Big thanks to Matt Easton for tirelessly wandering around the room to find the perfect sword to illustrate his current point. May he ever continue to be so.
The real technological development that people forget about industrial era swords is producing all those swords industrially. The Battle of Hastings was fought between 20,000 or so people. Siege of Orleans was about 20,000 people. Battle of Lützen was around 40,000 people. Battle of Waterloo was around 160,000 people. Gettysburg was around 165,000. The First Battle of the Marne in 1914 was fought between 2,000,000 people (mostly armed with sword-bayonets, not swords, but people were still expecting to use swords at that point). When you're talking about that many edged weapons on the field, the technology marvel is not the sword itself, but the factory producing them.
Also, unrelated to the overall point, but just to finish off the flabbergasting scale of WW1, France and Germany **each** took around 250,000 casualties. More people got injured or killed at The Marne than took part in Waterloo and Gettysburg combined.
Gettysburg is the odd one here. It was a battle in the middle of civil war within a nation with a third rate military. Not a Great Power Conflict. In contrast at Sedan in 1870 the Germans alone fielded over 200.000 men.
@@HD-mp6yy I picked battles that people would recognize, Hastings and Orleans weren't exactly fought between great powers either. Here in the US, Franco-Prussian War isn't well known. USA at the time of the ACW might not have been a world military power, but it was becoming a world industrial power. By contrast, people thought USA and Mexico would be pretty evenly matched before the Mexican-American War, based on territory, population, military competence, etc, but ultimately USA's industrial sector and military logistics were able to put guns and swords into the frontier faster, while Mexico was stuck sending peasants with pikes to defend the territory. It's seen as a forgone conclusion today, but this conflict proved that industrialism was more important than people realized.
exactly, by that logic, kopis is the same development level as 1934 polish sabre not a single design surpassed any other, scottish basket hilt is designed for different thing than WW1 trench gauntlet, or Cossack shashka
This is one of those ideas that I've adopted into my D&D setting, where a core idea is that technology is lost, rediscovered, and independently reinvented many times before it can spread across the world (something largely facilitated by the fact a world-altering cataclysm hits about every 300-350 years or so, making it difficult for large nations to form and culture/technology to spread at any large scale). For instance, gunpowder was originally invented by a dwarven city which was destroyed when the mountain they lived in collapsed, was reinvented by humans about a century later then shortly rediscovered by another dwarven city (who also invented the first firearms), before both were wiped out by dragons, then it was finally invented again by a clan of orcs, whose migrant seafaring nations were the first to successfully spread it beyond a small collection of easily-annihilated city-states. Firearm technology has gone through similar waves, presently existing as a strange hybrid of wheel-lock and revolver, while also giving rise to divergent lineage of weapon utilizing magical "thaumic charges" for ammunition evolved when firearms were rediscovered but gunpowder remained lost. Both weapon types, however, have only been widely known for about 50 years as of the current point in time.
As someone doing writing with sword and weapon technology oscillating around the era where knucklebows and other forms of hand protection would have developed, this is a really useful video. Particularly the point about basket hilts being around for so long.
Awesome points all around Matt! I was just looking at a very healthily developed knucklebow on an Austrian Messer from a mid 15th Century Painting. I'll post it on my community page, as it dovetails this discussion.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I've always associated these 15th century examples with archers and crossbowmen who couldn't wear gauntlets and also effectively operate their primary weapons; I assume (though you know what is said about assuming) that as black powder weapons became more common the same logic would apply. I can't imagine trying to reload a wheel/matchlock in gauntlets would have been at all practical so the extra hand protection seems natural. I know in the 16th century there was a nonlinear transition from lances to firearms for heavy cavalry but my understanding is that those soldiers would often carry more than one wheel lock pistol at a time to avoid reloading in the saddle and gauntlets would have made the process extremely slipshod
Matt Easton, I'd be interested to see you do an episode just showing off what you have in your collection, seems like a lot of interesting stuff in there that we only get snippets of during broader discussions.
The hand protection is intrinsically tied to how a sword is being used. Just a cruciform hilt, well, keep the hand back and only push forward for a strike at the right moment. Finger-rings, side-rings and sweeps, keep it forward and to the side, but keep it moving. Cup hilt, now you can keep it in front of you for engagements, disengagements and the thrust. Basket-hilts, forward wards that brace for an attack are possible. Sabre hilts, well, we have reliable guns now, so let's make it such that it doesn't inconvenience us too much when we carry them around; wait, the fashion changed and big hilts are back in style; nevermind, the style changed again; ok, all these unnecessary changes are getting ridiculous and expensive, let's stop using swords altogether. 😉
Totally agree, I just wonder if one of the fighting methods was clearly better. Is it the case that you can fight with weapons as effectively and safely without hand protection as the Japanese, and there is simply no point in adding guards? Or - well, you can fight without a hand guard, but it's more difficult and risky?
