SWORD LENGTH CHANGES from Bronze Age to Medieval

[@GGMCUKAGAIN]

This is what i like about Matt; just providing the basis for his assertions to us. No false authority, no claims to definitive answers, just sound, demonstrable logic.

[@TemenosL]

Exactly.

[@Unknown-jt1jo]

Plus, more importantly, deep knowledge of the sources and archeology!

[@JG-fg1ye]

Except for when he tried to cancel other KZbinrs for being a Christian …

[@jmell458]

​​@@JG-fg1ye Lmao Shad incriminated himself as homophobic, misogynistic, and transphobic on his second channel. Even Tyranth is visibly uncomfortable whenever Shad goes on one of his rants about 'woke' culture. Nothing to do with Christian (note that Shad is also Mormon)

[@surgeonsergio6839]

Between the shield and sword a true ARMS race!!! Get it? Cause of the arm's length affecting.... I'll show myself out.

[@Artanis99]

Interestingly if you dive into classical mythology swords are very rarely mentioned while spears, bows, shields, armor (especially helmets) are richly described and often mentioned which would imply that swords were not seen as something that exceptional. It should be also taken to account that in bronze age a chariot was the thing of martial classes and unlike for horseman who can reach other horsemen or infantry with a sword, same can't be said for the charioteer even on lightest of chariots and even if chariots were used in more Greek style as fast transport for infantry, you would probably retreat on chariot to reform your spearline further afield before you gone for sword and shield combination.

[@hendrikvanleeuwen9110]

Yeah, axes also for Mesopotamia. (Gilgamesh sure loved his axe!) I think the fetishisation of swords in the west comes with the spread of Christianity.

[@michaelel650]

See Robert Drews book 'The End of the Bronze Age' that attempts to detail the end of the dominance of chariot warfare. All the best.

[@SampoPaalanen]

@@hendrikvanleeuwen9110 There's also the matter that (classic) Roman Legions used swords as their primary weapons and they were pagan at the classic period. Also there's the matter that much of the fetishisation of the sword comes form the era they were no as prominent in the battlefield, the overemphasis of the sword didn't really come prominent until the 19th or 20th century when it had become the weapon the elite and even then it's more symbol of rank and status then a practical battlefield weapon. Knights used lances, polearms or maces as their primary weapons, not their arming swords.

[@hendrikvanleeuwen9110]

@@SampoPaalanen you are not entirely correct. Swords became a ‘thing’ in medieval Europe or slightly earlier. Excalibur, the Ulfbert swords and the use of swords in the knighting ceremony all come around this time and have strong Christian associations. Also the crusades were no doubt a factor in adding to the perceived symbolic power of a cruciform sword. Before that it seems it was treated far more like a utilitarian object, such as in the case of the Romans, as you mentioned.,

[@heilmodrhinnheimski]

@@hendrikvanleeuwen9110Gilgamesh I believe does actually girdle himself with a sword as well. Maces seem to pop up too, as they were supposedly the two weapons dual-wielded by Ba’al when fighting Yammu.

[@ahab145]

Hi matt I think you might find the book Bronze Age Combat: An Experimental Approach interesting. You can find one of the chapters "Bronze Age Swordsmanship: New Insights from Experiments and Wear Analysis" online The book is very well written and insightful

[@ahab145]

As for if sword length correlate to shield size and grip I think you'll find it interesting to look at ancient near east shield and swords in the Iron age, from what we can see the most popular swords were rather short, shorter then the bronze sword you shown in the video (of course plenty of bigger longer swords are also present with some reaching 70+cm and one even reaching more then a meter) But they were often paired together with rather large Shields with a central grip. There is a book titled THE NEO-ASSYRIAN SHIELD Evolution, Heraldry, and Associated Tactics by Fabrice De Backer Perhaps it will interest you to read it too

[@alangriffin8146]

Easy answer, Bronze Age warriors used a lot of jump attacks. Haven’t you ever seen Troy? Brad Pitt demonstrates the technique.

[@ΕρνέστοςΣμίθ]

There is a jump attack depicted on a Mycenaean seal ring, but with a sword.

[@alicelund147]

The Vendel era shields from Sweden are also very large like you say of the Sutton Hoo shield. The wood is not preserved but you can tell by the metal reinforcements. Interestingly these graves contains fittings for horses so it is likely that those large shields was for cavalry. Maybe cavalry used shields differently? In a more defensive/passive manner? (There other similarities between the Vendel/Valsgärde graves and the Sutton Hoo grave as well).

