Qin dynasty fell because they were using swords without Han protection

@Cleanpea

3 жыл бұрын

Some Green Bird underrated comment

@kevadu

3 жыл бұрын

That was terrible and I love it

@MrCmon113

3 жыл бұрын

Ha.

@virgosintellect

3 жыл бұрын

All Chinese dynasties fall because everyone gets hungry again twelve times a day.

@Rinocapz

3 жыл бұрын

Gold

The longbow is a bad weapon because it lacks hand protection.

@omariscovoador7486

3 жыл бұрын

Atomic bombs are bad weapons because they have.no hand protection

@carbon1255

3 жыл бұрын

IS a gloved pommel going to be a thing now?

@appa609

3 жыл бұрын

Carbon 12 Just a handguard. No sword attached. Just punch with it

@stevenswenson7041

3 жыл бұрын

@@appa609 They did that... knucle dusters.

Always worried about Matt’s ears when he swings his swords around.

@GetterRay

3 жыл бұрын

Now I can't unsee it. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

@Munich22100

3 жыл бұрын

Joshua Feuerriegel 🤣

@CultClassic

3 жыл бұрын

damn cold blooded

@pettersonystrawman9291

3 жыл бұрын

This is gold.

@dialupsyndrome1910

3 жыл бұрын

They used to be bigger. Now they are the perfect size as to not be hit again

I remember my first time sparring in a formation (6v6), having come from dueling type scenarios with predominantly sabers, I was absolutely shocked by how different fighting in a formation was. Unlike in a duel, fighting in a formation was absolutely hectic. There was no time for me to snipe at hands or look for openings in the same way as a duel (as mentioned in the video). Trying to stay in line while breaking the other team’s formation was the primary goal, as once a formation broke, it becomes easy pickings for the side that maintained their discipline. I completely agree with your video. After all, people back then weren’t stupid, if a cross guard or any other form of hand protection is absolutely necessary to be successful on the battlefield, especially if it’s a matter of life and death, surely every civilization would have caught on.

"We've become too fixated on swords" - Matt Easton, 2020-06-18. Someone put it on a shirt.

People over estimate how much hand protection a basic crossguard gives on say a longsword, it really doesn't protect your hands much, it's good for engaging in binds etc, but you have a whopping 11+ inches of bare hands underneath the guard. I've been smacked in the hands so many times while sparring with longswords. A crossguard isn't a forcefield lol. It's only when you get into basket hilts and bowl guards where your hand is actually shielded. Good video, finally it was said.

@adenyang4398

3 жыл бұрын

Longsword fans: claim that cross guards can not only protect the fingers, but even the entire hands and the arms > proceeds to wear oversized gauntlets in training and sparring

@johnapple6646

Жыл бұрын

Just don't get hit bruh

Training jian have handguards for the same reason that you wear ear protection while target shooting. Even if you concealed carry, you don't go around wearing earmuffs all day. Daily wearability is one of the primary design concerns for a sword.

The other factor in the use of swords with or without handguards is the martial art that uses them - Jianfa especially employs many movements, both offensive and defensive, designed in part to ward your opponent away from your hands, and any blade binding is sort of 'inverted' so that should your opponent press you, your blades would slip apart by travelling back towards the tip as opposed to towards the hands. So hand security was considered, but clearly it was decided it was an issue that could be solved through martial training rather than sword design

@adenyang4398

3 жыл бұрын

Jians and Dao historically also tended to be thicker/stiffer and balanced further out from the hand by European standards, which assists greatly during such techniques. This nature also helps when dealing with polearms as well.

@TrueFork

3 жыл бұрын

never mind hand protection where is the unscrewing pommel?

@markyannis4643

3 жыл бұрын

I think there are 2 main reasons for the development smaller hand guards. First is the type of warfare that is conducted in Asia, mounted archery is a major factor in many asian armies. A sword with a large hand guard wouldn't provide much of an advantage on horseback, it could be a liability if it gets caught in your reigns or bow. 2nd reason are the types of weapons the swords were designed to face. For Europeans swords I suspect that larger hand guard were developed due to the development of a duelling culture of the knight class. Where in sword vs sword combat is involved cross guards provides a big advantage in binding. But when used against pole arms cross guards become less effective, even if you manage to catch a pole arm with your cross guard the sheer force of the pole arm would do damage to your wrists, it's probably best to deflect and avoid. With Chinese long swords like the Miao Dao, I suspect the design was created with pole arms in mind. From the more forward balance of the blade to the long handle, it's probably to give better leverage against pole arms and be more able to deflect heavier weapons. With the long handles on the Miao Daos, there almost more like a short sword staff than a long sword.

@theeddorian

3 жыл бұрын

@@markyannis4643 The design of the jian derives from Bronze Age versions that preceded steel. Long bronze swords were used in several areas and the available archaeological evidence reflects the use of the sword as a thrusting and stabbing weapon. For instance the Minoan "rapier." Bronze blades that are long and narrow can bend inopportunely.

@markyannis4643

3 жыл бұрын

theeddorian the Jian retained a small hand guard even after new materials were available. We know that the Han did experiment with larger hand guards from archeological samples but chose deliberately to retain the small hand guards. Even when the later Daos were developed smaller hand guards such as disk hand guards were the choice. I suspect the reason for this was what I mentioned above.

I imagine that for military swords, saving metal is also important. They'd rather have a greater number of weapons with less hand protection than the other way around.

@boshengjones1778

3 жыл бұрын

That's actually THE reason for Japanese Katana. Single Edge, natural curvature caused by quenching. Actual weapons had a huge economic/cost factor to them. Just like modern day AK47 and M16 etc. Manufacturing and technology plays a huge factor, yet most fans just ignore them.