@@Zbigniew_Nowak You can't finger the crossguard on an English basket-hilt. You can't place the thumb on the blade on a disk-hilt. So there are limitations on how you can use a sword when you add more hand protection. Some would argue that those limitations cost you more in defence (to the head and chest), what the developed hilts provide (to the hand). But no protection at all is risky, as it makes you take less risks. I think a balance is needed. I also think that some swords designs work better with some fencing traditions that work better in some particular situations. So even if the best sword was achieved, once the situation changed (infantry to cavalry to naval warfare; or pikes to pikes and some guns to just better guns; small squad tactics to massive trench warfare) so did the sword. How the guy that owns the channel likes to say: context!
Thank you, Matt! Not only for another great video but especially for introducing me to the term 'myth of linear development'; it is one that I have longed for in many discussions with colleagues from various disciplines.
The increase in hand protection on swords happened at the same time, wearing swords in towns became more accepted and fashionable. If you are not wearing armored gauntlets because you are going about your daily life in town and you have plenty of disposable income to pay for the added expense that a sword with a complex hilt to protect your vulnerable hand. You do it, it becomes more and more popular and they try to one up each other. This easy explains the sudden advancement in hilt design.
watching this i had a reoccurring thought again, about the more and more elaborated hand protection in "the west" compared to (from what ive seen) other places in the world, where they often just had very small guards be it quillons or a disk
I imagine with steel 3d printing you could advance sword technology. Imagine a sword blade that had hollow portions. It would give a lot of flexibility on blade shape, weight and balance. But would probably be ridiculously expensive. You could vary the metallurgy as well -- using a steel that allows more hardening towards the edge, and more resilient and flexible steels in the core of the blade.
I'm not sure how strong steel can get when it isn't beaten and tempered into shape. It would be interesting to see what could be improved upon by 3d printing a sword tho, and I'm sure if you used the right material, a 3d printed sword could have some unique advantages over a forged one
@@seanmadson8524 Sure, but when you 3d print in metal you're not forbidden from hammering it, tempering or doing a heat treatment. It's just one more tool in the arsenal. Look at how Boeing 3d prints turbines, it's not straight from the printer into the engine. A 3d printed metal piece straight out of the printer is a pretty soft metal, regardless of which steel you use.
@@ryanbudney3356 Oh, I assumed you meant no heat treating in your example, since heat treating a sword that has fully closed hollow sections sounds dangerous, but maybe I'm overestimating the explosive qualities of heated air
I would 100% agree the idea that there has certainly reached a point where the technology pretty much got as good as it was ever going to get and that swords from the renaissance weren't really much overall better or worse then swords which came along after that.Granted smallswords and spadroon might have been outliers during there time period but still swords overall never really got significantly much better or worse since the renaissance.
There’s a reason why the Renaissance cut-and-thrust sword (a.k.a. “sidesword”) is my favorite group of sword designs. Furthermore, there’s a reason why I might’ve felt comfortable carrying such a weapon, even in later historical periods.
Also, for much the same reasons smallswords stayed in use through the American Civil War, and in both world wars both sides used some very antique weapons, Chassepot, Peabody, Berdan, you name it... If it still worked, people often didn't just throw it away, they didn't have the disposable income etc
Maybe as a follow up video idea - how would a modern sword look like? And what would it be made of? Like do we have today possibilities that can actually be used to create something that is better than the mentioned swords? Maybe something like perfect individual adjustability due to 3D-printing? Special types of metal that can be used to create a great balance, like having a VERY heavy metal in the grip-section, but much lighter metal in the blade, so you could much easier wield longer swords with just one hand? How could electronic parts change the effectiveness of a blade? Like it being an electroshocker at the same time. Or like in SciFi something like a chainsaw sword. :D And all sorts of stuff like that. I think that might be super interesting. :)
I have always wondered whether one could not make a hollow sword today - i.e. move the fuller to the inside of the blade. A simple drill would be enough. Maybe fill the hole with some kind of web structure (additive manufacturing will be necessary for that).
