first noticed the similarity between European sabres and Japanese blades when I first saw a kyu gunto.

A few details to add, perhaps relevant to conversation: Steel quality matters a lot, when it comes to blade design. The original reason for curved swords is due to how swords made from poor steel are cooled; the thinner part of the blade cools faster, expanding first. Curved swords happened to have some advantages over straight blades, so the curvature was never a priority to "fix". You can fix it by making a reverse curved blade and then letting it straighten out as it cools... there was just never a reason to do it. When you have steel that doesn't flex well (aka poor steel), you either make it soft (bends, dents, etc) or you make it brittle. The Japanese chose the latter, then added steps into the sword-making process (and in how the swords are used) to compensate for that weakness. A thicker blade is less likely to snap when hit from the side. A curved blade is less likely to take a hard direct impact from the side. A long handle and two-handed style allows for more leverage; hard blows can be absorbed then repelled, rather than needing to be met aggressively with a block. ... Katana and sabers are not the comparison to make, as katana were not the primary battle sword of Japan - they are merely the one that is most well known in the modern day. The better sword to compare to the saber is the tachi, which was also a cavalry sword. The tachi is longer than a katana, much closer in length to a saber. The primary unmounted weapon was the nodachi, which is also longer than the katana. The katana is best compared to a cutlass, not a saber. We are looking for a slashing blade that could be drawn quickly and could be carried in a semi-civilian setting, not a war sword. ... I'm convinced that the availability of skilled metal workers matters too. Thin wide blades tend to appear in places/times where populations were low and armies were on the move - traveling in Europe/China, for example. Thick narrow blades appear in places like Japan or in small regions that had lots of localized violence. If your thin wide blade dulls, you just flip is around and use the other edge until you can get it repaired. It still cuts decently even if a bit dulled. You trade away forgiveness in the cut and risk your blade snapping completely in half for these advantages. This means (if I am correct) that in the modern day a thick narrow blade is superior. It can be made from good steel that springs, it will stay sharp, and it will perform better in the cut. And what a lot of people tend to forget is that cutting mats do no move around, and that you almost never get to set your feet against a live target. A curved blade in actual combat will cut well, and a straight blade often cuts shallow or even bounces off the target. Especially as you try to slice into cloth/leather/etc against a moving target, you want your blade to have a curve. There is even an "ideal curve" for this, which closely matches some of the more extreme tulwar/shamshir curves some historical blades have. MY OPINION: Given that range is always the main concern in melee fighting... the "best blade shape" for a sword is thick and narrow, mildly curved as to keep range and thrusting capability. There is a limit to blade length that varies based on the wielder; you want the blade to be long enough that you can't easily hack yourself in the shin, but short enough that you can block against a blow to your shin without jamming your point into the ground before your point can cross your center line. For the average person, that's about a 100cm to 110cm blade from guard to point (or a bit longer if you are skilled enough to avoid certain exchanges). And as nobody wears armor these days, the balance point of the blade should be closer to the guard since even "touches" with the weapon will do significant damage. You don't need velocity of mass to force your weapon through a weak defense and sink your blade through a gambison, and you don't need to rattle a brain through a helmet - point control will be superior (hence the emergence of the estoc/rapier/etc).

Depends on many things. Is the sword to be used against armor? What kind of armor? Is it primarily a cut or a stabbing weapon? Is it for a chopping cut or a drawing cut? What is the quality of the metal it is made of?

You mentioned in another video comparing a straight vs curved blade that the curved blade dealt more bruising and could receive impacts better in a way that was more forgiving on the wielder. Most butchers knives involve a curve too. The similar weights of steel would make sense with similar human strength. Longer blades being more suited for cavalry and shorter for close up scrappy work. Single edge means there’s a safe side of the sword to be on for the wielder. The most obvious difference between dao and katana style shapes may be due to spear like benefits over axe like benefits. Steel & manufacturing has been mentioned below. A stretch, but I feel interesting notion is that maybe it’s to do with the feeling of motion through the air.

I watched an old movie the other day called "The Wind and the Lion". I was wondering what type of sword Sean Connery was using while he was playing The Rizulli. It was a two-handed sword with a viciously sharp, curved, and pointy blade. It seemed to be Damascus steel variety but was very large and beautiful.