@michael3088

3 жыл бұрын

yes and no with the case of Japanese swords, yes because of their iron sources coming from volcanic river bed sand make the process of obtaining the quite lengthy but that doesn't mean it's at a shortage, they have those rivers every where the islands were/still are being formed by volcanic activity. Schools of Blade smiths and Tsuba artists are two different trades and artistic professions in Japan working independently from one another a lot of Tsuba aren't made of iron yet still meticulously carved and often a lot of effort is put into carving them into a work of art themselves mostly what you pay for isn't necessarily what it's made of but how much time and effort someone has put into crafting. It just so happens that most of the lower quality sword blades have been allowed to decay because people didn't see much value in them not that many peasant conscripts could get their hands on one in the first place.

@jonajo9757

11 ай бұрын

​@@boshengjones1778Not really? Plus the quenching process is just one factor. The smith still has control over the curvature where you can either go for a greater curvature or none at all.

Interesting thing I found out from 15thC re-enacting was that the disc guards on the glaives we had, was that they are really useful for binding against other polearms and resultingly getting more control :)

@scholagladiatoria

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, very true. The same for things like winged spears and bill/halberd projections. Also true of sword crossguards of course.

95% of the time, even whilst fighting,swords are being carried around sheaths and big guards just get in the way.

@axp8598

3 жыл бұрын

And catch small branches.

@Yaurt

3 жыл бұрын

@@axp8598 Oh boy...i once walked with a bow in the woods..

I've always held that guard on a sword is like a bonus feature rather than a requirement. Around 1990 to 1992 I was rather enamored with Savate and French stick fighting. I've had no formal training but I'd find pictures and books or descriptions and try to work it out for myself. Although perhaps erroneous my view at the time was that sticks were the basis of where sword techniques originate. As such with a stick, like the cane used in La Canne de Combat, you have no hand guard. This requires you to parry and attack in ways as to minimize exposure of your hand. I found that parrying 8 to 12 inches from the hand while angling the stick greatly limited hand exposure. From this I assumed that with migration/Viking era swords and even simple cross hilted arming swords the same technique would apply. I feel as swords developed and guards became larger & more complex the ability to parry closer to the hilt & bind became more common. Also guard positions gradually began to present the sword more forward of the body. Viking era swords were optimized for use with a shield. But one might not always have a shield. Yes many would have a long knife with them, but a sword owner may carry a sword at times in a non war situation as a status symbol or when traveling. If attacked while carrying a sword but not a shield what do you do? You certainly don't call a time out to get a shield nor do you throw the sword away saying it doesn't work without a shield due to lack of hand protection....you fight with the sword. If the guard isn't much protection you must use it in a way that keeps the hand safe. And if you think of it like using a stick then you will have a way to use the sword that already considers not having hand protection. Watching Sword Sage talk of positioning in a Chinese sword play & how they pivot further out on the blade than a RAPIERIST (thanks for informing me of my previous typo & I put that in caps so it's clear now! Lol) for example shows that my logic does seem to apply outside of Europe. I'm not claiming I'm 100% right or that any of what I'm saying is fact...it's my opinion.

@adenyang4398

3 жыл бұрын

French stick fighting traditions seem like they would translate over very well to handling swords like jians, especially considering how they are balanced

@jonathandoe1367

3 жыл бұрын

Rapierist? Please tell me you mean rapierist. XD

@cyrilgigee4630

3 жыл бұрын

Woah there pal, not sure if English is your first language or not but might want to change that to "rapierist" like John Doe said.

@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145

3 жыл бұрын

@@jonathandoe1367 yes I don't recall if I was using speech to text or I was just tired, as I often watch KZread before bed. But thank both of you for pointing it out! Yikes that was a BAD typo/error!

@asa-punkatsouthvinland7145

3 жыл бұрын

@@cyrilgigee4630 English is my first language; I grew up in Atlanta Ga. But read my reply to John Doe & i explain what happened. I generally proofread my posts but guessing I was tired as I often watch KZread before bed. So thank you both for pointing it out! I'm very glad the context made it clear it was a misspelling, but still I understand it definitely needed correction!

One thing about Jian is the maneuverability vs protection, when you have a cross guard the two pointing guards mean you cannot move your hands in the way of the cross guard. Even more contemporary Jian replicas with a slightly wider guard can bite your hand when flicking the blade around. And a basket hilt totally forbid the Chinese Jian flicking move as the hilt would get in the way. ( This could be why most later period Jian guard seems to have a more rounded guard towards the user side) Chinese Jian uses a more agile system of maneuver as sometimes you use the thumb and index to form a ring and releases The middle , ring finger and pinky for a wider range of motion, other times it is reversed as the thumb and index is loose while The last three fingers is in control. Again the most used movements and style would influence the design evolution of a weapon. Most modern martial arts or historical martial arts is based on standard moves, while form or kata is a way to practice. Actual combat might see more improvisation and impromptu moves as it is life and death situation, being too predictable would mean the opponent can kill you easier. Blows are meant to kill a person is definitely much harder than sparring moves. Having a hilt design that limits your angle of rotation or axis of movements. Better still hurting yourself in the process in a fight can be more detrimental than beneficial. It is notable that one of the Jian hilt design for Qing Dynasty period is a practice design, it has forward pointing pieces Which is meant to catch an opponent blade, in actual combat the hilt design is more dangerous to the user as the attacking opponent could control your sword in a bind and thrust into your chest while pushing your sword away. Actual real combat versions have sloped hilt facing the opponent that prevents catching of blade but also Prevents opponent from binding your blade and thrusting into you. There is a fight scene in Reign of Assassins that kind of resembles the situation of a crappy guard design. kzread.info/dash/bejne/k6epzJiyeZbIpcY.html

@MtRevDr

3 жыл бұрын

One great evil nowadays is that most of the production jian have hand biting guards sweeping towards the hand.