[@theamazingdagger5584]

Maybe the area the sword thrived was after the initial push, where the shields are pushed up against each other and you need something that you can use in a tighter space, like the landsknecht katzbalger

[@ErikMikkelsen1]

Matt, you mention that you can't make bronze swords longer, which is true. But with that in mind, I've always wondered: if reach was an issue, why they couldn't just make the hilt/grip longer while keeping the blade the same length (kind of like a Burmese dha)? You could then hold the grip closer to the pommel instead of closer to the guard to get a few extra inches of reach. The fact that they didn't do this has led me to speculate that reach WASN'T an issue for them. Perhaps because the spear was their main weapon, they only used their swords at extremely close range (punching distance, essentially)? All speculation, of course, but that's my thought on it.

[@railspony]

Then you just have a spear that is more likely to break, because of the limitations of bronze, and that is harder to wield. They definitely used the spear if it wasn't broken. But carrying extra spears wasn't realistic for most, and if you have somebody carrying equipment for you then you might prefer for them to carry more food than to carry more spears than you expect to need. But still, you might need more than you expected, you want a durable backup, even if it leaves you in a defensive posture.

[@michaelel650]

As has been pointed out on this thread there are Bronze Age swords with blades up 36". I know that Neil Burridge has made some long replicas for museums. The shields, in Western Europe at least, seem to largely be designed for very dynamic warfare and used edge on. Used as a 'wall' a sword or spear with full body weight behind it will go through. Sometimes experimental archaeologists misuse a replica shield by putting it against a straw bale and thrusting a spear or sword through it and then tend to conclude it was useless or 'ceremonial'! The wood on a Viking shield is around a fifth of an inch thick, according to Roland Warzecka, and covered with fabric and leather, with a steel boss. Lean this against a straw bale and thrust a pear into it hard enough and the weapon will go through. I think that the way Warzecka uses Viking sword and shield is probably the best representation of how the same combination was used in the BA. At least in Western Europe. He also provides a brilliant explanation for his conclusions. Swords were often 'ritually killed' and broken and deposited as 'offerings' or in some ritual way. But if broken in combat the bronze could easily be melted down and and re-cast. All the best.

[@FiliiMartis]

5:00 ... I was yelling Silver, that's just Silver, good old George Silver was saying that some 500 years, come one Matt you must know this as an Englishman. And then Matt mentioned him and everything was alright with the world. 😅

[@LeVraiPoio]

Seems to me like this logic would imply that one handed maces and axes would end up having somewhat the same length as swords for a given period. I may be wrong, but they tend to be shorter, from what I've seen. As you said, it also doesn't work for the spear. In the end, I'd say it's an oversimplification that works mostly for those two cases, which are often backup weapons ... In other words, that may as well be the exception.

[@SirGambitRocks]

Not necessarily. Unlike a sword, an axe can hook a shield or come around the side. Also, maces and axes are generally better at damaging shields

[@LeVraiPoio]

@@SirGambitRocks Hooking and going around, no question. But damaging, that raises an other question in my mind. Was damaging shield really a tactic used in combat ? Feels to me like this is a TTRPG and video game logic. Obviously the shield will get damaged over time with combat, but I feel like it may always be a way too long strategy to implement in combat.

[@SirGambitRocks]

@LeVraiPoio I'm not sure. It's definitely listed as a thing in Norse duels but I'm unsure how much that applies in mass combat

[@The_Mad_King]

I love it when I see one of my swords used to explain it’s style and use on your show😁 I love my swords and I love how much you love all historical weaponry 🫡 best show ever🤘

[@therealzilch]

Another fascinating episode, thanks. Analysis compelling. You've certainly helped me to decide which sword to use, depending on which ancient army conscripts me. Cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott

[@feperry90]

I remember mention of bronze age "rapiers." And a brief search has found references to Mycenaean and Caucasian bronze swords with blade lengths in the range of 100 to 115 cm. The images are of clearly thrusting weapons. Thoughts?

[@mnk9073]

The short ones were probably somewhat functional while the long ones can be chalked off as status symbols, decorations or ceremonial arms. Bronze just doesn't hold up to any stress whatsoever at that length.

[@petrapetrakoliou8979]

@@mnk9073 There are actually plenty of traces of use and resharpening on these swords showing they were overused, especially the long ones! The "ceremonial arm" is an unknown notion in Bronze Age Europe as far as the archaeology of traces show.

