I think there is an underlying psychological problem here that pops up all the time in historical analysis which is the atrophy of a practice results in the historians inability to understand the limits. Very few people ride anymore, thus very few people have spent time every day understanding the possibilities of what can and cannot be done while riding. This then comes to the imagined limit of the historian as the assertion of what can and cannot be done. I imagine a contemporary example will be how we interface with computers, and 1000 years from now people will be debating just how fast fingertips can move over a mapped input.

@scholagladiatoria

5 ай бұрын

Fair comment.

@MusMasi

5 ай бұрын

that is an interesting observation I was playing a pvp game and got into it with another player via text chat, and he was amazed that I could type that fast and play the game at the same time. I blew his mind when I told him I was playing in my room with the lights off. Some zoomer who does not know that touch typing is a thing.

@MonkeyJedi99

5 ай бұрын

@@MusMasi My one high school regret is NOT taking a typing class (Yeah, I pre-date home computers). I can type fast, but I have to be looking at the keyboard to do so, and my mistake rate is still higher than a touch-typer.

@3I415926535

5 ай бұрын

@@MusMasi That zoomer needs to play some dota, trash talking while playing is a skill everyone has honed

@ZagorTeNayebo

5 ай бұрын

@@MonkeyJedi99 get a job as a check in agent at an airport, training done in just 6 gruelling months

As a person who grew up on a horse farm and has ridden horses in many contexts and environments, I very much appreciate your discussions regarding cavalry and weapons used on horse. Nice to meet Zachary. Cheers and thank you.

@ducthman4737

5 ай бұрын

How important is it to have one horse one rider to have the best communication ?

@rachdarastrix5251

5 ай бұрын

I might have ancestors who lived on a horse farm. Currently I am trying to find out if I did, and if so, how I am going to find my way back.

@kaoskronostyche9939

5 ай бұрын

@@ducthman4737 Of course it depends on context. We do not know the relationships riders had with their horses back then. In my experience most people have pretty basic relationships with their horses. It is the rare horseman who is really in close, clear communication with his horse. For more on horses and a section on horse training look for the three part documentary series called "Equus: The Story of the Horse" from PBS NOVA. It is excellent. It follows the development of the horse from the proto-horse 44 million years ago to how sensitive and intelligent horse trainers can get amazing behaviours from their horses in the modern, enlightened era. Cheers!

Interesting to hear you two discuss this topic. I've done a few videos on the subject showing a pollaxe used two handed from horseback at speed. It takes a good horse who knows their job.

@PalleRasmussen

5 ай бұрын

I was going to share this with you Jason. Good to se that you were already here while I was watching Dr. Clarke.

@SuperFunkmachine

5 ай бұрын

And there one of the first things to become rare on campaign, injurys and disease mean that there's a lot of replacement horses with riders that have just met them.

@wolfensniper4012

5 ай бұрын

Hi Jason since you are one of the few people who are actually able to test horseback combat, I'm asking here that have you read about Warhorse Project's claim that Medieval horses are often relatively smaller than modern breeds (13-16hh)? Would you think that the size of horse can make difference while testing different horseback skills? Thank you?

@1IGG

5 ай бұрын

​@@wolfensniper4012well, to be fair, looking at armor in museums, knights weren't all giants. That stuff is comically small.

@ModernKnight

5 ай бұрын

Yes I have and I've worked with them on that project a little too. One of mine, Ghost is 15.1hh so small by modern standards and can happily carry me in tournament. @@wolfensniper4012

Riding a horse is like having a conversation. This feels like a funny yet perfect explanation at the same time.

@vedymin1

5 ай бұрын

Rider: Asfalot, palpatine is evil !! A: From my point of view the jedi are evil !! R: Well then you are lost !! X) couldn't help but imagine that convo making as much sense as this one x)

@Matt_PunchEnthusiast_Morris

5 ай бұрын

@vedymin1 thank you for making my brain play out that scene 🤣

@MonkeyJedi99

5 ай бұрын

@@vedymin1 When I read this, the horse was a gleaming exemplar of the Mearas (sp?), and the rider is Gandalf, with his ancient lightsaber Glamdring held high.

@whynottalklikeapirat

5 ай бұрын

Having a conversation on the other hand is often more like talking to a horse than riding one.

@joannep5785

5 ай бұрын

There's a saying amongst horse people: Tell a gelding Ask a stallion Discuss it with a mare Pray if it's a pony

The korean Muyedobotongji (“Comprehensive Illustrated Manual of Martial Arts”), which was published in 1795, details the use of the glaive on horseback in a section called Masang woldo (마상월도, 馬上月刀), which you can find demonstration of on youtube. It's pretty interesting.

@scholagladiatoria

5 ай бұрын

Thanks! I'll look that up.

@Barberserk

5 ай бұрын

@@scholagladiatoria kzread.info/dash/bejne/aXyWk7SNlq3RlpM.html , kzread.info/dash/bejne/eIisqpetc7XSXc4.html , kzread.info/dash/bejne/oZqh0tiNmZCyn8Y.html , kzread.info/dash/bejne/aW2dsdZmotm8lKw.html here are some of these videos with korean horse riders wielding two-handed glaves, dual swords, bows, etc. etc.

@Intranetusa

5 ай бұрын

That sounds like the classical depictions of Guan Yu's duals on hoseback with his glaive from the Three Kingdoms media.