@tradewinstk9583

3 жыл бұрын

I think I should like to add that a big cross guard or guard while making manoeuvrability less, it also enables the opponent to hold your weapon when both swords are pressing each other. The other opponent would have nothing to hold on except a small guard and the blade.

As a teacher of Chinese swordsmanship I have been enjoying the videos on Chinese swords. I'm also glad that Matt has learned how to properly pronounce the word Jian. Coming from a more recent swordsmanship perspective, I feel like people are often ignorant of the massive differences in techniques and strategy employed. I picked up a longsword one day and found that the guard got in the way for a lot of my go-to techniques. With basket hilts it was also problematic when I wanted to switch hands, something that I do all the time. The simple fact is that not only were the swords, the armour (or lack thereof) and battlefield conditions different, but so was the swordsmanship. I learned many drills that make what I do work and the way that I fence reflects the challenges that I faced from other fighters in China. The rules for fencing also reflect these differences. Being back in the West for the time being, I have enjoyed studying the differences and am grateful for the diversity of martial heritages.

11:41 You offered several reasonable explanations for why these swords lacked hand guards (while a least a few of their sparring versions had them) including the fact they were predominantly sidearms and hence backup weapons on a battlefield which were usually used with shields but also that the dueling culture of "sword vs sword" probably arose later and wasn't relevant during battle anyway. What about armor? Presumably armored warriors wore gauntlets which already offered some hand protection, so being able to easily wear their sidearm, draw it quickly and wield it nimbly in a confined space, was all more important than having a cross guard or a wide hilt?

"Why they had hand protection on their training version but not the battle one?" I can't really say that this is true, but I practice a Koryu martial art and in one instance when we were practicing a kenbu (kind of a dance/theather that the samurai had to showcase the peculiarities of each school) called Byakkotai, which talks about the Satsuma invasion of Aizu, we practiced a cut from the Jigen-Ryu school and it was really different, it was an almost suicidal intense cut. When we asked why it was that way my sensei said that the Jigen-Ryu practicioners trust that their cut will instantly kill you so they don't need to be deffensive on their cut, they rely so much on this thinking that some of the masters remove/never had the handguard on their katanas. At least this is the history that i've been told, this might be the reason that their real swords don't have a handguard, but I think it's unlikely, just wanted to share this story. edit: just renembered that there was a mith at the time that said that any good satsuma samurai could cut a swordsman in half with a single cut or something on those lines

@JZBai

3 жыл бұрын

Just wanted to add some details regarding the history of Japanese swordsmanship since I've dug into it and also formerly practiced Koryu (Yagyu Shinkage Ryu specifically) of a different stripe than Jigen-Ryu: Not all koryu and kenshi in history encourage suicidal attacks, some like Yagyu do encourage doing whatever you can to protect yourself first (i.e. Katsujinken (活人剣) vs. Satsuninto (殺人刀) philosophy) but schools like this come about in the Edo period when swords were used for civilian life. Also, there have been indeed attempts at enhanced hand protection on Japanese swords in the Heian period meant for the Imperial court with knucklebows: tamamaki no tachi and sugari no ontachi: cdn.globalauctionplatform.com/db84815d-a49b-4586-baae-a5600101d894/87fbfc92-66ef-4c5f-edf2-3d955498cdd2/original.jpg upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Metals_and_metal-working_in_old_Japan_%281915%29_%2814783834055%29.jpg livedoor.blogimg.jp/ohgetsu/imgs/0/4/04eef30a.JPG In addition, not all tsuba are poor hand protection; there are quite a few that can reach 3.5 to even 4.5 inches in diameter that provide pretty good protection for the hand: www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/34798 www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/651237 www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/33382 Also, during the Edo period, certain schools became known for using extra long shinai with large tsuba on them which apparently irked Musashi so much that he threw a bit of shade at them in his wind book of the the Gorinnosho and this trend continued into the Edo period with schools like the Oishi Shinkage Ryu and Mizoguchi-ha Itto-ryu having individuals notorious for being good at sparring with extra long shinai and bokuto with large tsuba: kzread.info/dash/bejne/gWasl9uecczZc9I.html www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?52757-Oishi-Shin-Kage-Ryu So, TL;DR, Matt and your sensei are right: generally speaking the lack of hand protection on battlefield swords vs. hand protection on dueling weapons is primarily a difference in martial philosophy based in different contexts. In a battlefield context, swordmanship isn't a primary focus and the primary useful function of the sword (i.e. getting close quickly and killing) becomes important in that context to the detriment of everything else, but when dueling with swords becomes common like in Edo period Japan, Renaissance Europe, and Chu China, swordsmanship has to evolve to be more than just about one thing and more pressure is put on making the swords better at protecting oneself in addition to killing since swordsmanship is no longer just about utility; it's about "winning" a controlled duel and staying safe in a civilian/school environment.

@arjan1756

3 жыл бұрын

JZBai this is really interesting. Is there a name for those large ring guards on the Katana’s?

@JZBai

3 жыл бұрын

@@arjan1756 Not sure if there is a specific name for the rings on the Tamamaki no Tachi. Not a lot of material on the subject in English unfortunately but I did find this article and a googlebook mention on them in English if you're interested: www.rekihaku.ac.jp/english/outline/publication/ronbun/ronbun2/pdf/050004.pdf books.google.com/books?id=5w6QBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA403&lpg=PA403&dq=tamamaki+no+tachi&source=bl&ots=Z8y8P49wBO&sig=ACfU3U1C6WPaEYZkZCR34yZCjxkMHikBCA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiv9a6Fgo3qAhUSG80KHRiVBfUQ6AEwCnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false Both sources mention haniwa (i.e. clay dolls) from the Kofun period with similar swords. Did some more digging and sure enough there are haniwa from that period wearing swords with knucklebows: heritageofjapan.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/image9.jpg So, hand protection for Japanese swords did exist very early on in Japanese history and came in and out of fashion just like the rest of the world.

