The historic difference between a Side Sword and an Arming Sword is when held aloft, the first you say, "Thunder Thunder Thunder, Thundercats... HO!" and the latter you say, "By The Power Of Greyskull - I Have THE POWER!".
When my instructor (ex law enforcement and military) was asked what his favorite gun is, he always said "the one that's in my hand when the shooting starts." Also, when asked about 9mm vs .45, he responded (I swear he actually said this) "I've shot dirt bags with both and they all died just the same." Lol.
As a point of thought; another reason knuckle bows might have been more common on single edged swords is that falchions/messers have a distinct front. Double edged swords might have the added utility of being reversable and knuckle guards might have interfered with that use.
If Roland Warzecha's idea about handedness of sword hilts is correct, then at least some double-edged European swords had a very distinct true and false (front and back) edge, implying that those swords would have been less reversable and more sharpened down the whole length of the back edge for symmetry's sake. But having said that, it's obviously true that single-edged swords have an unambiguous orientation in a way that partially or fully double-edged swords clearly don't.
@@etepeteseat7424 But to caveat that, there were probably different schools/systems of swordsmanship that favor different ways to grip one's sword. A hammer grip is probably not going to benefit from an offset pommel like a handshake grip is gonna be. Also, in the heat of battle, when you can't/don't want to run back to camp for a sharpening/replacement, gripping a sword the wrong way is probably a relatively minor discomfort.
Disagree. I think you may have it backwards. It must have evolved that once you have the asymmetric hand and knuckle guards the sword can no longer be turned around and so two edges are no longer useful. Only a false edge to aid penetration. In short, once you protect the knuckles the sword is not symmetrical and so the back edge is not as important.
@@forevertoremain Except, if that were the case, we could expect to find a plethora of examples of Medieval arming swords with one quillon bent over the handle before the development of cruciform falchions or messers. Instead, cruciform arming swords and falchions develop parallel to each other; knuckle bows then develop out of the cross guards on falchions while arming swords and side swords maintain straight and upturned quillons well into Renaissance.
In my own experience starting with a medieval arming sword, I found myself putting my finger over the hilt without anyone telling me to. This inclines me to suggest that the technique came first, and the structure of the hilt followed.
I find myself gripping my single-handed swords lower on the handle, with my index finger extended up as though it's looping over something (in the case of the sparring Han jian). It gives extended thrusting angles and better control. One thing that makes me curious is why a finger-ring over the cross guard ended up preferred over, say, a ring under the cross-guard, since the ring over the cross-guard seems to make the cross-guard less useful. It's probably just how the technique influenced the structure, but I wonder a ring under the cross-guard could work.
That is probably the most colourful Superdry shirt ever ! If it isn't ? It still has to be the most colourful one Matt owns. Has any one counted how many items of super dry clothing Matt has appeared in ? That's some serious RU-vid trivia I am curious about . That would be just as fun an argument as this sword debate.
Malleus made me the Alexandria inspired one a few years ago, the new versions can be broken down. Balefire made me a simple hilt and single finger ring arming sword a few years ago as well. Each gives a different flavor to how things can apply between the various Bolognese treatises. Marco Danelli made me my Venetian sword and Balefire made me a spare back sword blade replacement. All have small eccentricities that play well with any of the various sources. Good video as always.
Old D&D player here, anyone else remember the nonsense about the difference between a glaive, a glaive-guisarme, a guisarme, a halberd, a lucern hammer, a bill, a ranseur, a bardiche, a partisan, a naginata, a fauchard and so on? I think the lesson is that this desire for neat categories with clear distinctions is a modern projection on the past. The past was more fuzzy on the details. Swedish authors regularly mixed walloon swords, backswords and sabers as if they were the same thing. An issue not helped by people readily mixing the blades and hilts according to preference and what was available. We are, quite possibly, overthinking things.
Yes, inindeed.The swords that probably belonged to well known conquistadores are not to different from renaissance side swords but with a thicker blade.