[@robo5013]

I read a series of books about ancient Mesopotamia (The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient World) and there was a tradition of the kings hunting large prey with those swords. They would get the animal to chase them while on chariot and wound them with arrows then dismount to give the final blow with the rapier, the braver would try to deliver it in the animal's mouth. There are stone carvings and clay tablets that depict this.

[@paulbardunias5950]

We often see long Mycenaean swords used in conjuction with body shields even larger than the scutum, which goes against Matt's scheme. But I would suggest they were used far more like spears than they were like the cut bronze sword in this video. They often had a huge mid-rib in order to achieve the stiffness required for their length. This made stabbing strikes, along with push and draw cuts, their primary function much like spears.

[@Intranetusa]

​ @mnk9073 It is possible that long bronze swords were composed of different types of bronzes. Bronze swords from ancient China were often made quite long (eg. some Qin bronze swords were around or more than 36 inches long) before being replaced by steel by combining several different types of bronzes with different properties. A softer bronze core could be jacketed by a harder bronze outer layer (similar to how later steel swords were laminated) - this would balance out the weaknesses of bronze and allow longer length bronze swords to be made while still being practical for combat.

[@ryankolick4117]

I have to disagree with you on a few points -the fact "that they cant make longer bronze swords" there are several surviving examples of long bronze blades theres one in the Copenhagen museum that is a 36" blade and several others that are close in size. so we know they could and did do it. How popular and effective the are i have no idea sonce i haven't seen much research or testing of them but they are there. - im not sure the shield size impacts sword size as much as the spear impacts sheild size and shape. There are plenty of cultures that had big shields and long blades (medieval Europeans, Celtic letene, some roman gladii are bigger than the average spatha) and their are cultures with small swords and smaller shields though those likely have financial and cultural considerations tied to that.

[@Hiltok]

While the density of bronze is broadly similar to that of steel (generally a little more), bronze just isn't as tough as steel, so steel blades can be thinner for similar strength. The result is that you can make a longer blade with steel for a given mass of metal. Long bronze blades could be made but how unwieldy would they be? Perhaps there were some exceptionally strong people who could wield a long bronze blade, but they would be just that: exceptional.

[@SporeMurph]

When you say very long bronze sword blades of 36 inches (~90 cm), are you talking about the so called "Rapier" type bronze age swords? I have seen some VERY long examples of those (in museums in Ireland and on the continent), longer than 36 inches, though the interpretation is that some of the exceedingly long ones probably were not functional weapons and were only for display / status symbols. But in any case clearly the thin and long type of bronze "rapiers" were a real weapon of that time, but surely they must have been used in a very different way than the primarily cutting/slashing swords of the type that Matt is discussing in this video. So I think we're talking at cross-purposes, and we need to further define what types of sword are being analysed.

[@Shenordak]

​@@SporeMurph There are many examples of ancient weapons and armour being labeled probably ceremonial by archaeologists and historians. Yet as with the recent case of Mycenean bronze plate armour, practical tests by fit humans allowed to actually experiment with the items tend to show that they are viable in combat. There are of course exceptions though.

[@hulkthedane7542]

Your ideas are very strongly founded in the combination of your education and your prolonged training with different weapons. Very well educated guesses. Your points make sense. Interesting video as always 👍👍👍

[@allmachtsdaggl5109]

If the bronze age people were so well defended, why are they all dead?

[@Han-rw9ev]

Old age?😊

[@yeahnaaa292]

Humanity did not survive the bronze age. We don't exist.

[@EriktheRed2023]

Bronze poisoning?

[@Maedhros0Bajar]

Well, it ended about 3000 years ago. Which is quite a bit over the maximum human age expectancy

[@UnkleKlumsy1353]

How dare you... I was going to make that joke!

[@JohnCarlisle-r1i]

Perfect timing. I've been putting together a modern Crusader costume and contemplating my sword choice. I have a gladius which is easy to carry, but am probably going for a longer sword. Thank you!