@thfkmnIII

5 ай бұрын

​@@scholagladiatoria from the same source there's a manual for using 2 swords on horseback

@wolfensniper4012

5 ай бұрын

​@@IntranetusaYes, Guanyu's legend is widespread in East Asia, especially Korea where its most influenced by Confusious culture. It debated tho whether Guandao Came from Guanyu or is Given to a legendised Guanyu in later periods but Chinese and Korean since 12th century call the Glaives GuanDao nontheless because Guanyu is so famous.

Of note, I think one often sees the use of two handed weapons on horseback while in a press, packed in tight melee with friend and foe alike. In a stationary combat like that, where maneuver is unavailable, swinging hard and fast might be the tactic.

12:35 This might be why we see the rider depicted using two hands. They clearly seem to be in a very close melee so reach may not be an issue in that scenario shown. I think using two hands on a sword makes sense when your enemies are already that close to you

@VulcanChi

5 ай бұрын

I was thinking the same. The image shown looked like a crush with horses basically side by side. In that case the longsword as the secondary weapon they discussed being carried in case you dismount, would seem a better option than a spear.

@erichammer5502

5 ай бұрын

Exactly my thought. Where could the horse go other than "forward, with the rest of the horses"? Even after a charge into infantry if the combat is a pretty tight press there probably wouldn't be a lot of room for the horse to go one way or the other. I suspect swinging a two handed weapon in a more open fight would be a real problem, however in a really tight melee there really isn't much directional choice.

@johnmarks227

5 ай бұрын

Especially if they are heavily armored. You would need the extra hitting power.

@steemlenn8797

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, my thoughts too. Those depictions are of course not completely reliable as to the exact situation, but for the type of fighting it's clear that a very close combat is depicted. If your horse more or less stands still than having more power and reach by using two hands - especially if neither has a shield - is certainly something a good rider would do.

My favorite game of all time, "Shadow of the colossus" made the horse an NPC, not a vehicle. Agro, (The horse) generally will follow your commands, but will chose her own speed, will path find her own way, will avoid dangerous paths, and if you let go of the controller, will even try and guess where you want to go. While rudimentary, the interaction as so convincing in 2005, that the sequel, "The last Guardian" was entirely based around riding a fantasy creature that has it's own personality, and treats different players differently based on how you treat it, disobeying your commands if it's scared, you mistreat it too much, or you allow it to become lazy by letting it get away with whatever it wants all the time. For Shadow of the Colossus, Fumito Ueda, the designer took houseback lessons along with his entire design and animation team to make it feel as real as was possible for 2005.

While they received only passing acknowledgement here, 'horse cultures' like the Plains Native Americans and Mongols did not rely on bridles, bits and reins for control, it was all done with the seat and legs. Not as familiar with Mongol riding styles, but Native Americans only used a hackamore and a blanket, essentially riding bareback. Now you'd need powerful legs to make this work, but I suspect that was not an issue for these people. My horse taught me how to ride, and at first I thought one rode like the movie cowboys, using the reins and heels. Eventually my horse taught me how to ride him using my butt and knees. Eventually I could just let the reins go slack and 'steer' him with my body. Were I to ride today, I'd only use a hackamore and an English saddle. I also have to mention the Spanish Riding School Austrian Lippizaners. Those "airs above the ground" that are so beautiful to see were originally combat tactics where the horse was a weapon as well. Anyone who's ever been kicked by a horse (can't include myself there) would attest to the uncomfortable result of horse's hoof-vs-human body.

@adriaanvanwyk662

5 ай бұрын

Never been kicked by a horse, but I work on a cattle farm. Can attest even a glancing blow from a large, hoofed animal is very unpleasant.

@markusmencke8059

5 ай бұрын

The Lippizaners are just fantastic. And their history contains a very special tidbit - the Austrian ones were rescued from getting (very likely) slaughtered by the Russian Army from a breeding farm in Czechia by a detachment from Pattons Army, working together with the German, Austrian and Czech personnel on the farm - and fighting their way into American-controlled territory against the damned Waffen SS. They were only later sent home to Vienna. Look up Operation Cowboy, if interested. There is even a Disney movie about it, but it is… Disney, so not accurate at all…

@matthewcharles5867

4 ай бұрын

Have seen photographs of old water buffalo hunter's in Australia some of those blokes used to ride in a similar way including using hackamore and old army saddles some would shoot rifles at a gallop with either 1 or 2 hands. They tended to use spine shots to immobilise the animal before going to the next one.

The conversation makes me wonder if using a weapon 2 handed is a way to disengage from close combat. The added power from the swing may encourage your opponent to back away, while the weight shifting tells your horse to back away.

My initial impression before running the video: horse archery is a thing, and that involves two hands, but not necessarily the precision horse maneuvering that mounted melee combat requires. So maybe?

Using two-handed close-range weapons from the saddle appears to have been somewhat more common than the video suggests. As mentioned, using staff weapons in both hands while mounted appears in many Japanese, Chinese, & Korean sources. Holding a lance in both hands was widespread across the Middle East & North Africa in the furūsiyya tradition, practiced by the Mamluk military among others. So that's a lot of the world already. Even in Europe, a number of two-handed techniques with even the heavy lance appear in manuals, & Pedro Monte recommended using a warhammer in both hands from the saddle. That's in addition to the various images of Europeans wielding two-handed weapons from horseback that this video notes. The weight of the evidence suggests that wielding a close-range weapon in both hands on horseback was an effective technique even if it made controlling the horse more difficult. As described by Michael S. Curl & Noel Fallows, riding style influences how much a person relies on the reins. They present it as a tradeoff between stability & control, with the bridle style being secure but relatively clumsy while the jennet style puts the rider in greater danger of being unhorsed & grants easier maneuvering without using the reins. It's telling that two-handed techniques appear even by men-at-arms in full harness riding in the bridle style. Part of the reason using close-range weapons in both hands may have been more popular outside of Europe could be riding style.