I think in some Dutch drill manuals they depict pretty short, broad bladed but tapered swords with finger rings and call them rapiers. I think the distinction in some places might have just been “has a more hand protection and maybe a narrow point.” If rapier originates from dress sword in Spanish then it’s pretty analogous to side sword. By the transitive property rapiers are medieval arming swords ;)
@@scottmacgregor3444 Particularly the German speaking world; Meyer also seems to call one-handed cut-and-thrust swords "rappier" to set the system appart from his longsword and dussack systems. This may have something to do HRE and Spain sharing an Emperor at this point
The earliest painting that I've seen with a sidesword having fingerings and knucklebow, is 'Madonna in Glory with Saints' by Domenico Ghirlandaio, and it is dated to 1490-1496.
I agree completely. Those are just normal one-handed swords but with fancy hilts. It is (rather) obvious that rapier (espada ropera) in XVI/XVII century was a civilian/every day/duel blade and wasn't used in battles. As far as I know, real rapiers (as we categorise them nowdays) were used only by artillery officers (more as a token of a position than a combat sword) - foot soldiers and cavalry used sideswords/backswords, in case of polish cavalry - sabers (and long sideswords/backswords/koncerz as a secondary weapon in case of winged hussars along with sabers). Great video.
I feel like when matt says "I will blow all of your minds" he's really overestimating how much knowledge many people who watch this channel have. Many of us don't have enough knowledge to make any of these apparently wrong assumptions in the first place. You tell me that a sidesword was used in the 15th century? Great! It's only my second time hearing the term "sidesword", so I didn't really have any assumptions about them to begin with!
I could not have told you the difference between an arming sword and a side sword before watching this video, so I couldn't make those assumptions ether.
I never really thought as to why, but I've always thought of the Sidesword as an evolution of the Arming sword. I don't know why i thought that, or how I came to that conclusion. But it's just what I came up with. A kind of proto-rapier in my mind.
I wonder about the role of the buckler, or lack of it, in the adoption of more complex hilts. Were bucklers declining in use for whatever reason - fashion, context, technology? If a person is defending with the sword alone better hand protection surely becomes a priority.
Really interesting topic. I was always under the assumption that these swords came about in Spain and Southern Italy because it became really popular to wear a sword in everyday life, which in turn led to an evolution in fencing and hilt design because whacking people's fingers in street scuffles or duelling type situations is a whole lot easier if all they got is a simple hilt. The narrower blade most likely also facilitated this as it is easier to wield. I hear and agree with your point about some soldiers wanting these early compund hilts because their main tasks required fingers but I think it's more the civilian scenario that pushed the evoltuion of these compund hilted swords in the 2nd half of the 15th century and early 16th century.
Luca Signorelli's Conversion of St Paul, circa 1470, depicts St Paul & companions carrying arming swords with finger rings. It's a bit hard to see but one of the swords looks like it has side rings as well.
It seems to me the more that emphasis on moving the tip of the blade swiftly to hit specific spots the more complex the Hilton needs to be. Or to put it bluntly the faster they move their tip the more guards you need to protect your fingers from being chopped off!
I think the reason to me this would more accurately be described as an Early 16th century sword is that the systems around it seem to have really matured and become codified in the early to mid 16th century. Yes, the Dardi school began before that, and Marozzo likely started learning in the late 15th century, however it seems more like the maturity of the sources come from the 16th century, especially if you compare it to Pietro Monte (late 15th/early 16th century source). Even Marozzo and Manciolino are Sword & Buckler focused and I'd argue don't have as sophisticated a single sword material as a say Dall'Aggochie (1568) or the Anonimo Bolognese (debatable time but I'd argue mid 1500s due to use of terms like contratempo and techniques against "sword in presence" and use of constraining actions which are similar in principle to what'll be used in Rapier systems).
@@chrisn3302 Do none of these documents include an authorial foreword or preface explaining the origins of the relevant system, whether they be distillations of martial or civilian practice, or if the author invented all of it?
The bolognese sources I know (anonimo, Manciolino, Marozzo) only talk about "spada" (Litterally, sword),whithout any mention to "da lato". The only difference they make is between "spada da filo" (sharp sword) and "spada da gioco" (play sword)
Thx Bruv for your insights! I think as a Fencer it feels quite natural that the arming sword with cross guard is evolving to complex hilt. It offers so much protection for „little“ effort. Gauntlets would require much more effort and blacksmithing skill. In Addition: I love the Munich Guard you have hanging there. If you are around in Munich just let me know :)
In "The Conversion of St Paul" by Luca Signorelli (1477) you can see the armigers equipped with almost the same 'Spada da lato' that you hold in the video! (except for the knuckle-bow)
I think we can all agree that the idea of adding a more protective guard to a sword probably didn't just magically appear in the 1600s, and that adding that within itself probably doesn't radically change the sword.