Swords still exist to one degree or another. Sword canes and large bowie knives are relatively common. Additionally, the new(ish) generation of heavy spring steel machetes has also blurred the line, often resembling a large messer style implement.
The look would probably not be different from those still made for army officers today, considering that firearms are so widespread and developed that a sword would never be a person primary weapon. The main development I can see (which we already see, in fact) is in the quality of the material used for the blade and the ease and quickness to produce the weapons in a large number. (Btw, the chainsaw sword looks ubercool but unfortunately it would be a garbage weapon: cumbersome, slow at cutting, and would break as soon as it clashed with another 😅)
I think it was just an advancement in production, costs and profits as time went on into the industrial age. But Matt hinting that Renaissance swords are the best... I knew I liked the guy for a reason. 😄 Face it people, they had to introduce military regulations to make people use sabres, or officers would have shifted back to sideswords. 😉 🤣 The dusack from 8:00 looks really nice! Love the side-ring port. 👍 Is it made by Paul Binns by any chance? The look makes me think of his work.
How about a video on the peak aspect of each sword technology and capability? My guess to what those may potentially be; Dueling hand protection: Cup Hilt Rapier Military hand protection (without platted gloves): 1889 British Officer Sword Curved blade: Shamshir Blade length: Zweihander Blade material: Longsword for the spring steel or mid to late 1900s sword replicas due to modern steel Blade survivability: Sword of Goujian Wood chopping durability: Pioneer Hanger Blade edge sharpness: Katana Thinnest and most flexible blade: Foil Blade wideness: Cinquedea or Alexandria Oakeshott Type XVIIIc Lacerating blade: Falcata Limb chopping power: Dadao Handle: Swept-hilt Rapier Sword pommel: Renaissance Side Sword Scabbard: 1796 British Light Cavalry Sabre As civilian defense: Smallsword Sword and handle ratio: Nagamaki Armor gap penetration: Estoc Sword usage with shield: High Middle Ages Arming Sword or Qijia Yaodao Best saber overall: 1845 French Infantry Saber or M1860 Pattern US Saber
Matt, really like your videos. Just one comment on the 19th century sword you present as a Danish cavalry sword. It’s actually an 1864 Swedish cavalry sabre. My favourite among 19th century Swedish swords 👍🏻
I got it wrong in the video, which is quite funny because it's actually listed on my website for sale correctly! At least I believe so - I think it is the M1854: www.antique-swords.co.uk/antique-swords-for-sale/Swedish-M1854-Cavalry-Sword-p676669254
"They really don't have any less hand protection or complexity to swords of around the year 1850" That can be partly disputed on. The otherwise very infamous 1840 US Pattern Heavy Cavalry Saber had the bar extensions to the hand guard. The 1845 British Officer Sword had the half-basket hand guard that gave the necessary hand protection to the right of the hand while ensuring the hand guard wasn't too heavy. Even if not using it for fighting, the non-symmetrical hand guard was more comfortable since a fully symmetrical design on that sword would likely do more body poking. Also useful if not wearing very protective gloves.
With Dao swords; while cup styled guards did exist for the Ming, that hand guard design became more notably common for the Qing with the Liuyedao and the civilian owned Oxtail Dao. The guard was especially beefy on the Oxtail Dao and reduced the chances of an opponent's sword sliding into someone's arm; a similar purpose to the beefier hand guards of some western 1800s designs to compensate for the lack of protective gloves. Of course the cup guards also seem to provide additional structural protection. The other notable change from Renaissance time Dao to Dao swords by the 1800s was the Qing embracing curved handles. Which mainly lend to less discomfort with long stretches of time holding the swords. The Jian on the other hand barely changed in comparison and was more of an elite sword by then.
Maybe hand protection. But if my life is on the line, I really want that blade made out of Bessamer (crucible) steel. Get rid of so many metal defects inside the blade.
That probably wouldn't change the blade's durability all that much until we get into mid-20th century materials science. What it would change, though, is that it'd probably reduce the cost of the sword enough that one could get a spare blade for the sword (or even just an entire second sword) for the price of the older one.
I believe that he already did a review, of sorts of the prototype since he was working with Windlass on it. But I think that at least one other channel has done a review on it and I believe that they said it was really good. I'd be curious to see how it compares to the LK Chen since Skall recently reviewed the LK Chen version and gave it high marks.