@UnreasonableOpinions

3 жыл бұрын

@@JZBai Very useful, thanks.

@djyppo

3 жыл бұрын

@@JZBai Thanks for the response, you brought to my attention a lot of information that I didn't know, specially those ring guards, first time seeing it! but i don't know they seem kinda wacky to use, specially on a cut like the Gyaku Kesa Kiri

Hand protection isn't that important when cutting bottles in the back yard.

I would also wonder how much handguards were prioritized when swords were more dominated by nobility as opposed to foot soldiers. IF you are rich you will buy every little thing that may protect you no matter how inconsequential it is.

Incredibly informative while not overwhelming. Thanks.

As far as battlefield vs dueling, I think we need look no further than the modern soldier vs a weekend warrior or military paraphernalia enthusiast: actual soldiers throughout history are famous for dumping whatever is not absolutely necessary so as to lighten their load; on the other hand, the non-soldier fighting enthusiast will get the best equipment they can afford, including offensive and protective equipment. Therefore it makes sense that the private duelist would have a rapier, saber, broadsword, etc. with a complex, heavy, but highly protective hilt, whereas the soldier in the field would have the lightest effective weapon/protection possible. What do you think?

as a civilian who doesn't know or handle weapons but likes to learn about them, this has annoyed me for years. thanks for laying it out.

They are admittedly, not for anyone with sweaty palms.

@Yellow.1844

3 жыл бұрын

Well unlucky

@esteemedleader

3 жыл бұрын

Nor those with vomit on their sweaters already.

@charles2703

3 жыл бұрын

But Mom’s Spaghetti gives a dexterity bonus

Thank you so much for that vid! It feels good having someone with some weight in the genre saying that it makes no sence criticizing swords or types of swords for how they were constructed when used successfully for centuries. We all should enjoy swords more for what they are and not...should be

I think there are 2 main reasons for the development smaller hand guards. First is the type of warfare that is conducted in Asia, mounted archery is a major factor in many asian armies. A sword with a large hand guard wouldn't provide much of an advantage on horseback, it could be a liability if it gets caught in your reigns or bow. 2nd reason are the types of weapons the swords were designed to face. For Europeans swords I suspect that larger hand guard were developed due to the development of a duelling culture of the knight class. Where in sword vs sword combat is involved cross guards provides a big advantage in binding. But when used against pole arms cross guards become less effective, even if you manage to catch a pole arm with your cross guard the sheer force of the pole arm would do damage to your wrists, it's probably best to deflect and avoid. With Chinese long swords like the Miao Dao, I suspect the design was created with pole arms in mind. From the more forward balance of the blade to the long handle, it's probably to give better leverage against pole arms and be more able to deflect heavier weapons. With the long handles on the Miao Daos, there almost more like a short sword staff than a long sword.

Maybe practice weapons had the hilt for the same reason they weren't sharp: people didn't want to get hurt in training? :-p

@MrBottlecapBill

3 жыл бұрын

Also, they weren't carrying those weapons around on the hip all day.

@zhenbiaoli297

3 жыл бұрын

I agree. Training Qing Jian has a larger and wider handguard in ROC period compare to the Qing dynasty when Jian was only used in martial arts practicing But it also depends on history experience because we have seen Qing dynasty swords have a little bit more hand protection than before Civilian's fights were more often happen between rural villages or caravan bodyguards and caterans, they were using spears and shields as the main weapons. We have seen many Chinese swords were evolving slowly like that, not just the Jian.

@daaaah_whoosh

3 жыл бұрын

I think that's probably the answer, and you see the same thing with singlesticks: they had basket hilts even though they were training for using knucklebows. Manuals even warned students not to get used to the extra protection, since they wouldn't have it in a real fight.

@DoktorWeasel

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, there are different priorities with training vs combat weapons. With training, protection is a bigger deal due to training injuries being a total waste. You're already accepting risk of injury and death with combat. Also in training, the drawbacks of the protection aren't likely to get you injured, because your opponent usually isn't trying to actively hurt you. If your heavy hand-guard keeps you from moving so quickly, you might get hit, but not likely to die for it. Everything has a trade-off, and the priorities of what is an acceptable trade or not varies between combat and training.

also relevant to the form of the weapon is the form of the anticipated defense. I have read that a primary benefit of the cross guard of a sword is not bashing your knuckles on a suddenly interposing shield (or other rigid armor component). in other words the T shape of the hilt forms a triangle on the same plane as the edge. if you intend to dispatch foes clad in leather or without any armor maybe that's one less thing to worry about.

tbh when i first saw your video on the two handed jian i thought to myself "yknow if i carried that today, the small guard would be nice, i wouldnt bump into things at the market". small handguards are advantageous to carry as well, they arent as much in the way. you could argue large crossguards arent too bad and in certain context that would be true, its just that smaller handguards are *just that bit* easier to carry

What an interesting topic and, like everything else, so many answers. Thank you for your passion sharing.

Spot on! Matt clearly knows his stuff, and it shows in the insight he's able to put into these discussions.

I know that I have learned something when Matt says context. Much appreciated Matt!!

Really glad you addressed this Matt, thank you. Coming from a chinese swordsmanship background, the ideal parries with the Jian or Dao meet the middle of the blade, then the practitioner will maneuver their *hand* around that point, instead of the blade, to maintain a degree of safety. This is also why we train to "hide" our hands in the various guards. Very rarely will you see positions like, uh I think it's called Longpoint? Where you point the tip directly at the opponent or extend the blade far from the body to control distance. It's just high dangerous when there's no hand protection, thus you don't see that technique or posture very often at all in these styles.

Great shirt and awesome information!!!

Matt Easton for president. He will explain the context, the technics and you will learn something as a bonus.