[@michaelel650]

On another note: regarding the shield and sword combo. The largest UK/Western Europe type shield is the all bronze Yetholm Shield, on show at the National Museum of Scotland. Due to a fantastic piece of luck and archaeological detective work Marion Uckelmann has managed to date this type shield to being more or less contemporary with the Type IV rapier that has a blade shorter than the Ewart Park you were holding. The shield type includes shields as big as the largest Viking/Anglo-Saxon type shields, it has a centre grip and is incredibly light for its size and is obviously designed to be used edge on, as Roland Warzecka uses Viking shields. The Ewart Park itself, with a blade around 21" seems to be contemporary with the Clonbrinn Type leather shield which also appears to work best with an extended arm like a oversized buckler. Some Greek pottery, supposedly illustrating the 'heroic' fighting styles of the Iliad, show this dynamic edge on use usually combined with a forward step on the sword-hand side and an over-arm thrust to the neck. The attacking weapon being directed to the side, usually the shield side. Sometimes the shield is swapped to the right to direct the attack in that direction with the sword making a palm-up thrust to the head or neck, again the reach extended by a forward step with the right foot. Interestingly the Yetholm type spear appears contemporary with the shield of the same name. This is like a weighty Partisan and, for a wee guy like me at least, best used in two hands. As ever, all the best. Mick.

[@CraigLYoung]

Thanks for sharing 👍

[@atune2682]

very interesting video as always matt thanks!

[@josephwielinski4383]

"Why are your swords so short?" Spartan replies, "So that we may get close to the enemy."

[@QuentinStephens]

I don't have the book to hand but I was under the impression that early bronze age shields in Mediterranean art were often large and a figure-8 shape. And somewhere in the Illiad I believe there is a reference to Ajax's shield hitting the back of his neck and his lower legs when carried from which we can infer that his shield was on the large side.

[@TripperJonMD]

Love the video. For the algorithm I will say, that until you mentioned it I kept saying “..but what about a the spear?” But I probably say this because of all your videos I’ve enjoyed.,

[@cernunnos_lives]

Greek and Roman Era arms and armour was definitely made for tight formation combat. They didn't have much room for longer swords (until they changed battlefield techniques later). It also depends on what form of combat your job entailed. Skirmishers were hit and run. And very different than heavy infantry techniques.

[@yoavedelist6173]

Yes! Bronze age content! Thank you!

[@corrugatedcavalier5266]

Aspides are depicted being held extended or "part extended" much more often than a lot of people think. Not that this fact refutes your point, they are still held close to the body frequently as well.

[@curtcoeurdelion]

Warfare in the Bronze Age was mainly based on shield walls and spear phalanxes. Swords were mostly only used in very close quarters combat. Spears of all varieties were used in formation warfare as well as in individual combat. Also by comparison very large body shields were in use by bronze era armies, making it nearly impossible and useless to use weapons like swords for penetration. Same goes with heavy bronze all body armor. Later eras have com back to bronze era warfare as the Scottish cauldrons, the Swiss Gevierthaufen or the Spanish tercio have demonstrated.

[@M.M.83-U]

Interesting topic. Bronze age content is very much welcome. Maybe, kinda, a little bit? In general I thik of the lenght of the sword as to be inversely proportional more to the area and weight of the shield than to the grip style; e.g. aspis/xiphos vs rotella/sidesword for the strap held ones and scutum/gladius vs buckler/whatever for the boss grip kind. For the bronze and early iron ages axes, both single and two handed, are fairly common in depiction and the archeological record in central and western europe; plus there are a few trust centric blades long enought to meet your criteria scattered from Anatolia to the Atlantic coasts.

[@danielkeding3071]

Very interesting video. I agree that the size and/or position of the shield determines the length of the sword. In the Roman case the pilium is thrown and the Roman soldier attacks with his sword. The short gladius is perfect with the large shield being held close. I remember an old friend of mine that said, "it's all connected. It's only a matter of finding the connecting points." I think you did it. Thanks. Dan

[@-RONNIE]

Thanks for the video ⚔️

[@BygoneUser1]

