this was fairly brief, thank you Matt

I've always wondered if the imperial German model 1916 stahlhelm took any inspiration from the Sallet. I'd be surprised if it didn't.

i absolutely LOVE that helmet design, its gorgeous~

Another reason you have overlooked... And this comes back to status and wealth. A person wearing this armour is obviously wealthy. So knowing that, one would wear it knowing that he would be highly visible on the field and would be a highly sought after captive. Knowing that the wearer would be worth his weight in gold as ransom. Minimizing his chance of being killed. If you capture him you get the ransom and the armour, if you kill him you get nothing but damaged armour.

Maybe they use to soak the head in water

I guess Im. Buying an Axe now

Was how a buckler works, I think you could put the strap over your arm between your bicep and your shoulder and use your two remaining hands now for a two-handed weapon. Sure it'll be a lot less effective at blocking unless you angle your arm into the opposing weapon, but it should still offer protection. If that's the case, you can have a buckler on both arms and still use a two-handed weapon.

Shiney armor is good defense against lasers and light sabers.

well... you're right and wrong at the same time. sure, for the pure stabbing, size doesn't matter. however, size does give other advantages, like reach, you don't have to get as close to your opponant and you can stab them easier even if they have a shorter weapon. and weight, which is relevant for slicing. so... in a fight, if you offer me a kitchen knife or a sword, I sure as hell would take the sword - and so would you.

The Wedge War Club is shaped like this. It is the only “wooden” weapon I get nervous swinging around with speed.

Matt did you ever come across a civil servant sword from world war I

At some point the UK decided that 1984 was an instruction manual, and allowed itself to be taken over by people who want to eliminate the English/Welsh/Scots/Irish from the UK and replace them with immigrants. Defending yourselves, even with swords, would be an inconvenience to them.

I thought the point of these longshanks was to invade scotland

Interesting. Literally my first thought was that shiny armor might reflect light at the enemies and obscure their vision in some way.

I recall that Galadriel gives Aragorn a new sheath for Andúril. The previous one was probably worn out.

Thanks Matt

Maybe Matt should sacrifice both his mirror polished and satin finished armor for the next Arrows v Armor with Tod to test whether mirror polished armor leads to better deflection? Come on Matt! For science!

It’s like blued gun metal. Potassium Nitrate, in molten state, fills microscopic pits and cracks in the metal, prevents oxidizing moisture from penetrating the same. Browning on gun metal serves the same purp. Blued steel can still be polished to a highly reflective sheen, but fine polishing, alone, will also reduce oxidation.

Is the Ahlspiess really that heavier, it got a really thin point, I would say that it could be built with similar weight as a spear. Also, there were longer versions of the Ahlspiess. It also can be used with a shield, it is significantly lighter that the poleaxe and better against armor that the spear. I would say that the Ahlspiess with shield is the ideal weapon, having also a backup smallsword.

One small issue I can see with using HEMA and Harnissfechten (pardon my poor spelling, I haven't studied German in nearly 20 years) for insights is that it is ultimately a sport, not actual, mortal combat and safety considerations are thus "double-ended." This is equally true of mediaeval jousts, in which they generally didn't want _anyone_ dying or getting seriously hurt, and thus both sides would spare no expense in choosing weapons and PPE to ensure that no participants are seriously injured or killed. These considerations may influence or even restrict particular design, selection, and usage of weapons and armour. Compare that to actual battlefield combat or even judicial duels, in which the goal *was* for one party or the other to end up seriously injured or killed. Safety considerations in actual, lethal engagements tend to be one-sided. You want to keep _yourself_ safe, but you obviously want to inflict severe, incapacitating, or even lethal harm on your opponent. He is thinking likewise--he wants to keep himself safe whilst inflicting severe damage on you. As such, the conclusions one may draw from HEMA on the efficacy of certain weapons and armour/PPE may not apply 100% to how they were actually used on the mediaeval battlefield. This does *not* mean that HEMA is a useless resource, because even knights and men-at-arms back in the mediaeval era did have to train via methods quite similar to modern HEMA, with safety precautions to ensure that nobody was badly injured or killed, and they'd translate those same techniques they practised in the training ring to the battlefield. In fact, HEMA provides us with invaluable, empirical evidence as to how certain weapons may have been utilised in the mediaeval era, as there's an unfortunate lack of clear, realistic visual evidence from that time period (the artwork tends to be typically more fanciful than realistic in its depictions, and is often rife with anachronisms). But I do think that it means that we should take some lessons from HEMA with a grain of salt, since trying to incapacitate or kill someone who is also trying to do the same to you at all costs is a bit different from engaging in full contact sparring against someone in an environment with strict rules on conduct and behaviour.

I would argue you would need a bastard sword for a stabbing to be fatal in the US

Actually, I work in gear manufacturing, and polishing metal can give residual stresses in the surface that help prevent formations of cracks and crack propagation. This is mostly about fattigue induced cracks though, but there are mechanical reasons for polishing outside of just surface finish.

That's like...Excalibur levels of shine.. BLING your blind, now you're dead.... properly! Good video, could you possibly make a video of painted and lacquered armors or have you already made one?

Probably the most famous Polish Knight - Zawisza Czarny (the Black) wore a black armor. Although AFAIK there was more than armor that gave him that nickname.

I wonder if the dominance of straight blades in medieval Europe allowed for 'mass produced' or at least interchangeable and replaceable scabbards, in ways that the curved saber blades of other times and cultures did not.