@Red-jl7jj

5 ай бұрын

Pietro/Pedro Monte recommends using the sword/estoc (and lance) with both hands from the saddle too

Speaking of Kingsley, I'd love to see a collab between you and him at some point!

@scholagladiatoria

5 ай бұрын

We've been trying to organise that for a while. Watch this space!

@harjutapa

5 ай бұрын

@@scholagladiatoria awesome!

Different type of two handed weapon, but the Cataphracts were known to use pikes with both hands, steering the horse with the legs instead of reins. Of course, the kinematics of directing the point of a pike and letting the momentum do the stabby action is very different from swinging a two handed weapon.

@novembermike512

5 ай бұрын

I actually wonder if this sort of static stab wasn't more common with two handed weapons on horseback. It would be very similar to the way it's done with a one handed cavalry saber, it's just able to get further in front of you. Less motion means there's less to confuse the horse as well.

@perrytran9504

5 ай бұрын

@@novembermike512 It is frequently illustrated in Medieval Chinese and Persian visual sources as well, lancers would wield their weapon with two hands in combat but appear to couch them outside combat. The Persian sources I have seen though were compiled under Mongol rule and depict primarily Mongol military equipment/practices (with some Iranian and Turkic influences mixed in ofc.) I have no horsemanship experience though and cannot comment on how this might play in practice, only how the people back then drew it. If you are interested the main illustrations I thought of were from the Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh.

Historical Archery just did a video about using slings from horseback. its almost like anything you can do on your feet (if you are comfortable on your feet) you can do on horseback (if you are comfortable on horseback)

Matt, ask Zachary to sit you down (chair or bar stool) and to teach you about weight shifting. That will teach you faster - really feeling what he articles while also allowing you to manipulate the sword - than all the words.

I think its more of some cultural stuff that Europeans often don't care about. In many Eastern Asian country like China and Japan, staff weapons on horse are Strictly two-handed such as lance(马槊), halberd(画戟), Glaive(关刀) or nagigata. Archery on horseback is also mandatory for heavy cavalry, therefore they often see no problem depicting using lance with two hands in contemporary and modern arts. Persian also did this if I remember right. It should be noticed that China had kept a "Martial Examination(武举)" system to it's military officers throughout history, and in such exams the skills for horseback archery and two handed lance are tested. So it would be no problem for Heavy cavalry who are trained and tested their whole life to master two handed skills on horseback (or maybe the equipments are different?) Or maybe the horse size? Warhorse Project had made a famous claim that Medieval horses are often relatively small (14-16hh) comparing to modern breeds, We also know that Mongolian and Japanese horses are even smaller (11-13hh), and Chinese breed are often not that big either (horse breeding grounds were often occupied by its enemies), Maybe smaller horse is more easy to control? I really hope someone should test Medieval horseback skills on smaller horses (13-16hh) instead of modern breeds to test the differences

The horse is also a herd animal. Imagine a couple of knights riding in the same direction on trained war horses. The guys in the middle don't even need a reins at all, you can swing all day in melee.

Great way for Zach to describe riding a horse as a conversation -- it really is two-way communication, which can be transmitted through any of the natural or artificial aids. Entirely feasible to train a horse to move in all directions solely off the seat. (And yes, my school horses, too, would become dull to all the novice riders bouncing about, and I'd need to periodically tune them up to be responsive.)

I grew up with horse people and learned to tide bareback, many times just hanging on to the mane. I had to learn even more when using a saddle. A well trained horse is likebuying a specially designed car. Some training does not react well to another discipline. I knew a reenactor who would get an older Thoroughbred that was past racing prime for cheap. He wanted it because it was common for US horse cavalry. After many years on a race track it wasn't much good for anything else with out hours of retraining. Point being if you could afford armor you spent the money on a well trained war horse. You were as well trained in it's handleing as you were in arms. It's cost was probably equal to a Bugatti.

@alicelund147

5 ай бұрын

Yes a war horse for heavy cavalry in the middle ages was very expensive and a knight would have more than one because it could get injured easily and you needed young ones under training.

@SuperFunkmachine

5 ай бұрын

There's regular complaints of knights are not bringing there best horse or moaning that the pay for replacaments was too low, or that the army had been provided with only old broken nags.

Massive props for bringing in an expert on a topic adjacent to your expertise rather than assuming that your own knowledge will be sufficient. Always great to see a knowledgeable person show the integrity to bring in an expert when they need to.

oh shit, my dude Z is making another Medieval Cinematic Universe appearance. All you fellas are missing is a bookcase for a backdrop.

Matt, polish tradition has always emphasized cutting with saber when the horse steps with its right front leg. Thus using his Energy to cut. Just like cutting in fencing using Energy from the hips and rotation of the entire body in long sword.

Two handed weapon used on horse can definitely be done, but it seems to be a "one hit and then grab your reins again as soon as possible" type of thing. Actually it's the very second technique showed in Paulus Kal's mounted fencing section. Holding a lance with two hands while still keeping the reins, quite similar to earlier XIVth centiry mamluk two-handed lance techniques, which they had quite a lot of. The main issue with letting go of the reins is that yes you can control the horse for a while, but doing tight turns or sudden stops becomes more and more difficult as time passes, so you would want to grab the reins again as soon as you're done with the technique, which usually is implied to be at a canter against another cantering opponent, so it happens in the blink of an eye. So as soon as you went past your opponent with the weapon in two hands, you want to regain the reins again. Which in armour with gauntlets is a real pain in the ass, hence some rein systems like you see in XVth century Italy there they had only one pair and it had a big "handle", which makes it a bit easier to find the reins again, especially if you're wearing a helmet with your visor down. Another issue is when having let go of the reins, is that the nemey can grab them and control your own horse, or like Fiore suggest, you just throw the horse to the ground from the bit and reins. So using two hands was definitely done, and it's much more common that one might initially assume, as it's also present in quite a few famous fencing manuals, but it's a risky technique and as Zac said it requires very good riding and a very good horse, which eventually will feel the fact that the reins are gone and might start taking advantage of it and wondering around with the head and neck, which can be a problem if the horse suddenly decides to swing the head up or sideways when you're trying to execute a strike or a grappling technique.

