There was a recent test of high-level HEMA fencers of Polish sabre against rapier & dagger. Now, either the rapier was rather short or the sabre rather long, because the rapier only had a slight reach advantage. In any case, despite it being sabre alone versus rapier & dagger, the sabre still went 4 to 5. That's a small sample size but suggests sabre versus rapier may be closer than many people think. Luis Pacheco de Narváez discussed the question of sword (Spanish rapier) against alfanje (Turkish sabre). There's an English translation from Xosé Nieto available. Pacheco considered the rapier (which used some cuts in his system) superior to the sabre. However, this came in the context of the established framing of Christian Europeans positioning themselves against the Ottomans. Pacheco noted how Turks very often triumphed using the sabre alone, but that this was because of the ignorance of their European foes. He went on to say that a European with a rapier who knows what they're doing should handily beat a Turk with a sabre. This is exactly how Bertrandon de la Broquière described the question of European warfare against the Ottomans in the first half of the 15th century. He mentioned how the Ottomans frequently won, but stressed they it would be easy for Europe to defeat them if Europeans got their act together. This context doesn't discredit either of the authors, but it does suggest they were addressing matters of group honor & dignity as well as theorizing warfare or fencing. Tellingly both authors acknowledged that Ottoman armies & individuals regularly found victory.
@kaoskronostyche9939
3 ай бұрын
The key phrase here is "got their act together" which, in my mind, renders all X is better than Y comparisons moot because your story clearly illustrates it was more the characteristics of the wielder than the weapon. Through history I am sure every weapon has more or less overcome every other weapon. The weapon being objective, a collection of subjective factors again render the "which is best" discussion. Cheers!
@FiliiMartis
3 ай бұрын
@@kaoskronostyche9939 Well, next time there's a war in Europe that requires the rest of the continent to get their act together, we will see who's right! Oh, crap... I would say 12 times's the charm, but in reality, Europe will never learn; it will never get their act together.
@irrelevantfish1978
3 ай бұрын
@@kaoskronostyche9939 Complexity is not the same as subjectivity. Just because halberds aren't _always_ better than daggers, and neither are _guaranteed_ to win over the other doesn't mean it's a matter of opinion which is the better primary battlefield weapon. Similarly, one could make a case that the rapier is objectively better than the kilij for well-trained swordsmen but worse for novices, given that it's quite unforgiving of poor edge alignment/cutting technique, at best, and therefore unlikely to inflict serious injury when wildly flailed about, as untrained/panicked combatants are wont to do.
@mikeorick6898
3 ай бұрын
Who knows what they meant? The Slavs and Hungarians used eastern style bows and sabers from horses for a long time. The Cossacks used them against the Prussians in the late 1700s, and Russian Bashkirs made it to Paris in 1814.
@BlueandGilt
3 ай бұрын
Thank you for sharing this. Most interesting, but as you say not all that surprising either. What got my attention though is that the author specifically mentions travelling through a region of the Balkans he calls Schiavona. This is a fascinating tidbit of information as most of the researchers of the Schiavona sword only speculate on the source of the name. All agree that the design came with Slavic mercenaries hired by Venice, but only speculate as to the origin of the swords name. Speculating that it comes from Italian schiavo for slave or from a painting "Portrait of a Lady" (La Schiavona) by Tiziano Vecellio Titian. But the possibility that there was a regional identity called Schiavona right at the time that this sword gains popularity adds an other exciting possibility.
@dlatrexswords
3 ай бұрын
This is a great point! I never considered the Schiavona connection although I'm familiar with the 'Slavic' proposed origin of the sword etymology. So my pronunciation may be compounding things, although 17th century spelling of course leaves a lot to be desired; here is how one of the passages reads. "After a dayes view of this place, we Sayled to Spalatro a City of Sclavonia, kept by the Venetians as their onely Emporium plyed successively with two Gallies, which carry betweene Venice, and that place, such merchandize as are transported into Turky-" So perhaps my pronunciation should have been adjusted ;-) That said, 'Spalatro' I believe to be 'Spalato' aka Split of Croatia. So all in all the theory does seem to line up.
@BlueandGilt
3 ай бұрын
@@dlatrexswords I feel this adds even more weight to this being the origin of the swords name, as this city appears to be a key trading port with Venice, and could go a long way to explaining the origins of the schiavona swords' history with the City State of Venice.
@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145
3 ай бұрын
Not an account per se but on the bayou tapestry there is one panel that shows a mace flying through the air, presumably it was thrown.
@theghosthero6173
3 ай бұрын
Iirc there is an early medieval or high medieval byzantine treaty talking about throwing maces
@dlatrexswords
3 ай бұрын
@@theghosthero6173 awesome!
@Zbigniew_Nowak
18 күн бұрын
Interesting. I wonder why these eastern nations didn't care much about hand protection? Especially since they probably didn't use heavy steel gloves during battles.
@outsideiskrrtinsideihurt699
3 ай бұрын
Very interesting quotes. I would kill to see what these Turks looked like if they were described as “armories”. The author mentions how the rapier is better in an open civilian environment and the kilij is better when armored and mounted but I wonder what they would’ve thought about those situations separately: Like which one is preferred when armored and on foot and which one is preferred if unarmored and mounted. This is also the first mention I’ve heard of that talks about rapier on horseback. I’m reminded of a video Matt Easton made about later accounts when middle eastern and Indian warriors struggled against European swords due to them not being used to thrust from swords. Their swords were heavily cut-centric and so they were caught off guard by a thrust-centric blade. Thank you for the nice, short video. Do you know where I can find more info about those rapier manuals detailing how to deal with cutting weapons?