@@TrueFork Or because they were used by people not necessarily wearing gauntlets. Swords saw military use until the early 20th C. Swords were ubiquitous in war.
Not HEMA practitioner nor am I a historian so please correct me if I'm wrong, I think of Sideswords as the common military swords of the 16th century, while Rapiers are more of civilian swords with limited military usage.
shad made a video about the age of medieval peoples, how they were living much longer than the often stated early to mid 20's,,,,,, but is that also true for people who were using swords? perhaps the life expectancy of the losing swordsman was quite short,,, which MIGHT have something to do with swordsmanships apparent rapid evolution?
I just love the Arming Sword and see it as the supreme bladed weapon .And the Sidesword is the direct descendant .So I love it .Especially because it was of widespread use in the establishment of the Hispanic Empire in the American annexations .
Sword fan: "Ah, but what did people of the time call it?" Historian: "A 'Sword'." Is it just me or does so much in weapon history seem to boil down to the above problem?
At least in some languages there were more words than one in use to describe swords, the problem is that we often have a hard time connecting the words with a particular type of surviving sword preserved in a modern collection. Even period documents may not match, for example I have a surviving letter in which the King of Sweden gives detailed instructions about which swords are acceptable for military use and which are not but many of the words he uses to identify different types of swords an rapiers are not found in armoury records or import documents from the same period.
@@Vonstab Too true. I'm used to Looking at Japanese stuff, and as Matt has put in a prior vid, exactly what a Dai-to, Tashi or a Katana is varies with period and translation.
Theory I had was that maybe swords got bigger and bigger over time as metal technology advanced, until eventually everyone said "yeah, bit silly..." and went back to smaller swords again. So I figured maybe the sidesword was a shrunken down rapier after they perhaps were going out of fashion (as some complained they were impractical and cumbersome for carying around in every day life). I figured this may have been the case as sideswords in some sources are called "rapier" or "rappier" (like in Meyer). However, seeing the sidesword may have been an advancement on the arming sword, it sppears then that becomes an "early rapier", then people said "let's make a big version", that leading to the rapier (as both are 16th century). Of course chicken and egg, was the sidesword called a rapier because it was the original, or is it because it reminded people of rapiers and the name was retrospectively applied? The latter is certainly the case in modern times, but was it so back then?
8:24 And here I thought it was because most sabre stances have your cutting edge and thus your knuckles facing the opponent, so you want extra protection right there.
Guess I'm not a real sword fan since I didn't know that one piece of trivia. Yep, my love for a subject is absolutely predicated on encyclopedic knowledge of it.
I often hear about sources that focus on arming sword and buckler as a pairing but you mentioned instances where arming swords were used similarly to sabre (particularly with Marozzo's Opera Nova). Are there additional sources where arming swords are used in that way? I suppose technically basket hilted swords (Schiavona, Mortuary, Sinclair, Walloon.. etc.) are also an extension of the arming sword just with an even more complex hilt?
A knuckle bow only being used on Falchion's and Messer's could also be because they're single edged, as there is only one "correct" way around to hold a single edged sword. Where as with a double edged blade, such as an Arming Sword or Longsword, it can be held so either edge can be presented as the "true edge"
The problem - like anything in HEMA - comes from competitions. Every single sword and buckler tournament Ive been to has been inundated with sidesword fencers, and fair enough! Marozzo does a fairly fun system for sidesword and buckler for instance. But it's not so easy for the few folks attempting to fence in these competitions using the simpler medieval arming swords. Arbitrary though the name might be, typical sideswords have complex hilts which better protect the hand, and have a length advantage over a medieval style arming sword. This lets fencers with sideswords maneuver and attack in much freer ways than someone attempting to fence 1.33 for instance. So while I'd agree that the terminology is certainly something that can be applied more broadly, we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking this means that someone fencing with a complex-hilted "sidesword" has a similar experience fencing someone (bloss) than their simpler counterparts. There is a difference in typology if not terminology. This isn't to say the video suggested otherwise, but you know historical fencers: always clarifying for C O N T E X T
You changed my mind it was the lack of the chain Gauntlet or the metal Gauntlet that created the cup and the guard bars. I had always assumed it was because Cuts were made more delicately with shoulder cuts and more thrusting. Personally I still prefer a cup over a cage as even the modern gloves of today which you can catch a knife with it's still a bad idea to catch a blade that's being thrust at you even a modern blade will not handle piercing near as well as it does a slice
I always thought a sidesword was just a little more thrust-oriented than an arming sword. longer, narrower blade, similar weight, and possibly more or equal hand protection depending on the piece. If I were to imagine a sidesword, it'd just be an arming sword stretched out a bit, with maybe an additional knuckle bow
I also think side sword and arming swords are fair to have differing names, even with a minor difference. Sabre and back sword are curved and not curved, for example. Many swords, and other weapons to be fair, have differing names for relatively small changes.