Great stuff Matt! I love the line you point out between Japanese and European sabre design: the History Channel would probably ask “did the Katana beget the Military sabre???” James Elmslie is now a fan of calling these convergent evolutions “Elvis Taxa”, for looking related but being just coincidental :) Also, I know you know the history behind some of the Asian sword development, but for those playing along at home, the Chinese Dao of the Ming and Qing did have Japanese influence, but had more design pressures from nomadic invaders. First the mongols of the 12-13th centuries, and then the Jurchen’s of the 17th century. These horsemen’s Sabres influence was seen in the swords of SE Asia and even Eastern Europe. Had Kublai Khan been more successful in his attempts to invade Japan, perhaps nihonto designs would not show the tremendous conservation of form they currently do!

Also, philosophy of use. Swords are sidearms and overall poor weapons in a armored scenario so the thought process could be that if I whipping out something hung off my hip I’ve done something horribly wrong. The thing on my hip is for self defense or lopping up the unarmored. Like your Viking video with spears and axes for mail and swords for faces and arms.

The engineer in me wants to graph these different factors to start to map the trade space, stiffness, geometry, etc.

It would be interesting to see a statistical analysis that compares the thickness-to-width ratios (especially measured at proportional intervals - say, at 1/16 of the length - along the blade) across different types of swords and different examples of each type. You’d have to measure a LOT of swords, though!

In my opinion the topic is not only about the application but also on the production technology and improvements in metallurgic knowledge in combination with armor, fighting technics and military tactics...

An interesting video would be one comparing similar swords from around the world.

Very interesting! Well, there are many aspects on this. In a way, to make a blade thin and broad, is in a way maybe a short cut, to make a good cutter. Other things to consider are, point of balance, weight, sectional density, blade gemotry. It might also be other advantages than cutting with a stiff blade, than only to be more forgiving about edge alinement. Less force is waisted in wobbling. Also to only have one edge, would make a larger difference in cutting, for a narrow blade, than a broad blade. All this could be some of explanaition, why narrow blades with some thickness, can be great cutters. The other question, why thin broad blades were still in use with more armour. I might be wrong, but I have the impression, that they got less thin in time, so they got more sturdy. And also less common. Although it is still strange.

+scholagladiatoria *Backsword and saber blades can be forged to reasonably shallow but back-thick cross sections and reasonably acute edge angles.* Broadsword blades can be reasonably depth-tapered with distal-tapered centerline thickness.

I have for years talked myself into and out of the belief that the Saber/Nihonto/Tulwar blade proportions represent a sort of jack-of-all-trades parallel evolution compromise reached by many cultures. I currently believe it again. 😆

There are so many factors affecting the arms race of the time. Resource availability, advances in metallurgy, armor availability for mass production. Weapons are made to kill, armor made to stop weapons, weapons changed to defeat armor, armor to defeat the new style weapons and so on. Japan was fairly isolationist for most of its history and pretty resource starved for iron, hence the minor changes to weapons and armor over centuries.

Its an interesting topic, I have noticed the same with utility or agricultural blades. Some opt for very broad and thin (Brazil) while most keep to the norms established like tge bolo/machete, yet others go short and thick like some bush knives or the kukri. The interesting thing is that they were performing more or less the same task (cutting scrub) again an extreme example is a sickle shaped long handled Japanese tool. This is a similar question to why some spades are made with long straight handles and other are made with short handles with a cross handle on the end the answer is various technologies, styles of use and applications as well as the preferences of both the artisan and the user.

Katanas and sabers are narrow(ish), but also single-edged, so more tapered for cutting than slightly wider arming swords. As a general rule (as Matt noted) broader blades cut better and narrower blades thrust better. The obvious but rarely spoken takeaway is that a triangular profile (broad where no one will ever cut) makes zero sense.

Could it be the available kinds of steel; bloomery, woots ironsand/ What about curburization and heat treatment? Or all of the above and the use to which the blade would be put?

Interesting topic. First thoughts - narrow blades are better at thrusting and thicker blades are more robust - less likely to bend or break.

Ballistic gel depth cutting test, please.

I have always assumed that wider thinner blades were for wear over time. If the steel was not that good you could keep sharpening the blade as you loose some at each battle. At some point you would scrap it and use it to make new swords. The better steel could give you more of a modern hardened edge that was less likely to chip but be more expensive and harder to make. That leads to the human factor of what "Feels" best as far as the mass being moved. That may or may not explain why the one was longer and the other was shorter for the most part. It could also explain the swords that were for defined usage not just hack and slash per se.