@@Riceball01 Thank you for the reply! I know he did a review of the Light Cavalry sword from Windlass last year, but I haven't seen anything on YT re the new version from Windlass. I will check out Skalls channel (I must have missed it). I just received mine last week and it feels really great in the hand (though it is heavy). Now to order another and find someone to grind a spear point for the Waterloo feel ;-)
Oh yes it was a straight line from the Egyptian khopesh through to Patton's superior cavalry sabre which was the last word in technology with a few workaday katanas inbetween :)
It seems to me that most sword development is not a "Technological Development" but more of a change in usage, fashion and design. As Matt pointed out there are classical examples with more hand protection, so the question then is not when did they "invent or develop" new guards but why did they not feel the desire or need to put them on early military production
Surely the development of the hand guard for cavalry, and the gauntlet only being used on the bridle hand must be related to the use of the horse pistol and the difficulty in using one when wearing a steel gauntlet?
So, very protective hilts, while not at-all ubiquitous (perhaps because of being impractical in other ways, such as to wear) loosely track the demise of plate armour (in The West)
I think I saw something like that in an episode of a (very bad!) Australian soap opera from the eighties (or early nineties), set in a women’s prison setting… 🤔😁
Well, by the renaissance period, the development of firearms was progressing. Swords were still used, but why would anyone try to develop fantastically more effective sword designs when they could devote that energy to cannon or firearms, which would have a much greater effect in combat? The swords worked well enough. They were made of good steel, they were sharp and all solid enough compromise designs. Whereas, when you look at the development of firearms, guns were rather clumsy all the way until the development of blackpowder cartridges (which were convenient but still messy and dangerous). It wasn't until the widespread adoption of smokeless powder cartridges that we got some firearm designs (like the 1911 pistol and the mauser rifle) which are still used to this very day.
Not to mention that many soldiers in the 15th and early 16th centuries were simply wearing their hand protection on their hand. It's less of a case of sword technology advancing so much as sword technology adapting to a reality where the expected use case no longer involves metal gloves in the equation.
I saw someone mention buying a two-handed basket-hilt longsword, and wondered how much basket hilts interfere with quickly grabbing & drawing, and then with controlling, a sword. I'd expect two-handers to be especially problematic.
Basically, what you're saying is that the hand guard was either raised or decreased in some cases, according to the style of glove that the man wore during that time in that area? Yeah and in that era
I slightly disagree, but only slightly. American Revolution/ French Revolution. That I feel is sort of the cut off date. I was at the Guilford Courthouse Museum and their were so many swords. All of them practical. They definitely veered off into side arm territory ( but then again swords have always been side arms) but they were all functional, had good hand protection and were very practical. Napoleonic wars swords were still sort of used practically ( I’d argue more in the Navy than anywhere else) but guns by that point had surpassed swords on land and the swords that were used were heavily specialized to a given task.
The Epee isn't really a sword, but they could be seen as the last real evolution for swords. An evolution of safety with it being intentionally quite light to reduce lethal accidents. Also a grip style unique to Olympic fencing that focuses on making anyone only apply as much force as really needed. Especially as any thrusting motion changes the needed grip.
western sword design always evolved from usage and researches of it. thats why its far more scientific than swords from any other apart of the world. it shows in how those hand protection piece tend to focus to cover the back side of the hand. that is resulting from the common situation in real world sword fight in how the 2 battling sword tips would meet. where the opponent sword would be on the outside from where you standing holding your sword and your sword would be on the inside. so when early clash start when one of you deflect one of the tip of the sword it will slap the opponent sword to further out from your sword arm side, and exposes the BACK of their hand. ASSUMING both swordsmen are RIGHT HANDED. and in reflexes, the most common move by instinct swordsmen in fight will do when you are in frantic moment and in fear of an immediate retaliation move from the opponent is, to WHIP your tip of your sword towards the exposed opponents's back hand, since its the easiest to reach . and the rate of that occurring in REAL sword fights makes sword fencing techniques masters include that as an important aspect in sword fight techniques. so i believe thats why you see those hand protection covering more on the back of the hand side. so the fencing techniques also develop hand in hand with how the sword develops over time. this progress characteristic is in contrary to how for example japan does with their fencing techniques. and i get censored for what? my comment just got deleted earlier.
is there gonna be a royal armoury falchion without any side projects or with side rings on either side? i quite like the sword a lot but it hurts my ocd regarding symmetry of ambidexterity.
I've had some British royal guards videos come up in my recommendations lately, and I noticed that they hold their swords very strangely. I'm curious to know why they do that, and I'm sure that you know, so could you please explain it.