Are machine guns a 19th century weapon that became popular in the 20th or is it better understood as an archetypally 20th century weapon? If you wanted to study use of the machine gun and its doctrine to which period would you look?
I have always found them to be an appealing type of sword. You may want to ask people to just give you some sort of comment. From what I understand it really bumps you up with the algorithm. I'm sure a lot of your long term people wouldn't mind just dropping one word when they are in a hurry to help you out. Cheers
Interesting video. Can you point me towards the evolution of the late Highland Broadsword? Can the broad sword variant of the baskethilt be argued to be an arming sword with a far more complex hilt?
I think the reason Falchions and Messers sometimes had knuckle bows when other swords didn't is because being single edge, you'd never want to hold it facing the other way as you might with a double edged sword.
So if the hilts developed earlier a question I would have is do the blades on average tend to become more narrow early on also? Or do the earlier complex hilted swords tend to still have wider blades on average? Also where are the points of balance on earlier complex hilt swords versus later complex hilt swords? One might assume that the points of balance tend to get closer to the hilt as time moves on but this may not be the case
From what I have learned, we have some quite slender and light blades from at least the beginning of the 14th century. Just have this Roland Warzecha video for quick reference: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Tv1aY1wMmyo.html . There seems to be a wider variety of blade types and shapes in any given period then we would expect by just looking at typologies or the catalogues of modern suppliers. I could be wrong but to me it makes sense to have a different sword for battle then I would carry every day with my civilian dress.
@@stefanfranke5651 thank you I am aware there are slender blades earlier on I'm mostly interested in the average widths over time. One would assume the average width decreases with time, but as complex hilts go back further than many realize perhaps slimmer blades were more prevalent early on than previously thought?
Excuse me. I know this question kind of unrelated to this video, but if I were an adventurer that uses bow, how do I keep the quiver from gathering up rain water?
I'm certainly not one of the people who thinks of them as having a narrower blade than a medieval arming sword. When I hear "side sword" I think of something like the Munich town guard sword, which certainly do not have narrow blades. Acutely tapering blades, yes, but not narrow for most of it's length.
Very very interesting. I was just talking about this with a friend. Could you arguably use the same blade profile (maybe changing the hilt) to practice i.33 and marozzo and other one handed sistems?
There's a reason that you don't see arming swords being used with a parrying dagger, whereas with the side sword, you do: The side sword was a lighter, narrower-bladed, and fundamentally different sword altogether.😁
@@alejandrolievano5573 , You are correct. Until I see more evidence supporting the idea that the side sword is nothing more than an arming sword with more hilt components, I disagree with what Matt says here. I still like Matt and his channel overall, of course. I just disagree with his point in this particular video.
@@alejandrolievano5573 , It's a topic that's particularly close to my heart. I've actually asked Matt about it, as well as other members of the "Community of the Sword", i.e. whether it's feasible to apply the techniques of Marozzo to the regular medieval arming sword. The answer I always seem to get is that some aspects can transfer over, while others not so much. One thing that doesn't seem to transfer is sword and dagger. It works with the side sword because it's an overall lighter, narrower blade, but it doesn't seem to work with arming sword. However, I love arming sword, and I wish that you could use Marozzo techniques with it!
As I understand you would not take a Rapier into war with you because it was designed to Reeve it was not designed to block and looking at re-pierce I can see how getting a Rapier in a clinch could do some serious damage to your Rapier rather quickly
@@afaultytoaster Exactly. I can give a practical modern example too - I train arming sword based on Liechtenauer, yet I fence and win against top sidesword fencers. The weapons are so close the tiny differences become even tinier in a HEMA competition context.