Awesome discussion by Matt and Zach! I was just looking at some French seals and spotted some very early 13th century longsword/great swords of war depicted being used from horse although I believe they were mostly one handed. I know you pointed out the naginata, and while we don’t have that much information about their wartime use I should mention we have a couple of depictions of Nodachi being used (twohanded) from horseback as well.

From what little bits I can recall, many of the famous "warriors" had their favorite horse that they would regularly ride into battle. Maybe the combination of training and regularly using that particular horse would make the horse more "aware" of movements meant to guide the horse and it would ignore other movements done in using a weapon.

I remember few tidbits about this topic: Monte mentions using some weapons two handed on horseback iirc. One case its in a duel with another knight where you drive your horse (he talks about stronger vs weaker horses) against the enemy horse and that in some cases you should grasp your warhammer two handed to deliver a powerful blow on either rider or horse. Whole situation seem to imply that basically the horses are shoving against each other or something like this. Think monte mentions or imply similar usage a few times in his book. Oakshott iirc mentions something about the germans using two handed swrds on horseback presumeably with type 13a swords two handed and devlivering powerful cuts and were defeated because while being well armoured they needed to raise their arms and thats when the french stabbed them. I remember a contemporary picture from the thirty years war where one guy also holds his sword in two hands to deliver a blow. There are also some mentions of odachi being used on horseback though i have no clue how believable those sources are. I assume that overall it can be done when there is no worrying about the horse or the there is only one way/path for the horse to move along.

@b.h.abbott-motley2427

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, Monte seems to have been a big fan of using a warhammer in both hands from the saddle.

Steppe cavalry and pre-Augustan rome used their thighs and knees to steer the horse. The two handed kontos lance was a steppe invention adopted by Macedonian cavalry and in Samurai context Kanabo clubs and the Japanese battleaxe were both used on horseback since shields weren't in common use and opponents would be armoured against swords.

The manuscript that Matt showed, illustrates the 2 handed sword being used in a equestrian melee. Perhaps that makes it more useful, than a targeted single strike on a specific opponent where there is room for the horse to move away from the seat though incorrect leg aids. Just a thought as a retired equestrian and now HEMA enthusiast.

@novembermike512

5 ай бұрын

It makes quite a bit of sense if the horse and rider are armored so they can remain static and the goal might be something like getting leverage to dismount the opponent.

Mr. Easton on a roll w/ very interesting, rapid-fire content! Great thanks!

Matt, my fave podcasts are when you have Zac or Capwell on (and I agree with the commenters, Jason would be an excellent addition to discussions like this one) - for myself and I may be misinformed but we’re not the Huns, Scythians both master horsemen who rode using commands with only their legs (freeing up both arms)? Great episode, Zac is a great guest, would love to hear him with Jason!

Good video. I've ridden horses a little bit and conversation is definitely the right word for it: sometimes a good talk and sometimes you just don't get matched well and things get a bit chatty until they're sorted out. With an experienced cutting horse you basically just point at the cow, give the command to go for it, and you're mostly just along for the ride. If you start trying to micromanage a well trained cutting horse, it'll probably fight you because it knows its job just fine and thinks you should stick with yours. An experienced horse will generally have a lot more cow sense than the rider, to anticipate the cow, with the rider's delayed reaction. I'm not sure if cavalry horses would work similarly, but it would make sense since cutting horses also have to be bold, and since you've got your job and the horse has its job in the advance to contact. I've had a rifle on the saddle, but never shot or swung at stuff from horseback. A lot of riders won't even carry a fixed blade on their belt because they're afraid of getting the handle in their side if they fall off the horse (scout carry of small fixed blades or carrying folders are generally preferred).

Let me put it like this: Just as we have today the Christopher Nolans and the Michael Bays they did back then; some manuscripts are highly accurate while some manuscripts show crusaders cleave through fully armoured sarazens with falchions. Could you use a two handed weapon on horseback? Yes. Can you split a iron encased dude from shoulder to groin in a cavalry pursuit? No, it looks f*cking cool though.

@colbunkmust

5 ай бұрын

Can't believe you compared Nolan to Bay. I mean, "Tenet" wasn't _that_ good but still... 😂

@dragon12234

5 ай бұрын

@@colbunkmust Well, to give something to Bay, he is really good at technical camera work and SFX. Like apparently a lot of the stuff he does with that stuff is really really difficult to do

@mnk9073

5 ай бұрын

Oh I just meant their approach to realism: Gritty practical effects vs. Rule of Cool-CGI.

@colbunkmust

5 ай бұрын

@@mnk9073 I don't mean to be taken too seriously, but, I'd argue Nolan's use of CGI and Bay's are for very different purposes. Nolan's is usually more for the purpose of visual story-telling while Bay is typically credited more for the bombastic spectacle.

A really interesting conversation! Always good to see Zac. Great content as always, Matt!