What's the dagger length blade you have hanging at the top right of your wall from a viewer perspective. looks interesting. short sword or dagger? seems to have a fair bit of hand protection, or at least looks like it might from here.
While it can be agreed actual improvements to sword designs slowed to a crawl, that doesn't mean there wasn't any refinement or that they didn't change sword aspects out of necessity, fashion, symbolism, nor comfort.
Why do you think hand protection didn't appear universally on swords ?? It seems like a really obvious think to have, even if you are practicing with sicks as a kid. And why do you think it didn't appear heavily earlier in history such as the dark age or antiquity???
For me, a classic example of the evolution from more protection to less protection is the transition from rapier to smallsword and the logical reason seems to be... well, comfort of wearing and maybe speed of gripping the weapon. This is how I see it in the example of Polish sabers, where the saber worn every day had a "bare" handle, and the more "warlike" sabers had a slightly better hand protection. In ancient times, they already knew quite good hand protection - at least in one type of gladiator sword - but you see, these people were specifically ready for a "duel". They didn't have to carry this weapon every day or draw it in a split second.
Those swords planned for resistance from another similar tool. I suppose a sword for the modern age would not need this. Better use for also cutting brush etc. this is why machetes are still popular to this day for actual use.
On the topic of sword technology, how much difference is there in the quality of steelwork and metallurgy, say, from the 1500s to 1800s, or from 1800s to today? Can we make substantially better blades now than we could back then or is it fairly similar?
Especially as we have 1060 carbon steel, 1090/1095 (which can be easy to sharpen), and VG-10. There's also T10; which is theoretically better than 1095. Though for now the amount of swords it's being applied to is very limited and can run into issues with blades that have a significant enough curve.
People in the past were not stupid, they were people, and once they stopped wearing hand protection they wanted it their swords - the linear progress happened but it was so rapid that it is lost
Would it be fair to say that hilts did become more elaborate and decorative in a largely linear progression, perhaps as metalworking techniques improved? The early basket hilt you show looks to favour functionality over aesthetics. (Or perhaps that was simply the aesthetic of the time?) 🙏
Still of all the onehanded swords, the Rapier stays, beyond reasonable doubt my ultimate favorite.... Allas, this is, like by treaties by Thibout and others, a high training intense sword to be any good. We are talking years of training, decades for true mastery. So with my limited training in these great blades trhough history, I would stick to a kukri machety or a cutlass. Not that people can't be great fighters with it (Gurka's), but these blades are far more forgiving for a lack of training or dedication to technique. Meaning that an overly enthousistic noob like me has a fighting chance against the (hopefully unarmed) zombies.
In my opinion, the 19th century sabers dialed hand protection back a little from basket hilts and rapiers, focusing on one side of the guard to make them more comfortable to wear except the cutlass which were usually stored in a rack on a ship rather than carried anyways.
It's not like you need new forging techniques or alloys to put a few rings and studs on the hilt. Armor (when used) already protects the hand so additions on the sword just make it more cumbersome to use.
Hilt design doesn’t define the technology of a sword to me… What about metallurgy? Sword strength, flexibility, weight etc? Which has the most superior steel or construction techniques? Guards are important, but you can make baskets and the like from bronze… but the blade is probably more fundamental
when It comes to blades. it has much to do with what you want to use the blade for. It´s kind of hard to show pepole the diffrence between to blades. I had a discussion with pepole. that didn´t understand that cheap cooking knife is kind of shit and sharpening it. would be as usefull as puting makeup on a pig.
I picked up a few knives, a United Cutlery and a Bushmaster (United Cutler) and another. One of the UC's was an 18" "Columbian Machete" with sawback, the other was a 12" Kurkri with a sawback. One was made with aus=6 and I forget the othert. The third was an 8" tanto amde with 8cr13 with a sawback. When I looked them up they HRC'ed out at 55-58. I had a downcurved "machete" I got on the cheap from USCavalry 3 decades ago. It is 13" 420-C "spring tempered". I am told that 420 has a hardness of 50. You have said that medieval swords were spring tempered, what was their HRC or equivalent?
Protection is obviously to make for lack of skills. That is what armor is about/for. Clearly more (hand) protection is good, but eventually your lack of skill and or bad personal choices will get you killed. Done.
you can be skilled having protection, and It doesn't matter that much individual skill in battle, someone very skilled naked (dead in 2 seconds, by literally anything), with armor you have a chance.
@@raditicat Indeed, if you only require reenactment for social satisfaction, but I also like to think if SHTF, or some such, I have the confidence in what ever I hold or wear.