I have a couple of swords - a Cobra Steel Kindjal and my LK Chen Flying Phoenix are both without large guards. And I have sabers as well. So to me it's been no real surprise. It is my understanding that during the Han era, they used the sword in conjunction with the shield in the military as you talk about in the video.

First thought, most swords I can think of, don't really have a lot of hand protection. I'm thinking in terms of period of use, with some of these weapons being in the area of many hundreds or thousands of years. Especially in the case of Roman and some other ancient weapons. Second thought, I'm wondering if this isn't another matter of practicality. If having such a complex, intricate and restrictive, hand guard slows the production of swords, weapons, then you go for the minimal protection required. Second thought and a half, odd, is what the person is wearing at the time. Are these swords meant to be used with say, an armoured gloved, gauntlet? Are these weapons meant to be used while armoured? We don't complain about the pollax, pollhammer, for a lack of protection, yet are a decidedly effective weapon. Spears, halberds etc etc. Third thought, if the sword doesn't have much protection, do you not look to change the way you use it to make the most of it? If you have a sword with a longer blade and a minimal, obvious hand guard, do you fight the same way as you would with a shorter blade, but more obvious hand guard? I think not. Fourth thought, context. There's a difference between the duel, the battlefield and the training yard. You want to learn how to fight, having a broken hand after every session doesn't make for good training. On the other hand, being left bruises, that's a lesson learned. I'd rather the lesson learned thank you. Especially if it means I have all of my fingers after every training session.

Later dueling jian do have a bit more hand protection even though not as much as Europe. But the Qing jian has the "lion's head" crossguard almost ubiquitously, which is much heavier and wider. I don't know about Tang/Sui/Ming/Etc though.

I honestly feel it comes down to tactics and style. On a battlefield in a shield wall, or in a formation, or on horseback I feel like hand sniping probably wasn't as much of a thing. For one simple reason(among others), that you're not facing a single opponent. In my mind this means two things. You want a weapon that's as fast as possible and as a result a weapon that can be used as fast as possible for as long as possible. A battle could be a minute, or it could be hours and you may have to fight quite a while without rest. As any athlete will tell you, grams become kilograms quickly as you fatigue. In that type of scenario I see soldiers wanting quick killing or maiming blows, and then GTFO as fast as you can. You may snipe one guys hand, but his buddies are trying to kill you at the same time so I feel like battlefield tactics are a lot more conservative. Indeed if you watch HEMA events with multiple opponents you rarely see hand snipping, even though they could certainly do it. Things just happen too fast. Now in a duel.......the rules change. You have more time to think, more time to plan and less pointy things trying to stick you. Hand sniping is safer and more common because there's far less risk involved. More complex strategies can be applied against a single opponent. Now you can break down battlefield tactics, and self defense tactics, and armour quality, and traditions, and status symbols blah blah blah. Ultimately, I suspect that for most of history, and in most situations the fastest yet deadliest weapon was wanted most of the time. In situations like the duel or self defense, or when weapons become a status symbol as much as a weapon, the lines are blurred. Let's not forget the human factor as well. The majority of people just follow without analysis lol. "Oh they use these swords, I want one of those too". Change is often slow and unwanted. "Who wants to be the sissy nerd with hand protection on his sword? Are you afraid you're not good enough? Stop being a wimp". :)

@b.h.abbott-motley2427

3 жыл бұрын

The existence of gauntlets showed that historical soldier did in fact care about hand protection. Various 16th-century European military writers were explicit about this.

My guess is indeed there are easier body parts to go for in the period, so hands are nto the primary target. Another bit of context too: on the battlefield you are not fighting alone, there are troops, some people with other forms of gear, some people actually with less armor who are the primary target, the weapon is likely already your sidearm (ideally you won't even use it), so many factors that might change how you use the weapon and how you're attacked. For sparing, however, none of that applies and accident do happen.

Tnx..for cool historical explanations..

I'd like to point out that you won't go straight for the kill in most 1v1 melee fights. If it's about life and death, or getting maimed, you'll have a huge mental barrier to step in range! This will result in everyones favorite blade dance and people only capable of hitting anything the enemy sticks out! Even when you look at camera footages of today's armed brawls be it knives, machete, sabres, or any improvised weaponry, you'll see that it results in surprisingly few fatalities and many retreating with only minor injuries. The exception being that only one side is armed, then it becomes a massacre.

This is just the info break I need working by myself at home!

I had to go back to your immediately previous video re: when China invented the longsword (thanks for including the link) to re-examine the period armor you provided images of. There were no pieces for arms and legs, no gloves. Now, granted those pieces may not have survived but it's possible they just didn't have any hand armor because as your included images of the practice sword *with hanguards* suggest (to me) they simply trained not to let their hands get hit. As you say the fighting forms have survived (to some degree, mutated in unknown ways of course) and that sure seems to be the case from what we see in for example Skallagrim's review of the shorter sword which includes an example of Chinese sword fighting style..

When the practice swords with added handprotection were mentioned, something similar came to my mind: often Martial Arts fighters wear more protection in sparring than during the actual competition. Actually, there's only one sports I know of where the opposite is the case, which is American Football. That is due to higher risk of injuring your opponent when wearing full protection.

I remember old catalog's from AWMA....(Asian world of Martial Arts), I always seen those generic $35 Tai Chi Jian swords. However that new Jian is a very beautiful and well made sword....very elegant.