It's worth noting that European cavalry sabers, talwars, shamshirs and related swords have one very basic thing in common: they are all single-edged. Make an 1897 I.O.'s sword double edged, and either the blade is either much too thin to be useful, or it must be much wider, essentially a basket-hilted broadsword blade. European blades are usually spring-tempered, and will bend a fair amount, multiple times. They bend but also snap, resulting in a large knife. Given the probability of edge misalignment on impact (cutting, not slicing), a thicker blades with better strength seems a good choice. I'm uncertain of how shamshirs are tempered, but I'm guessing they are not spring tempered. But their blade curvature makes edge misalignment on impact less of an issue. Katanas have a lot of un-heat-treatable iron, are not spring tempered, and usually fail by bending, resulting in bracket suitable for making a bookshelf. A thicker blade has more bending resistance, partly making up for the iron content. Technique is important. The sword you display at 6:50 (Type XV or XVIII) is from a period where, IIRC, plate armor was common, and using stabbing techniques with the sword were used, as an attempt to defeat plate. Thrusting with swords seems to have been rather uncommon in China and Japan, and essentially impossible with talwars, shamshirs and other heavily-curved M.E. and South Asian swords (I think thrusting was not done with khandas or firangis). Thus, design(s) for cutting predominate, and a thicker blade is a better bet.

Another good one might be ideas about what sort of role sword and buckler infantry played (13th century onwards?), and comparing them with later Rodeleros. I was always curious about that one image from the Holkham Bible showing English sword and buckler wielding common soldiers

Fashion? Culture? Techniques of manufacture? I don't think sword design can be observed in a vacuum without having those in mind, especially from a historical and developmental point of view.

How did the steel available compare? And how did that influence what kinds of blade would hold up to use?

Yes. That of the spadroon. Simple as.

Just a thought, does it have anything to do with terrain? Thick jungle/underbrush I would want a thinner blade (machete/falchion) to clear a path.

I think you should part 2 of this video, but instead of perfect you focus on what's optimal. Like there's very objective things when he comes to metallurgy and even more when it comes to making blades. And it seems like in this case even though there were hundreds of years and thousands of miles apart everyone agreed on an optimal ratio to things

(Not a Sword, but nonetheless about History of Edged Steel Tools and comparable somewhat.) There is a Study about Woodchoppers Axes ("Die Konstruktionsprinzipien der Axt" by Reissinger Gottfried 1959), its the last and only Study i found because in these Years this the light Chainsaws came in, so nearly all Research stopped: In this Study he described how the Axe should be formed according to the latest scientific and ergonomic Findings. In Europe the Edge lenght, Mass, Blade lenght and the (addition of a heavier Poll) stayed the same from 1700 to 1920! According to him (and as we know to-day, he was correct because the whole developed World adopted long edged axes to-day: Korea in 1950 still had shortedged axes but with the help of Austria adopted the longedged Axes, which were more efficient.) the newer Axe should have a longer blade (14 cm incase of 10 cm), a lower Mass of just 1200-800 g incase of 1500-1800 g, a shorter Blade and heavier Poll for improved Balance. In Europe there were many different Axe Forms with variable Dimensions of the Parts of the Axe for the same Tree Species, so they could not decide which was the better Design. They made the same Form of Axehead for 200 years without any improvment expect somewhat better Steel. Then the 1949s came and he brought out his study and the biggest Manufacturers of Axes at the Time in Austria: Müller, "Stubai" and Sonneck adopted their Axes and formed them according to his principles. Essentially their Blades became thinner, with heavier Poll and their Edges wider and concave. So what i want to say: There were obviously some expectional Swordsmiths back then that k ew their Crafts well and which adopted the optimal Blade Form, unfortunately there were many more just average Smiths who made the same Sword as their Papa and Grandpapa. When they introduced the Saber their enemy Targets didnt have any Armour anyway so what good is a thin flexible Sword which is harder to temper for the optimal Flexibility and then breaks or bends still easier than the relativly thick Saber which will cut just aswell? Against enemy Chavallery you wanted a sturdy, heavy Saber that wont break or bend when you strike their Armour. Mind you are going 50 km/h on your Horse so you need that Mass for Penetration.