Hands-free horse control is more common than not. Once you understand, it is like riding a bicycle with no hands, but the horse has common sense, which the bicycle doesn't. The horse is trained to respond to knee pressure and other signals if your hands are not using the reins for control. Western vaquero-tradition cowboys rope cattle with the rope in one hand, and throw the loop with the other. Then wrap "a dally" around the saddle horn. Farther east, - e.g, Texas - the rope may be pre-tied (hard tied) to the saddle. A well-trained horse, such as a warhorse, will respond to very subtle guidance from the knees, feet, even voice. They are capable of knowing the rider's intent, and can maintain a course even though the rider does some unusual motions in the saddle. My horse could maintain a full gallop in a straight line, while I leaned out of the saddle to pick an object, such as a bottle, off the ground. The horse is also smart, and can often tell as soon as the rider whether a cast with a lasso was good, and a well-trained roping horse will be slowing and settling back on its haunches brand bracing for the cow's encounter with the limit of the rope's length leaving you to throw the dally, and get your fingers out of the way of a hemp guillotine slamming into the saddle horn when several hundred pounds of bovid hit the end of the rope. Warhorses need to be just as well-trained, and tracing that training historically leads back to Spain and Portugal and cattle handlers who also were trained as lancers.

I had to go and watch Jason's videos after watching this 😄 I ride and fight I've been learning Japanese martial arts for over 2 decades now and although you CAN use a polearm from horseback but I've never really seen a reason to, a sword or spear work fine (I really love our European weapon set though the lance looks fun and crazy effective 😋) but the only thing no-one's mentioned because I guess it is more of a far Eastern especially Japanese thing is using large bows from horseback. You need that instinctive relationship with your horse, because you need to almost entirely stand and find space to draw it and bowstrings do frighten the horse a lot. What do you think Matt? 🤔 I'm not very good at it because I'm more a bowman than a horseman, but the bow is probably the only 2 handed weapon I'd be comfortable using from horseback, I can see why guns like the dutch arquebus became the preferred weapon in Japan

Best guest hosting you've done so far in my opinion because of the space you gave him. Thanks

Exemplary video thank you. Wonderful insight.

I'd love to see a discussion of the use of those cataphract kontos. I've never been able to get my head around the two handed lance thing, why anyone would choose to use a spear like that on horseback. I kind of get that it was a pre-stirrups alternative to couching the lance, but I still struggle to visualise how it would actually work.

This is a brilliant video, and brings up many concepts I never previously considered.

I would love to see bannerlord do something like allowing you to wield in both hands on horseback if your riding skill is at least 2 above the horses requirement

Very informative, thanks!

Great video. Zac is a great guy and guest. Very interesting subject.

I really enjoyed this conversation. Thank you for bringing Mount and Blade into the conversation Matt, legitimizing two handed use. Bannerlord is what came into my mind reading the title.

Outstanding duo, please keep collaborating gentlemen!

As someone who teaches riders and trains horses for mounted combat, I regularly use two hands when sparing in Rossfectchen. If you have the skill on horseback AND a well-enough-trained horse, you can slip between one and two hands, as the opportunity warrants. I will drop the reins, and take the sword in both hands to gain the leverage advantage, then take back up the reins when I feel I am losing my connection with my horse. So think of it as an action to take the opportunities that present themselves. As for it affecting the horse as you swing, this is a factor in all attacks, one or two-handed, so we learn, through practice, to counter these effects. Short answer, yes you can wield a sword two-handed, but you are not limited to one or the other, but rather switching between one and two hands.

The riders on the right of the image at 0:53 seem to have two handed swords and are using them one handed. They are also not so crowded as the rider on the left of the image and so will be able to manoeuvre using their seat and left hand. The rider on the left is crowded in a melee and so the control of the horse becomes less important to him than belabouring his opponents as hard as he can with the two handed sword. He also has the distraction of having a knife embedded in his chest. A knight and his horse would have been a well trained unit with the horse providing a stable fighting platform, even today it is common for riders to learn to go over jumps without the rider using the reins. Very interesting segment and more Zach please.

The biggest sword I ever saw was the great two-handed one in the Tower of London. I cant imagine wielding that on a crowded field. Swinging it at full gallop on horseback is just crazy to think about. They were men of iron. Very cool video! Thanks.

One addition might be the difference of the saddle system in nomadic horsemen as they did not possess stirups as the European knight disid but as much as I know from some Anthropology classes that they had some hook like structures on them that held them on the saddle and allowed them greater control over the said communication with the legs with the horse. What is more, they lived and died with their horses and the level of communication probably allowed them a greater level of control. Sassanids and Eastern Romans had similar horse archers as it was the most effective weapon systems at the time, as much as I know Romans had their horse archers meticulously trained for at least 6 months until they grasp the basics of horse archery and possibly they could move away, stop, shoot and move again. Regarding the use of two handed spears on heavy cavalry, as discussed, it was a slower movement and not at all singular. A large body of horsemen moved together, if we consider the Eastern Roman cataphracts as well, the horses might not have a way of moving that much depending on the miscommumication produced by the movement of fighting. When the block would arrive, and if the adversary has not escaped from the sheer psychological warfare produced by the heavy cavalry, the 2 handed heavy spear might be effective as long as the momentum continued. If the attack came to a halt, I would assumed they would disregard their spears for a mace or sword. However, as it is a block of several ranks, those behind would still find value from the two handed spear. I have no idea how swinging a naginata while riding fast might work though. It might be simply temporary use depending on the situation and not the rule. A naginata can become a temporary spear I believe? Thank you for such an interesting topic. Sorry for any mistakes that I might have claimed, these are all personal considerations.