Regarding hand protection (or lack thereof) on other weapons, I would assume there were other, bigger reasons. You already made a video about "why aren't there crossguards on axes/maces/warhammers" and said that it's because you don't parry with them and use them with a shield. Furthermore, I presume you rarely see handguards on spears and other polearms for two reasons. One, if it's a one-handed spear, you're likely to use it with a shield. Two, if it's a two-handed weapon (spear, glaive, bill, haldberd, etc.) you want to be able to move your hands up and down your shaft smoothly, and a guard would interfere with that. Also, as you pointed out, you have the reach advantage over everyone who doesn't also have a polearm. Swords are sidearms (as you've often said before). On a battlefield, you might have your shield and not need a handguard, but in a civilian context you probably don't have a shield, and the handguard becomes more desirable. The other common civilian carry weapon was the dagger, which never developed a massive guard, but you don't really use them to parry; you grapple instead. If people carried axes as civilian sidearms, they might have developed guards too. (But probably not, because parrying with an axe is hard.) In brief, I think battlefield weapons lacked handguards because it was presumed you'd have a shield, or in the case of two-handed weapons, you'd need to adjust your grip quickly. Civilian weapons developed them because you DIDN'T have a shield to rely on, and sword were the go-to civilian weapon used with parries. That's just my amateur hobbyist thoughts on the matter, so I may be entirely wrong.

If you've ever carried a weapon for long periods of time you understand why smaller handguards would exist. In modern terms a pistol is a worse firearm than a rifle/carbine, but people carry pistols because they are easier to carry.

This is why I like Matt. He actually knows his shit and doesn't follow dogma.

In any culture someone has to invent the crossguard or adopt it from another culture for it to be a thing, the same goes for any other element of the sword. When one is fighting with a shield it takes a leap to go from a hilt designed for security of grip to one that extends the crossguard as an element of defence. When it comes to the complex hilt whether fighting style leads design or design enables more forward posture is not something I think we know yet, what is certain is that complex hilts are bloody inconvenient to wear, they require new ways of wearing the sword to stop them digging into ones side or damaging ones clothing. It is possible that the clothing worn in some East Asian cultures retarded development of hilts. Two handed spears and other polearms rely on changing the position of the hands on the staff so much that it would render any guard almost useless or an obstruction, for much of history spears were used one handed with a shield futher obviating the need for a guard.

The Japanese had a curious divergence with regards to shields. So, although the typical samurai sword didn't have hand guards, the typical armour they wore included a mini-shield bit of kit not much bigger than a slice of bread. They also had a medium sized shield-like thing (Ousode) on each shoulder; and archers carted about huge tower shields (tedate). See gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2017/12/tate-tedate-japanese-shields.html for more.

Great video, thank you!!!!

Swords historically were evolved rather than invented.

@carbon1255

3 жыл бұрын

Sort of true, they 'evolved' as technologies changed, but handguards are a very specific design choice.

Also, thinking about some weapon types that evolved out of tools or served double duty (Filipino swords come to mind), they might have minimal hand protection because it’s inconvenient to have a large guard on a daily tool.

just noticed the Soundgarden Tshirt. Good taste in music.

@mallardtheduck406

3 жыл бұрын

Black Hole Sun, Won't You Come and take the Rain Away...., Black Hole Sun, won't you come, won't you come?

@shkeni

3 жыл бұрын

The album name is wrong though xD SUPERNUKUOMU

@rastusbojangles

3 жыл бұрын

xelena haha perhaps the word was super unknown to the tshirt designer

You have also have to put the critics in context. If somone says, this sword is bad, he mean this is bad for him and his needs, like sparring or dueling.

@anasevi9456

3 жыл бұрын

yep, i mean it is good we live in an era where well made functional reproductions are around.. Now to the point where we are getting swords from criminally overlooked periods of military history. But yeah, a lot of people don't mean offence, just not their cuppa.

@lowlandnobleman6746

3 жыл бұрын

When we can get Celtic la Tène swords as easily as we can get arming swords, we’ll truly be in the golden age of swords.

@kwanarchive

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, but they shouldn't be making absolute, unqualified statements in the first place.

Swords are the only ones that bind, or when they don't bind when the other blade can slide down to the hilt/hand. Probably doesn't take much of a guard to stop that from cutting you if the other blade is in contact with yours.

Matt, you do have a background in archeology if i remember correctly? It would be interesting in this context (!) to know what archeology tells us about missing or broken fingers and hands of ancient soldiers. I remember reading/hearing about findings of skeletons with various kinds of head injuries and broken bones or bones with cuts in them, but i never read/heard about a lot of missing hands or fingers.

I was surprised after learning foil the first time I saw the sword I was being trained to use and how small the guard was. But there's a big risk trying to snipe the hand with a smallsword when your opponent is very eager to run you through the body - a much bigger target.

@CoffeeSnep

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, this is a difference with those thrusting only swords. In the bolognese system we just about only deliver cuts to the hands and reserve thrusts only for the body and head. It is much easier to connect a blow if it is a cut as opposed to a thrust where the point may miss.

Love the shirt ❤️

Roundabout 5 minutes to the end: "lastly I would say..."

@ManDuderGuy

3 жыл бұрын

Full contextualization or bust.

Thanks Matt as always for rehashing ideas and giving us perspective. I think the points that I would make is that first, martial philosophy evolved over time, and in a dueling situation, it became obvious that the hands would be a primary target. That Western Europe figured it out first only proves they had the most problems with their citizenry trying to kill and main each other. Second, I think most of us have believed that having hand protection was one of the only advantages that a sword had over a spear as Matt has pointed out before that no hand protection on a spear was one of the few disadvantages of a spear, so what are we to think of a sword that is more lacking of one of the things we knew it had over a spear? To us that means we've never given other battlefield weapons a pass, we already understood they lacked the advantage, which is more the reason we are less forgiving to a sword that doesn't have the advantage we expected it to have. Third, swords for war were often used outside of war too. Pretty sure having a weapon that was good on and off the battlefield that could be easily carried everywhere you went was ideal, and I think this is a point against war purpose only swords. I'm sure it was done a lot, but I think having only one sword to train for was preferable. Fourth, I don't think I can be convinced that a sword with good hand protecting isn't better for more occasions than a sword with little to none, meaning hand protection is generally better but not in all situations. If I were trying to prepare for the unknown however, I'm going for the better hand protection.