... and, just a thought, there is maintenance. Is it faster and or easier to regrind or resharpen a broad, thin blade? But maybe you'd also need to do that more often. A more oblique-beveled blade holds up better against hard targets. Anyways, I'd guess there is some necessity or even just preference in there concerning how often you'd have to do some serious maintenance or how easy that is to do and how much skill you'd need to do it. You could experiment with that. Like, on video on your channel.

The only thing I can think of is, the narrower blades with a thicker spine were not used with shields or bucklers so they needed to be more durable.

I know you mentioned this briefly but it must be restated that the distil taper of sabers is often very heavy and this is just not the case with nihonto, where distil taper is very small. So they are still very different.

Katana and sabre were both wielded primarily as sidearms by soldiers who didn't wield shields and were likely to face spears or bayonets. Thick blades were probably useful when a parried polearm happened to land on the flat instead of the edge of the blade. Without a shield the sword would've been their primary defence, and taken a beating parrying blows, making durability critical. The man at arms with the broad, thin, sword or falchion, probably used it offensively against lightly armoured opponents, had a shield shield for defence, and also an axe or mace for fighting armoured opponents. Thus the relative fragility of the blade wasn't a problem.

Perhaps it is fair to say that while specific contexts can give rise to other forms, there is an optimally good ALL-ROUND general purpose set of proportions that work in a military context.

Well interestingly, the "sword" I'm studing right now the peinilla/cutacha (also known as "Cuban machetes") is rather thin on both planes, yet it was preferred across the Caribbean to some sabres, with some police and military forces adopting them in lieu of sabres, however there was a long series of factors for that.

Could you please do a video where you explain the distal taper of the Royal Armouries 15th Century Two Handed Sword? I'm trying to do research and I need those details please

İ've been asked to comment on this video, here it goes; Thoroughout all ages, cultures, cultural interactions, duties given on sword users etc, in general, Blade Width to Thickness Ratio differs mostly according to shield. A shield holder will choose a specialized blade, whether thrusting, or cutting, or chopping. A non-shield holder will choose a fighting blade, that can be utilised in all aspects of the encounter, such as parrying, deflecting, banging, blocking, cutting, thrusting, draw cutting. (not gonna mention needed features of blades for given tasks above, respectfully considering everyone here in this channel are already swordsmen) Same goes for either cavalry or infantry. Hilts that are mentioned here; Tulwar; İndian people's peasent/military ratio has always been far greater then other nations. Their hand distribution is influenced by their heavy peasent work; middle + ring fingers to carry, index + little fingers to direct. They rely heavily on their middle fingers, that's also why they, in daily life, point out things with their middle finger not with their index finger, unlike the rest of the world. Dao; Chinese people, surprisingly, have the same hand distribution when it comes to Jian, only beacuse the way they utilize the blade. but when Dao, they hold a hammer grip and support the swing with their other hand. That's why later Dao hilts incline towards the edge of the blade. Katana, The hand distribution is, middle + ring + little fingers to carry, index finger to direct, in both hands. So they always draw cut, even in their chopping attacks, there is and aspect of drawing. That's why Katana hilts incline towards the back of the blade. İn Kendo tournaments, they seldom use "Jian cut" to the top of he head, but that's not the issue here. besides, Shinai doesn't incline anywhere, just like Jian. Kılıç blade and hilt design however, will take like 10 A4 pages to mention, so i ask my resign. Stay awesome.

FIRST ! I GOT A REQUEST one day u mentioned some non regualtion officers swords from the Indian mutiny Would you pleaase do a video about them !

... maybe look the primary bevel angles (and widths), too, that might be interesting. Overall width and thickness at a given point along the length might not cut it alone to characterize a blade.

I have and have handled many diferent types of swords and my personal favorites are nimble, light, fast moving cut&thrust swords (dueling swords). From one handed swords I like the chinese jian the most, fast ,awesome thruster and great cutter, a bit demanding on the edge alignment but that's a good thing and it also looks majestic. From two handers, type XVII is the hidden gem (Albion Landgraf/Sempah), lighter then type XVa (Ringeck) but better cutter and awesome thruster.