Another thing to remember is Sassanian cataphracts also did not have stirrups, which would have changed this control conversation

This turned out to be more interesting than I expected. I too am completely ignorant when it comes to horses and riding. Thank you both 👍

Pretty good discussion, but i have to add a few points, which were missing (no critique, it's a large topic and we stand just at the beginning to understand, thanks to people like Zachary, Tobias Arne, Dom and so on). 1.) The point with disturbing the horse when "swinging" (i don't like that therm, because specially on horse back, i think the technique of using any kind of sword, is more critical and complex an on foot, at least that's my experience as rider) the weapon is not as a problem as explained, when we look at the more detailed sources, we have of the XVI century (unfortunately no clear medieval sources till know) like Pluvinel or Guérinière and as it is still common for more classical riding schools, the horse gets trained to follow the riders point of gravity. Means when the horse is trained in a classical way, it will follow the blow. Also the reins are called SECONDARY in the old literature, what clearly explains, that the main way of communication is done by the pelvis and legs, as Zachary explained. 2.) As you both mentioned, horses have their own brain. Thank can be challenging, but their are smart as well. Riding in a more medieval like way, or comparable schools, the education and training of rider and horse takes a decade or even more. We are talking here of a highly complex form of art, bio-mechanical and intellectual, for both. That just shows how smart horses are and when trained well, they absolutely know their job. Even today there are many videos out there of raining horses or Spanish horses fighting a bull, or raining cattle even without rider. In logical consequence the same count for well trained war-horses of the past. There's a reason why a good destrier had cost a fortune. And there are even clear examples, which lead to that conclusion. I think the most famous is Gustav Adolf in the Battle of Lützen 1632. The legend says that they bound his dead body on the saddle of his war horse, named Streiff (i saw him irl in Stockholm) and that they were so able to keep the illusion, that he still is alive. But when looking at the leather jacket Gustav worn (also conserved in Stockholm) we can see that he got hit in the left side of his abdomen. So probably a wound, which not killed him immediately, but slow bleeding to death. No proof, but a good sign that the horse was able to do his job, even with a wounded person on his back, to such a degree, that no one was able to realise that Gustav was dying. Just a foot note here.

Thanks for the sneak preview of that type 17.

Excellent conversation and some really good points on rider balance and horse control made by Zachary, please do more with him. My 10p on the comments is I don't see the similarities with horse archery where weapon use has a low risk of unbalancing the rider and most importantly the horse is being asked to run parallel and away from the enemy with no requirement for accurate and close proximity to the hostile

Paused as I started the video and now I'm staring at Zachary's face like Alan Ruck stared at the painting in Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Fwiw: Liechtenauer's glossers advice, in the mounted combat section, to use both hands on the lance if you need it. Moreover, there is a specific mounted play where you hold your lance with both hands, like a quarterstaff of sorts.

In Peter von Danzig and in Paulus Hector Mair where Spear use two handed described on horseback ! And in Peter von Danzig is Halfswording described mounted!

One thing to remember about two handed weapons on horseback is that bows were very commonly used two handed from a horse. For that to work it must be possible to ride without using your hands.

Most important thing not covered here affecting the horse are the actual combat and the panic and violence overriding the subtlety of the cues from the seat and the leg. This is where the rein hand becomes most important. Here in Colorado, we practice mounted combat weekly and we have found that this is the item most often neglected by reenactors. It is especially true in the gunpowder era because of the noise panicking the horses, but equally so without gunpowder. To say nothing of the fact that other people are trying to do the same to you and your horse. Subtlety is important in use of the leg, seat, and hand, and as classical horseman we strive for it all the time here, but it would have been difficult to do in warfare. The manuals of horsemanship show this change in approach from the 16th to 19th centuries. N.B. the herd can have a mitigating affect here. The horses will want to stay together. This can keep you well organized as a group in combat, but if they all start to go, you better have your hand on those reins. It's important to remember as well, that tournament jousting as a sport, whether in the historical era or today, has about as much to do with real battlefield combat as Olympic fencing has in a street fight.

@MrBottlecapBill

5 ай бұрын

Yes for this reason alone I suspect using longer weapons on horseback was more about stabbing, head smacking, levering people off their horse, killing the horse etc., rather than something akin to dueling on horses. That's why when they go two handed they want reach.

@alicelund147

5 ай бұрын

Cavalry horses where also bred and individually selected for their job and trained for it from the beginning, and then practise it daily. I'm sure your horses are as well but maybe not as rigorously as in the old days.

@thezieg

5 ай бұрын

@@alicelund147 Too true!! And not just trained for cav overall but very specific roles which may or may not call for long weapons. Different breeds also take to different demands differently, so I mustn't be too quick to (over)generalize.

That opening reminded me of the video by Ola Onsrud: "How to fight in full 14th century harness". The "hello" part.

Wielding two handed weapons on horseback must be down to horse training and conditioning and perhaps the type of 'seat'. You alluded to this in the video. Wielding two handed weapons whilst mounted may have been rare but during the Roman period it was commonplace. The cataphract-style heavy calvary used by the Romans and Persians fought with the Kontos. A heavy 3 metre+ spear or Pike wielded with two hands. It was not 'couched' but used underhand or over arm for thrusting. This type of weapon was used by cavalry for several hundred years. The tradition of horse archery and Kontos use indicate to me that the viability of using two-handed weapons when mounted is entirely down to the training and conditioning of the horse. If it is used to the inputs given while riding then it will react in a predictable manner to them. I also wonder if the saddle and stirrups are an important factor. Horse archers and cataphracts rode without stirrups riding Roman or Persian-style saddles thus they would have been cradled or gripped around the hips and gripped the horse with their thighs rather than pushing their weight downward onto the stirrups when leaning outward.