PLUS the example of STAR WARS wherein adding "hand protection" in the goofy light saber of Kylo Ren rather ruined the prestige of such by revealing how much awkwardness it possibly adds

But what about hand protection for bows?

ooooo! ooooo! a video on awlpikes/Ahlspeiss. Such an unusual weapon. I always thought Lancelot's weapon from Excalibur (1981) was based on it.

awesome shirt mat. rip chris cornell

My jian has a tiny, but solid guard. In general, though, if i ever need it, it's because i messed up the whole exchange.

I think part of the criticism comes from the idea, that these swords could have hand protection but don’t. Part of the appeal of polearms is the famous „running the hands up and down the shaft“ so the position of the hands changes which makes them hard to protect. Warhammers and maces are mostly specialized weapons for armored fighting, so I think gauntlets are not uncommon with them. At least on camera, the jian looks just like a slender European sword with less hand protection. The advantage of that is not clear.

I was also wondering if going to more thrust oriented was part of it. Extending the point for max range and getting into more winding situations.

Matt, the same company who makes your jian also make a period accurate model (according to their website)with full hand protection and one with a d guard, they call them Han fencing jian, apparently. Thought you should know ;)

@scholagladiatoria

3 жыл бұрын

The image of them is shown in the video :-D

Yess! I love it when you say scholagladiatoria. 😅😅

I think when it comes to battlefield weapons, the ease of storage is also of consideration. A larger guard increases the needed space more than the actual volume of the material. Those jians most probably came in smaller boxes than similarly sized swords with good hand protection.

@Th0ughtf0rce

3 жыл бұрын

@@ryannewman7458 lol. Touche

I liken this to modern firearm customization. Everyone can spend all day splitting hairs over collapsing or skeletonized stocks, angled, horizontal or no fore grips, slip on grips, wood, metal or polymer this that and the other. At the end of the day it's still a firearm that's just as lethal as the one next to it. I wouldn't be any more comfortable getting into a real altercation against someone who didn't have a hand guard on his sword, even if mine did.

After watching some of the channel you mentioned, I realized they pressed on the handguard a lot, and as an Asian, my culture doesn't have weapons with big handguard like the West, so I sometimes became really upset with these channels even though I like most of their contents. Now that I watched your video, I can proudly say my people was not stupid that they didn't realize the handguard's size, it was just a choice they made based on their experiences. Thanks a lot.

the context is strong with this one

Context is so important here! I blame D&D and video games because all weapons and weapon systems from all periods and all countries are available so we get caught up in just how well a 1600 AD shamshir does against a 1200 AD Norman sword in 500 BC Ireland-like setting where we're not wearing much armor but have "magic" rings and cloaks protecting us.

Hi Matt, if I remember correctly, some later Jians had a somewhat developed hilt, shaped like a boat or a double teapot. I think you did show one in some video.

@Intranetusa

3 жыл бұрын

He shows a Han Dynasty training sword with a bigger hilt and D shaped hand protection in this video.

@carloparisi9945

3 жыл бұрын

@@Intranetusa I saw it, I'm talking about 19th century Jian meant for daily carry.

Good points, except the one about the pole weapons, in my opinion. Losing hand protection on a pole weapon allows you to slide up and down. Also, the enemy can be kept further away, distance making up for that hand protection somewhat. What is the gain when a significantly shorter sword lacks that protection? Weight is one thing, but as with everything, there is an ideal middle ground, until we're talking about a specific situation (dueling being one of them) where you can use a purpose built, 'minmaxed' tool. I would say a simple but large crossguard is that middle ground. Gives decent protection even in a duel, though you will have to be more careful. Also doesn't add too much weight, and even less moment being so close to the hand. And weight by itself has some advantage in how much force can be applied. I'm Chinese and I have a thing for viking era swords, but I feel most comfortable holding a longsword, probably mainly because I can parry and bind right at the hilt with great mechanical advantage, and know that if the blades slide for whatever reason instead of biting, I won't be funneling it into my fingers. Maybe it's because I'm a novice and haven't learned enough techniques to survive without doing this stuff, but that's how i feel right now

It also depends on what kind of hand protection you wear. In the most cases where you would use a rapier, neither you nor your opponent wears armor. While on battlefield, where people wear more armor, you don't need such a complex hilt to protect yourself if you have armor that does the job.

I like larger guards, but all I really need is a guard big enough to stop sliding blades. That way I can do my winding and my binding, which becomes impossible without a guard. The Jian size one is fine for this, as is the katana, but I wouldn't want to go smaller.

I would also argue that hand injuries are harder to prevent in training. A very dull weapon not coming at full force at some sort of cloth armor will be unlikely to produce a relevant injury in training. But even such a dull weapon coming at 20% force could break your fingers. So I would say the added hand protection was there to reduce the risk of a training injury they couldn't prevent as reliably in any other way.

Some Han Dynasty and Japanese Kofun period swords did had stirrup hand guard. The Han also had some kind of short 2 pointed one handed javelin/spear with stirrup handguard. Han Dynasty duelling often show the fighters using a buckler or dual wield weapons. Some depictions also show what looks like parrying dagger/sword. Maybe the availability of parrying weapon/armor held in the other hand reduce the need for hand protection.

I'd just add that two of the most revered fighting knives, the kukri and the Bowie, have zero hand protection or nearly zero.

@davidtuttle7556

3 жыл бұрын

@@natewind if you have no other options. I dont keep firearms, but I have a kukri I use for shopwork and landscaping, and a Bowie that I take camping and fishing. I do practice with both so that it it comes to it I'll have some idea of what to do.