On the topic of what is the point of falchions if other stuff with less slender edge angles cuts very well. Is one of them for cutting fabric armour. I feel like fabric armour gets overlooked a lot when talking about weapon design so much so that I couldn't even say what weapons I would choose against fabric armour. Does friction matter more with fabric armour for example? When compared to bare skin or normal clothing? When compared to a cheaper mail armour? Is thrusting better or is cutting? Also related how does the 'getting into the soft bits' approach to plate armour affect optimal weapons. If I need to get my blade into position and then attack? If my angle of cut/thrust/etc. is like 45 degrees or worse? If I cannot draw cut because of the positioning or something? Mostly separately I suspect, in battle when manure really hits the fan, technique and strategy go out the window, trained reflexes remain but the most important thing is perhaps: How well will this sword 'just work' (for the specific situation) when my body shuts off higher brain functions in exchange for better reaction times.

I wonder if the narrow wide blades, being more flexible, were more suited for finding their way through plates and gaps in armour. A stiff blade would likely not flex into those gaps at well.

Have you seen the movie 13th Warrior? they have broadswords and some other kind of sword tell me if the swords fit the time frame that movie

I noticed the double edge swords are wider than the single edge swords in the video. Is it exactly double the width, to accommodate both edges ?

Based on my limited observation of people doing test cutting, it seems that swords with the sorts of blades you described as broad-but-thin, usually cut slightly better than swords with the sorts of blades you described as narrow-but-thick. However, the swords with the broad-but-thin blades also seem to be more finicky with regard to edge alignment, than the swords with the narrow-but-thick blades seem to be. Moreover, it seems that because of their increased finickiness with regard to edge alignment, the swords with broad-but-thin blades also experience complete failures to cut, much more frequently than do the swords with narrow-but-thick blades, albeit still in only a minority of attempted cuts. Therefore it would seem that the broad-but-thin blades are more optimized for inflicting especially deep cuts, or for cutting through especially resistive material, and that their increased finickiness with regard to edge alignment is a necessary compromise. Likewise it would therefore seem that the narrow-but-thick blades are more optimized to be forgiving in terms of edge alignment, and that their inability to inflict quite such deep cuts or to cut through quite such resistive material, is again a necessary compromise. Why would a given culture at a given time, chose one style of blade over the other? I can't say for sure, but I can think of three possibilities: 1 ~ People with finer neuro-muscular control might simply be better at maintaining good edge alignment in their cuts. If so, the increased finickiness of the broad-but-thin blades in terms of edge alignment might not be an issue for them, and they might appreciate those blades' increased cutting potential. Conversely, people with less fine neuro-muscular control might have more trouble maintaining good edge alignment in their cuts. If so, they might need a blade more forgiving in terms of edge alignment, and might be willing to accept somewhat reduced cutting potential in exchange for said forgiveness of terms of edge alignment. 2 ~ People who expected their enemies to wear thick, heavy clothing might value the increased cutting potential of the broad-but-thin blades, due to said blades' abilities to cut through heavy clothing, and might simply be willing to accept said blades' increased finickiness in terms of edge alignment, as a necessary trade-off. Conversely, people who expected their enemies not to wear thick, heavy clothing, might value the decreased finickiness of the narrow-but-thick blades in terms of edge alignment, due to such blades' ability to deliver reasonably good cuts more consistently than the broad-but-thin blades could, and might simply not have any need for the increased cutting potential of the broad-but-thin blades. 3 ~ People who expected their enemies to fight to the death, might have preferred the broad-but-thin blades, because the ability of such blades to inflict deeper cuts and to cut through more resistive material, would have increased their odds of inflicting a catastrophic injury which would have dropped their opponent dead then and there. Once again, they may have seen the increased finickiness of such blades in terms of edge alignment, and the increased odds of such blades simply not cutting at all on a given cut, as a necessary trade-off. Conversely, people who expected their enemies not to fight to the death, but instead to run away once they were sufficiently wounded, might have preferred the narrow-but-thick blades, because the decreased finickiness of such blades in terms of edge alignment would have increased their odds of inflicting injuries sufficient to make their enemies run away, immediately as soon as their enemies were within reach and before their enemies had time to do them any harm in return. I'm not sure which of those three explanations is correct, or if any of them is. (Who knows? Maybe there's an element of truth to each of them.) However, I tend to lean towards the third explanation, namely that the narrow-but-thick cutting blades are more optimized for fighting people who are likely to run home crying to mamma as soon as they get hurt, so that you won't have to actually kill them; and that the broad-but-thin cutting blades are more optimized for fighting people who are going to fight to the death, and whom you consequently have to actually kill. The reason why is simply that from what I've seen, broad-but-thin cutting blades seem to have historically been more popular at times and places where I would have expected combatants to more consistently fight to the death, and narrow-but-thick cutting blades seem to have been more popular at times and places where I would have expected combatants not to fight to the death so consistently. For instance, in Medieval Europe, the spirit of Tyr was quite strong, and so I would expect that many of our forebearers at that time would have been quite willing to fight to the death in defense of their folk and faith. Likewise, the broad-but-thin cutting blades were rather popular in Medieval Europe. Naval boarding actions are another context in which I would expect people to be unusually likely to fight to the death, simply because there would have been nowhere for them to run. Moreover, the broad-but-thin style cutting blades seem to have historically been popular among navies as well. In contrast, during the 18th and 19th centuries, the spirit of Tyr seems to have been much weaker among our forebearers. Therefore I would have expected our forebearers at that time to be much less willing to fight to the death for their folk or faith, than during the Middle Ages. Likewise, I would expect people fighting on land to be, on average, less likely to fight to the death than people fighting on a ship at sea would have been, for the simple reason that if someone fighting on land decides to run away, they'd be more likely to have somewhere to run to. Moreover, the narrow-but-thick style cutting blades seem to have been more popular among land armies in the 18th and 19th centuries.