I wonder if the limited representation in art to two handed use is because during the charge you would use some of the weapons one handed, out stretched. But during the press of the melee you would need to shorten your reach to maneuver, and you may have to react to opponent coming from directions other then the front.

I find this topic very interesting because I've heard a few times how the Mongol horseback archers were famed for being able to shoot on the move and also about horseback samurai that wielded nodachis which, because of the difference in weight distribution between most katana and longsword/greatsword designs, DEFINITELY required a two-handed grip to control it. XD

Ofcourse it is done! Bretonnian Questing Knights are famous for it...

How much does the horse know about what it is supposed to do? If you have an experienced warhorse charging at someone, does it know where it has to go independent of your weight distribution?

Brilliant guest really knows his stuff.

See Viennese Spanish Riding School, Lipizzaner horses. Highly trained riders and highly trained horses can still be experienced. I've seen them. My uncle was involved in their rescue in WWII.

Matt may claim this is a video about swords, but we know its really about the guns 💪. Matty forearms over here.

Being a pure theoretic, some notes. Mouted Cavallry drummers had ( still have) stirrups conected to headgear (?) , in german Zaumzeug of the horse. In riding sport there is racing, obstacle jumping, snd what is in german called , Dressur ' where the riders sometimes a top hat, this riding style looks a bit srange. But i have somewhere read, that also this riding style has military roots in middleage and Rennaisance, but don' t know, if this is true.

On a wide open field, precisely controlling a horse without using the rains is difficult. Most of the depictions I have seen from mideval Europe, the rider is in formation or bunched up in a melay. In those situations, your horse isn't likely to veer off no matter your lack of imput or riding position. A well trained war horse was likley trained to be controlled by only leg commands and ignore the riders positioning.

I used to go to a friend’s dressage competitions in high school. I have no doubt she could have trained her horse to understand what she wanted him to do even if she was swinging a sword.

I guess there are several scenarios which give different opportunities related to the space available to horse and rider. Two loose formations passing each other have plenty of space and room for maneuver. In this scenario it might be beneficial to just give point and focus on controlling the horse. On the total opposite, you might find yourself in a densly packed melee of riders, with very little room, in this scenario, you may very well swing about with your two-handed weapon regardless of the messed-up cues you give your horse, because it has nowhere to go.

I'm not sure how good the evidence is but it seems that Alexander the Great's cavalry may have used a two-handed lance. This was called as "xyston" and later a "kontos" (as used by the Sassanians, as you mention). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xyston en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontos_(weapon) There's also George Catlin's picture "War on the Planes" which shows a Comanche using a lance two-handed against an Osage warrior (though who knows if he actually saw this).

While it would take alot of practice, just like when they were training in the last samurai movie, I'm sure horse archers would definitely be too op for the game rising lords, and although I'm sure a sword or spear is more likely, anybody with throwing hammers like battle brothers could be even more fearsome without any armor or shield; hopefully not a wider and thinner riot shield for me personally though, if it wasn't as challenging to forge my favorite shield, and do some fun armor ballistic tests usually these days, although I can be pretty focused on some things like armor making occasionally anyway.

I know bugger all about riding, but there is a sort of interesting disconnect I've noticed in the discourse about using weapons two-handed while mounted. One of the first things that always seems to come up when discussing advantages of two-handed weapon use over one-handed while dismounted is the increased control it provides for practically any strike or guard; by contrast, whenever discussing the same in a mounted context it seems that there's always a presumption that the default strike would be some sort of hell-for-leather, all out, overcommitted swing that would basically never be advisable on foot either. Someone else already made the comment of employing a two-handed weapon in a crush where mobility is already incredibly limited, but I think there might also be an argument made for a sort of limited swing not entirely dissimilar to the technique employed in many longsword systems when you're fishing for hand strikes. Obviously, in a mounted context there's a lot of reason to not aim explicitly for an opponent's hand at high speed, my intent was to use such a motion as a demonstrator. I understand that there's a world of difference between foot and mounted combat, but at a certain point it seems like we're back to talking about a peasant who happens to be on a horse and his instinct is to strike with everything he has all the time. Or y'all already covered this and I just wasn't paying proper attention while I was getting food ready for the cats. Apologies if that's the case. EDIT: I fear I may have buried the lead. My intention was to point out that it sounds as though the conversation regarding swinging a two-handed weapon on horseback often harkens back to the archaic notion of the warfare of the medieval period in Europe being characterized as two brutes clobbering each other with barely-sharp lumps of iron and next to no skill or thought. I understand that it's a very difficult topic, especially now that riding is not nearly as common a skill as it once was, and that the point of this video was to emphasize that if it were to be done it would require exceptional skill and training. I only mean to point out that while our understanding of the way warriors fought on foot in the period has evolved substantially over time, the same understanding of mounted combat has ironically not kept pace.

@b.h.abbott-motley2427

5 ай бұрын

The correct synthesis is that medieval warriors were clobbering connoisseurs who skillfully smacked each other senseless with steel warhammers wielded in both hands from the saddle. That's at least what Pedro Monte encouraged toward the end of the medieval period.

Este video me hizo pensar como los catafractos mantenian el equilibrio usandos sus dos manos en el kontos(lanza) y sin silla de montar ni estribos, muy buen video.