In my opinion, hand protection is very useful in 2 scenarios: 1. Full armored battle In full armored battle, you cannot cover your hand with very firm armor, if you do so, you cannot manipulate your weapon at all. Then your hand becomes a weakness. A large handguard is just an extension of your armor to cover this weakness. 2. 1v1 dual 1v1 dual usually happens on the flat ground, you have only one enemy, and both sides use a sword. It is very critical is to keep the distance. When you keep the distance very well, It is very hard for your enemy to touch your body, your hand is the only part that is likely to be injured. That's why the training jians have handguards, training is more like 1v1 dual. One enemy, flat ground.

Many huan shou daos do not have any guard, while some do have a small cross guard like the ones in the Metropolitan. For those who don't know what it is, it is a very popular single edged single handed straight blade military sword with a big ring like decoration or pommel on the other end.

There are pros and cons to practicing with hand protection. The pro, as others have said, is that you are less likely to be injured in training. The con is that if you practice with hand guard but your battle weapon doesn't have one, it may cause you fight as though it were there and expose yourself to greater risk.

With swords mainly designed for cutting it would make the most sense to try position your sword back to a cutting position and your hand in a less exposed position from your opponent and that can explain the use of a small hand guard. And with a sword mainly designed for thrusting the most sense would be to try position your sword back to thrusting position in front of you. However that makes your hand very exposed to your opponent and can explain the use use of bigger hand guard.

Really want to see a review of the flying Phoenix LK made, a real Jian hand and a half/bastard sword. For a two handed sword is there a certain point that the length of the hilt provides diminishing returns? Can hilts on a two hander be TOO long?

@EclipsisTenebris

3 жыл бұрын

They just turn into naginatas or Ahlspieses. That said, at some point the weight becomes to high for you to carry it effectively or hold against an opponent's weapon due to leverage.

@joegillian314

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, if you're talking about a sword I don't think the handle can be too long really, because if it got long enough it would just turn into a different weapon. The Japanese nagamaki is half handle and half blade. I would say for a two handed sword the handle needs to be at least some minimum length which is going to be relatively longer than it would if you just scaled up a smaller sword. Also, these large two handed weapons need to allow for a changing grip.

@Intranetusa

3 жыл бұрын

You could turn swords into sword-polearm hybrids. The Han Sha is basically a sword attached to an oval pole. The da dao, nagamaki, European swordstaffs, etc are other examples.

Hey Matt, just wanted to ask how far are you in writing your books? Btw, will you include all your non regulation swords in them

Does that brazil nut- pommel sword on the wall has asymmetric pommel? I'm just curious after watching a video of Roland Warzecha on X century sword with different configuration for right handed or left handed ppl

Matt! Would you do a video explaining the Meyer "rapier" compared to other rappers and sideswords?

As a martial artist Enjoy learning about how weapons are used In different times and cultures Thumbs up

Maybe one factor that lead to battlefield weapons not having a guard while dueling weapons do, is simply cost? If you're buying a weapon for yourself you want the best protection while if you're outfitting your army the extra cost of adding an intricate hilt might be significant. Plausible or nonsense?

@hippoblue6458

3 жыл бұрын

Probably nonsense. A majority of armies during the times swords were used on the battlefield were not centrally equipped (by a government or lord) so you aren't equipping your army at all.

A sharp blade can bite into the surface of a ash or hickory shaft--I wonder if that could provide a form of hand protection for a person weilding a spear or axe. Such hard woods at proper grain orientation can be incredibly tough--I've seen hickory as thick as a man's thumb take multiple hatchet blowsvand hold up.

Very interesting I have been thinking about that for some time. I did have a question. How often were medieval weapons customized? I would imagine it happens, however I have not seen any samples that were much outside the norm of the day. So I was curious if you knew about any examples of that.

@SeppukuAddict

3 жыл бұрын

Probably when a smith was commissioned by the nobility to forge a weapon for them. You see it in armour all the time, those with sufficient wealth spare no expense on the finer details.

IMO, in the modern world we overestimate the role of fencing. Most uses of swords in the battlefield didn't involve fencing in the way we think of it today: either they were used in formations or in disorganized melee, or for massacre of fleeing or unarmed enemy/civilians. Only seldom did duel-like confrontations occur. Together with the frequent use of shields/armor, this would explain the lack of interest in hand protection. Fencing was more of an exercise or in some periods a ritualized form of duel. This explains why hand protection was more of an issue for practice swords (compare jians with guards wih the extra deflecting projections of a Federschwert) and for later-period swords that seldom showedd up in the battlefield but were mostly intended for dueling.

My theory is simple.. a big rounded hand guard, might broke your arm. Remember in a very tight formation with everyone wearing armor, your sword might get stuck or mangled with enemy armor. At that moment, you need to be able to bail the weapon quickly. While bigger hand guard sometimes stuck on your own shield or get pulled by your friend armor accidentally.. it hindering movement jn a very tight armor to armor formation.

Could certain types of hand protection on a sword get in the way when trying to get around an opponent's (or your own) shield?

My sifu often criticises me during fencing classes for relying too heavily on the guard of my jian, and not properly controling my partners blade. Maybe hand guards in training swords were seen as something necessary for the less skilled practitioner.

Matt just needs "king of context" mearch

Qing dynasty Jian has more hand protection than before and became larger through history because they were using in civilian's dueling or small fighting which is quite unusual in Chinese, not on the battlefield. Civilian's fights were more often happen between rural villages or caravan bodyguards with caterans, they were using spears and shields as the main weapons. We have seen many Chinese swords were evolving slowly like that, not just the Jian. It is obvious that the form of the handguard is depended on the scenarios where weapons were used and history experience.

@adenyang4398

3 жыл бұрын

Adding more hand protection was known before that though, we can see various forms of disc guards and quillons since at least Tang~Song period far eastern swords.

I'm shocked! I didn't know you owned any shirts that weren't Superdry!