4:57 Matt: ... and everybody in HEMA will go "oh, it's a sidesword"... I'm not so sure about that, but I'm sure someone will make a response to this video proving I'm right =D
Would it be safe to suggest the side sword evolved as increased use of guns made shields less useful on the battle field so people needed a more complex hilt to provide protection that used to come from a buckler or shield?
Maybe armor and gauntlets are the reason? I thought shields are already less used because of things like plate armor, then gunpowder made those armor less effective, then more complex guards.
@@kewu313 you’re correct. Shields fell out of favor as full plate armor became more popular. Despite this, some people still chose to use shields well into the 17th century. The only way firearms would affect the hilt of a sword is the need for added finger dexterity needed to load a gun, which would be difficult with gauntlets. Full armor fell out of favor in the early 17th century.
Something I wondered now that the olympics are on, so I have two questions: Do you have any knowledge on martial disciplines that have their place there (foil, epee, sabre, archery, ...)? If you could pick one extra martial discipline to add to the schedule, which one?
Matt often points out Olympic fencers are not really fencing at all, just a game of stabbing the other person a split second before you get stabbed, you are both gonna be stabbed, Defeats the very meaning of fencing which is to defend yourself from being killed 😅 On Archery, The bows might not be practical because of their gadgets and size but the skill is completely transferable to any Bow, An Olympic archer can hit a coffee mug repeatedly at 70 meters. this Makes taking an animal or combat effective hit on a person at normal archery distances even easier 🤭
This is what gets to me!! People seem to dis modern fencing as being unrealistic!! Yes in foil and sabre there are lots of rules that allow stupid moves that would get you killed in a real fight. But in epee fencing the idea is to hit and not get hit, you have 1/25th of a second to register a hit before your opponent can hit back, so most decent fencers are looking to take the blade move it out of line and score or hit them when they're not ready, by surprise. How often do you see hema practitioners hitting each other at the same time or one being hit but managing to hit back within milliseconds?
@@jonmasonfencing I just watched the gold epee match, they both stabbing each other lol, doesnt matter if you stabbed him in 1/25th of a second before he stabbed you if you are both getting stabbed, that's the point I was making, I dont do hema but from what I see, "Doubles" don't count since you are both dead lol 😹 looks like good footwork but still getting stabbed is still getting stabbed, dont care if it's 1/24 or a whole second 😹
@@DefZen343 Matt has also pointed out that sport fencing is a great way to learn the fundamentals of swordfighting, has recommended it as an alternative for people without access to a HEMA club, and has talked about how sport fencers make great HEMA students. It's obviously much further from historical swordfighting than HEMA, but it still has value for learning swordfighting.
Hello sir. I´d like to propose to introducing subtitles in spanish. I´ve seen you talk about weapons with professionality, But my english is not very good. So, could you do this for some spanish followers. XD Thank you!
Seconded. Although some Googling made me think he's speaking of kvetun-armoury.com/side-sword/ , the first few are pretty much dead ringers for it (no pun intended.)
@@Zhuge_Liang I have this same model, and I'd say it's possibly the lightest sidesword you can get. Kvetun's site says it's 980 g, which translates to 2.2 lbs.
Just thinking out loud, but the evolution of sidesword techniques could have followed the technology if the sidesword started out as weapon for troops who couldn't wear gauntlets. Possibly, again not making a strong claim, if armored troops were still using simple cross guards they may have kept using them in civilian life with schools only catching up later. Although could have just as easily gone the other way, with nobles giving archers the same design they used when they weren't wearing gauntlets!
If you damage the edge on one side of your arming sword, you can flip it around. You can't do that with some hand protection. Not a problem with a single edged sword.
That’s not the main advantage of having a double edged blade. False edge cuts are common and can be done perfectly fine with a complex hilt. You can’t do those with a single edged blade at all unless your just trying to bonk your opponent.
I think that’s part of the reason why backsword became more popular while the more protective hilts became more common. Many of them have sharp ‘false edge’ near the tip, which means techniques involves false edge are still viable.
I've always used it for a sword capable of cutting that can be worn at one's side... which would include sabres as a specialised subcategory... although I'll admit to connotations of a 'transitional' hilt.