Viking sword. i Think they know How to craft them afterall

Gentlemen like you and Tod of Tod's Workshop are doing *excellent* work in not only entertaining people and educating them, but also countering one of our ancestors' greatest historical sins--the notion first perpetrated during the Victorian Era that the mediaeval era was a time of utter barbarism and hopeless ignorance, and that the technology and weaponry of the mediaeval era were invariably crude, clumsy implements made by stupid, brutish, and utterly unrefined men (at least compared to the charmingly refined industrialists and dandies of the mid to late 19th century). That pernicious misconception has sadly persisted into the modern age, and is further worsened by fetishization of all things Eastern, such as Japanese arms and armour. You still find some ignoramuses today who genuinely believe that Edo-era katana could cut straight through mediaeval longswords, or that a 17th century samurai would invariably mop the floor in any fight against a European opponent armed with his preferred weaponry of rapier and parrying dagger, etc. (In actuality, the outcome of such a fight would depend *highly* on the circumstances and context of that engagement. Not every one-on-one fight is a regulated duel.) People during the Middle Ages were *not* stupid--at least no more stupid than people are today. In fact, I'd argue that they were perhaps _less_ stupid in general than people tend to be today, since the penalties for stupid choices tended to be somewhat harsher back then than they are today, at least for those of us who live in relatively crime-free areas of developed nations. Mediaeval peoples were clearly capable of empirical thinking and reasoning, and if they designed something a particular way, or preferred a particular approach, then they probably had rather good reasons for it based on cost-effectiveness, tactical efficacy, ergonomics, and ease of use. Tradition and aesthetics *did* play a role back then as they do today. But for those whose livelihood (and even their continued survival) depended on their skill with various hurty implements, what _actually_ worked well in the field *and what they could afford* undoubtedly trumped style points or perceived "cool factor." People have always wanted to look cool--muscle cuirasses were a thing back in Alexander the Great's time. But regardless of whether it's 200 BC, 1340, 2024, or 3375 AD, we can all agree that one looks _a lot_ cooler alive and with all one's body parts intact than dead, or bleeding out, soon to be dead in some unpleasant and crappy place. Unless, of course, we're talking about your enemy, in which case it's better if he goes for the most tacticool, but ineffective setup he can afford. This is especially true back in the mediaeval era, when most soldiers weren't getting regular pay cheques so an enemy equipped with fancy, but ineffective kit was potentially a walking loot box.

Cut wood with it?

As a matter of interest how long is the blade

Also, if it's red, it will go faster.

1) It's worth mentioning that cavalry units during the American Civil War did most of their fighting dismounted with carbines. 2) It seems like the saber would be of limited use against well-disciplined infantry in close formations with fixed bayonets. Likewise, even improvised fortifications could make it difficult for cavalry to get within saber range. 3) If a cavalry soldier armed only with a revolver can kill or seriously injure 2 or 3 cavalry soldiers armed only with swords before being routed, then he's already proven the superiority of the revolver over the sword.

The whole Western paradigm is a joke.

As a veteran and military history buff, I believe that the chopping sword has the added benefit of being used a general purpose tool (survival knife use, machete, etc)

I think at least 50% of all swords in any given country would be katanas - it has a slim handy profile (tsuba is way smaller than traditional European handguard), it looks stylish and stylistically suits wide array of outfits, and, of course, it's really popularized in popular culture.

Reflections. Years back, I was flying model rockets at a sanctioned event. One fellow covered his rocket in metallic tape; perfect mirror surface all over the rocket's body, nose-cone and fins. We spent hours looking for that thing in knee-high grass...the 'finder' had stepped on it by accident! The mirrored surface faithfully reflected the image of the grass surrounding it, making a sort of 'optical Ghillie suit'. Would mirror-bright armor do the same in dense foliage?

Unarmed and unarmoured, I'd still rather face a small knife. Slashing range will matter to me. Even poking range, extended by the length of the blade. Obviously I'll run first if I can, but this argument doesn't really reflect my limited understanding of why range matters? You'd rather have a sword than a dagger? Swords are longer than daggers for reasons? And 'worse' if I'm materially on the other end? If you (wielder) prefer it, I (meat sack) am in more trouble.

🥹 you think so?

this is how the ghostrider dresses in the off season

Sounds like cope

This explains why HEMA treatises in the late medieval era always see spar with thick gloves..

It's because for some illogically a sword that goes right through someone as opposed to a 4 inch blade straight into the heart is more horrifying. In reality you might even survive the former but most likely not the latter.

This is so similar to the fighting strategy of Wing Chun. In fact our second form is called "Crossing Bridge"

This is kept by my bedside. I'm happy with the sheath being loose because the dagger needs slip out easily if I need to use it. I can't have it being caught and sticking if I try to remove it. I love mine so much. Definitely worth the money in my opinion.

Full disclosure: I am a collector. I am not a fencer. I am not a cutter. I am a collector, and colichemardes are ugly. YMMV

Your comments about high polish and resistance to rust is exactly what I was always taught about firearm metal finishes. The traditional blueing process only provided moderate rust resistance, and it was highly dependent on the polish level. High quality guns were glossy. Unfortunately (to my mind, at least) almost all gun makers now have moved away from that costly polishing, to more advanced chemical finishes that are very tough and allow them to leave the surface rough. They're functional, cost-effective, but to me they're rather ugly.

You should consider moving to the USA. The UK has become a Socialist shithole a long time ago.

Working on a lvl 3 ballistic shield (under 7 lbs) and trying to figure out how to heat mold mirror-backed plexi glass onto the front and keep the mirror shine. That way, someone shines a weapon light on it they blind themselves; and a mirror finish messes up a sight picture. ;)

Ellementary black body physics. While black armour would absorb heat much better than none black armour, it would also be more effective at getting rid of heat as well.

There's an old saying among French swordsmen that goes something like "If both swordsmen are equal the better wrestler will win"

" If I won the lottery I wouldn't tell anyone, there will be signs"