One aspect you might be leaving out is available materials, the current economic factors for the country at war, or the military using the blade.

The only impression i get is that the super wide blade you were holding up would be like swinging around a paddle. Never used a sword that wide before so not sure if that holds true but i wonder if that shape would have an element of self correcting the edge alignment when you swing just from how friggin wide the thing is. Its like when you stick your hand out of the window during a car ride, your hand wants to cut into the wind instead of being flat against it.

My first thought would be to look at steel quality and ease of manufacture. Are there blade shapes that are more forgiving of steel quality? Are there shapes that are easier for mass production or production by less skilled smiths?

I have a question , we’re there any Left handed saber hilts ? I’m a lefty and I’ve never seen one .

❤ it may be about the weight of the sword according to size and fighting style ,, or how long it will be used in fighting, battles,, by the types of human who wields it affecting endurance, in my opinion😁😁

Rather than perfect shape, think of a perfect weight. The weights are similar regardless of shape. But I think the blade type, double edged or single edge, were preferences for different conflicts. Thickness and width develop from spreading the weight out to make a flexible double edged longsword. While a thick, narrow blade is less flexible like a curved single edged saber or katana. Just the observations of a common archer.

Seems as thought point of balance would weigh into this discussion, as well. Not as a single explanation, but as a relevant design parameter. A blade designed for cutting soft targets that's intended to have a more blade-forward point of balance would taper differently from one intended for the same targets, but with balance nearer the hand. Might it then come down (in some respects) to the particular forms of swordsmanship being practiced, in terms of a preference between broad, circular strokes and quicker, nimbler redirection?

Could politics also be at play? I'm thinking about the trial of Galileo, the decree that knights couldn't use Muslim weapons without specific sanction (which I didn't know about until you told me, thank you), and the denigration of an opponent and their tools as 'inferior'. While some of these may be cached as religious reasons, I regard them as more political than spiritual. Thank you once again for a very thought provoking and interesting video.

Is one more difficult to make vs the other? Did some regions have standing armies that were easier to equip with a more "simple" design?

I am a bit ignorant of the history and detail, Would it not relate to which styles are easier to smith again and again constantly?

Perhaps the answer is as simple as "this" is the style of blade that is used by everyone, so everyone uses it?" In other words, since swords were always sidearms, their actual function in combat may take second place to how they look?

I wonder if smiths had an ideal proportion they worked to, much like painter and sculptors would use the golden ratio? When looking at a xiphos or kopis I could guess yes even some gladius, but is there proof for this I wonder and if so for how long did smiths work to these proportions?

I wonder if the Golden ratio can be found in this optimum proportion?

I used a fairly broad, thin blade in Kung Fu and there were a lot of moves with the hand on the blade. I wonder if the width was due to techniques?

Could the thickness, width and length be to obtain a specific sword weight, and could the weight be proportional to the weight of raw steel "billits" or "ingots" available to blacksmiths and you have to use said ingot to obtain the maximum amount of "sword". Should be interesting to see the weight difference between different style swords and the steel ingots used back in the day?. just a thought?

If I can remember I might email you about this one. I would ask a few more questions that may or may not have something to do with it.