@morriganmhor5078
3 ай бұрын
There are rapiers and rapiers. I think what the author is talking about, is not that thrust-centric civilian piece, about 130-150 cm long (almost an estoc-length), but a military "rapier", shorter, broader and more cut-and-thrust (in the Middle and Eastern Europe known as kord). Also, in the fights with Turks and other cavalry, west of France palas, palos, and pala" were used, something like the longer "backsword" with (often) curved handle (Eastern sabre-like).
@dlatrexswords
3 ай бұрын
I'll echo what @morriganmhor5078 said. We didn't go into it in this video, but the word 'rapier' here is ambiguous, and likely at the time in England referred to any complex hilted thrust-centric sword. So there certainly were ones that were longer and pointier and others which were shorter/cuttier. The German sub-set of swords called "Reitschwerts" of the 16th-17th centuries would likely be called Rapier during this period. As for manuals, I'd take a look at the featured Michael Hundt's Ein new Kůnstliches Fechtbuch im Rappier, and while it's more side-swordy I would check also out Carlo Giuseppe Colombani.
@outsideiskrrtinsideihurt699
3 ай бұрын
@@dlatrexswords dang period people and their simplicity in naming swords. I both love it and hate it sometimes.
@robertpatter5509
28 күн бұрын
@@morriganmhor5078 Like the Arms and Armor Town Guard sword or Schiavona? ( Side Sword?)
@morriganmhor5078
28 күн бұрын
@@robertpatter5509 Not necessarily. Palas was a cavalry weapon, longer and with often less elaborate hilt. Look at Austro-Hungarian swords from the 17-18th centuries.
@WhatIfBrigade
3 ай бұрын
As an experienced marina worker I'd prefer a curved scimitar over a rapier any day for fighting aboard a ship. As for on horseback, I think the same thing is true until we get to the revolver era. After that we see thrust centric rapier like designs take over. At that point, armour no longer matters and lances are too annoying to use with pistols so we get a sword that is basically a lance.
@dlatrexswords
3 ай бұрын
So it’s interesting a few folks are commenting about how sabres eventually became in vogue even in Western Europe. Swords from horseback were a thing from the time of the Normans during the start of the medieval period, but for a variety of reasons (terrain being a large part) most of Western Europe favored heavy cavalry. With that type of troop, a more thrusty sword with more of a focus on the point is going to work better. The Sabre really shines in light cavalry as is used for skirmishing and hit and run tactics, which didn’t become popularized across Europe until after the reformation of Poland’s military in the 16th century and the rise of the Hussars. The combination of the change in warfare, decrease in armor, and success of this military force I think allowed the Sabre to find success all the way across the militaries of the competing European powers of the late Renaissance and early modern period.
@WhatIfBrigade
3 ай бұрын
@@dlatrexswords Yes. I think European armour and terrain favor heavy calvary. I wouldn't want to fight a cuirasse with a scimitar!
@dlatrexswords
3 ай бұрын
@@WhatIfBrigade It did seem to happen at least occasionally. I'll post a few pictures from both European and Ottoman art showing Turks fighting fully harnessed Hungarian/Serbian knights.
@vorynrosethorn903
Ай бұрын
Heavy cavalry were largely used in a field context, while light cavalry was normal for raiding and scouting, however in this period they would often have both a mace or warpick (presumably for mail, with the turks and other eastern houseman used extensively) and a straight sword to be used like a lance with was kept sticking out from the saddle, bows were also common on the frontier between Christendom and the Turk. As for sword styles it was effected by social considerations and fashions in much the same way as dress, they were pretty much always practical, but served additional purposes, like marking status or conveying symbology, especially in regards to manhood and social class. Swords and lances would see extensive use in the Russian civil war, and the Cossacks would continue many of the old tactics and uses of cavalry traditional to steppe people (the red army cavalry were much less competent with such manoeuvres and would often dismount or use weight, concentration of forces and speed, as well as numbers increasing over the war), they were ineffective against barbed wire and fortified positions unless supported and competently led, but in the country they were a major threat. They used the Shashka, which despite the lack of a handhard (likely because of it's origin as a self-defence weapon in the context of the Caucasian society, which was violent and tremulous to put it lightly) they were more that willing to use the charge, in the civil war especially as they usually lacked ammunition and sometimes rifles or artillery. The site pygmy wars has extensive information on this and related topics.
@kaoskronostyche9939
3 ай бұрын
Your sound is weak and muddy today to the point it is inaudible even at the max of my volume settings. Your sound is often quite weak but this was very bad. Anyway, see you again.
@dlatrexswords
3 ай бұрын
@@kaoskronostyche9939 thanks for the feedback!
@FiliiMartis
3 ай бұрын
What's funny, it took the English (and Western Europe) about 1000 years to get to use the sabre in their militaries, something that central/eastern part of Europe kept doing from the start, only for at the end to put an estoc (rapier like) blade and generous cup hilt (again, rapier like) on their last cavalry sword (the 1908 / 1912 patterns). :)
@manchagojohnsonmanchago6367
3 ай бұрын
Throwing maces was comon among the mongols, kipchaks and other turkic nomads, even to this day throwing maces are made and used by mongols in inner mongolia and they can be made to hunt with to kill game like gazelle, wolves ect
@manchagojohnsonmanchago6367
3 ай бұрын
I find it curious he said when no travelling they typically went unarmed vs england of the time where people were wrmed most of the time with several arms, a dagger, sword pistol ect.. but only heavily armed themselves for travel..... Which is curious... Maybe urban banditry was not so common and the ottoman urban areas safter than english urban areas or maybe it was considered bad for or rude to be armed in social settings..
Пікірлер: 28