More zach and horse content Matt!!!😊

Thanks for the good video

in such a melee depicted in the manuscript the horse probably couldn't go anywhere anyways, so any false signals it might get couldnt be carried out, so the knight could go at it with both hands to deliver stronger blows

Speaking of the comparison to Bannerlord - that's something I'd love to hear more about! I only got into it recently so any references in the past sort of flew by me - perhaps a reason to revisit some old videos.

I find it ridiculous that someone can think that not using your reins will degrade your skill at controlling a horse. Lajos Kassai was born 80 years ago and whatever you may think of the draw weight of the bows he is using, there is very little difference between how well he can control a horse with or without reins. I'm starting to think this is a result of horseback archery and jousting not being very popular in UK and USA, and people there thinking that if they can't do it, no one can. Although one caveat that wasn't mention is the saddle - jouster I've spoken with told me that the period-accurate jousting saddle keeps your legs straight (and you push into the stirrups with them making them even more stiff) and that makes using them to control the horse with them harder. Still, that is just one pretty specialized saddle.

Watch some vidoes on American cutting horses. They are controlled completly with knees and feet. Not a direct corelation but it shows how horses can move.

I imagine for a glaive having two hands has little impact on the reach and it would allow you to strike or fend off enemies at angles it would be awkward to hit with a 1 handed grip. In this case I am thinking of a melee rather than a charge.

I'd like to know how these types of 2 handed weapons would or wouldn't work with chariots and on elephants. I know both often had a driver separate from the main fighter, but I know fairly little about it. My only point of reference here is the Bagsvad Gita, and that was mostly archery of I remember correctly, although it's been over a decade since I read that.

Just a thought, would 2 handed sword use be something a cavalryman would switch to in a press or if a charge was stalled and they remained in contact with their opponent?

Maybe Jason would be willing to reply to this with a video demonstration? (Or Zachary could do a followup?)

@DGFTardin

5 ай бұрын

Jason already did: kzread.info/dash/bejne/oGmfy6yrg6adg7g.htmlsi=dqOB4mU7LDJYN3OV

i suppose in a charge it would feel more like a short spear and the longer handle could almost brace against the forearm, i would be most concerned in the moment of impact about the blade actually snapping/bending if a target fell in a sharply opposing direction of the flat. obviously in a close melee you would have some advantages if you were to become unseated from said horse

The kontos was the two-handed spear used in the ancient period.

My grandfather had mules that would listen to voice commands while pulling as a team.

@sorbgh

5 ай бұрын

Interesting, what did he do for a living?

My takeaway here is a skilled rider on a skilled horse can do about as well wielding two-handed as an unskilled rider on a less elite horse can do with the reins.

polo with a headless goat is a team sport in Kyrgyzstan and perhaps as close as you'll get to melee in mounted combat were you're massed together and might just opt for using a dagger

@joannep5785

5 ай бұрын

I think the most fun you can have is melee games on horseback with boffers, you know, like everyone hunt down the outlaw, even groups, very uneven groups, guard the treasure, guard the gate, that kinda stuff.

You may find an answer looking at "corrida" on horseback.

Hey matt just also want to ask what's the titlecard from? I just noticed it's a 28mm STL >_>

Interestingly various Turkic, Mongol and Tungusic peoples (notably the Jurchen, ancestors of the later Manchu) also used two handed lances from horseback, and indeed numerous accounts (and archaeological finds) show that the Mongol armies of the Jochiid Ulus (the Western Steppe region which now makes up parts of Russia, Ukraine and Western Kazakhstan) used a specific type of hooked lance to hook opponents and drag them from the saddle, something which must have taken a lot of movement of the core muscles. However, like Mongol archers and swordsmen, these lancers seem to have fought primarily by standing up in the saddle so that their knees, shins and feet were in contact with the horse and could be used to guide it, however there was no contact between the seat and the horse. I can't speak from experience but I do wonder if this may have allowed them to use their hips to "insulate" their core muscles from the horse and minimise the impact of the movement of the torso on the parts of their body which are in contact with the horse, thus enabling them a greater range of torso movement without giving unintentional signals to the horse. Similiarly this technique would likely have been very helpful for Mongol archers because, while I agree with Matt that the act of drawing a bow wouldn't have much impact on the horse, Steppe archers were typically trained to shoot in a roughly 180 degree arc from directly in front to pretty much directly behind themselves-which means that aiming the bow and aligning the torso in order to safely draw the often quite heavy warbows would take a lot of torso rotation which could easily give a false signal to the horse unless the rider was trained to manage that issue by some means.

@b.h.abbott-motley2427

5 ай бұрын

Yeah, riding styles were different in different times & places. Cavalry across Asia & North Africa used lances & other close-range weapons in both hands. Medieval Europeans gravitated toward the bridle style of riding, which grants more stability but makes guiding the horse without the reins harder. Despite this, Europeans still sometimes used lances, warhammers, swords, & the like in both hands on horseback.

I feel like the realistic outcome of two handing a sword on horseback in a melee such as depicted in manuscript art is a similar outcome to that frogmouth bearing man show in the video lol, stabbed somewhere important.

Looks like the guys with the daggers are getting the best hits in!

can horse not be trained to distinguish between weight changes due to the rider wanting the horse to change direction and wait shifting due to rider fighting?

I doubt that swords were often if ever used two handed whilst _riding_ a horse, more likely they would be used two handed when the horses were stationary in a close press (such as the illustration shown) where the horse would have little opportunity to go rogue.

I understand why they were confused, but I grew up around natural horse riding so my gut reaction was "why would there be a problem with two handing on horseback?" Just by looking in the direction you want to go, your body naturally will push the sides of the horse to guide it in the same direction

I am no expert however Comanches had a tremendous reputation for fighting on horse back.