I think these are pretty fair assumptions overall, but something that I immediately find perplexing in all of this is the extant bronze swords found archaeologically that far exceed the length of a typical xiphos or gladius, or typical 'short-sword' blade length. Were these just ineffective weapons? It seems to me like there should be a more reasonable explanation; our ancestors were not morons, they wouldn't make a bronze sword that long if it couldn't hold up to a bit of abuse, right? Maybe they had specific techniques that were used to harden bronze that we aren't fully aware of & don't properly replicate when making reproductions, and evidence of hasn't survived for the millennia these weapons were interred? Maybe not, just a thought; it does seem odd to me though. I guess there could be a number of explanations including prestige or cavalry use, but still, if they are just going to bend or snap on impact, I don't find either of those answers to be very compelling. The other thing that immediately comes to mind is that your theories tend to come from the context of fighting one on one. For example, the Romans or the Greeks would not have been (in most cases excepting the semi-legendary) fighting one another or foreigners in one on one duels. I think what you are saying makes perfect sense in the context of a duel, but might mean less when you are considering tons of massed troops bracing one another, and each defending the man on their left. I mean, the Greeks & Romans were famous for their tight relatively orderly formations, and by some (including their own) estimations that is what gave them the edge over their competitor cultures. Just as an example, the likes of the Quadi, Marcomani, Goths & other early Germanic peoples would have likely been using boss-gripped shields with spatha-like swords, and the Romans contended with them just fine for the most part(of course, until they didn't-- but, by that point they were mostly using spathae themselves anyway). To what extent this type of thing might apply to bronze age peoples in northern Europe or elsewhere in Europe, it's kind of hard to say. But, I think the ultimate thing also comes down to the fact that you mention at the end; for the most part, in most ancient armies, the sword was effectively a side-arm. The ultimate complement to the shield has always been the humble pole-arm/spear. I think it's very probable this held true in the bronze age as well. The big exception people always think of is of course the Roman legionnaire; but in my opinion, though we tend to hyper-fixate on the infantry, which obviously was evidently world-class for the time, there was a hell of a lot more to Rome's success than just their infantry's prowess; their cavalry was no joke, they had tons of variety in skirmishing auxilia, the best siege equipment of the day, weapons of terror, engineers, and never mind their insane implacable administrative/logistical ability to absorb massive loses and keep coming back with new armies ready to fight... and for reach, the infantry did always have their pilae in a pinch. EDIT: accidentally confused the Gallic/Galatian Tolistobogii as an early Germanic peoples

[@michaelel650]

In the eastern Mediterranean it appears that there were mass armies, during most of the BA using chariots in active combat (see Drews, 'The End of the Bronze Age'). The infantry tended to have big shields but were less important in combat and more defensive. Swords could be up to 36" long but most were shorter, depending on the actual century BCE, Even so most were over 20" by the Iliad/fall of Troy, probably a Hittite victory - see the book, 'From Hittite to Homer'. In Western Europe combat seems to have been more like skirmishing and individualistic, at least the weapons, including shields seem designed for that. N.B. 'The Tain' and the story of Cuchulainn, although dated to the Iron Age it seems to reference the probabilities of BA warfare, organised around the virtual 'sport' of cattle raiding. They used chariots but mainly as a means of transport for elite warriors well into the Iron Age in the UK, as reported by Julius Caesar. To note: the Ewart Park Matt has is not the biggest of the Leaf Blades and has a blade just over 20", well mine has, and it was contemporary with the light leather Clonbrinn shield. My second Ewart Park has a bronze hilt like the Inverbroom Sword and they both handle best with a finger over the ricasso. All my BA swords and the shield are made by Neil Burridge who also made Matt's swords. All the best.

[@CitizenSmith50]

My expertise is an Arts degree majoring in bronze casting. While the larger swords are possible, they are more difficult to cast effectively, which may be a reason for there being relatively few. Then there is the inherent strength of the bronze, which requires larger crosswise dimensions to support the length, which would make it unwieldy. The longest blade I've cast is 32 inches, but it's not terribly practical and too heavy.

[@paulmcdonald2742]

:) such a good thinker and reader

[@sundoga4961]

Logical. As you point out, there will be other factors, but this one makes sense.

[@HoJu1989]

I made my viking/Rohan shield 80 cm in diameter and I honestly regret making it that big and heavy (probably a little too thick too). It looks badass as anything but boy is it a pain to carry around.

[@Glimmlampe1982]

Probably it's way too thick, I speak from experience 😂 my first shields were Hobbit doors... Make it was thinner and cover it in linen, front and back. Way better. And if you want to be really fancy, make it thicker in the center (about 1 cm) but give it a strong distal taper to the rim, down to 3 or 4 mm.

[@HoJu1989]

@@Glimmlampe1982 Mine is made of 1cm plywood with several layers of the cheapest cloth we could find (3 or 4 layers on the front and one on the back, overkill I know). I also decided it would be easier to nail the rawhide edge instead of stitching it, so add a not insingnificant amount of weight in nails.

[@Glimmlampe1982]

@@HoJu1989 yep, figured that. Because that's the exact description of my first shield. With the exception that I didn't use rawhide as I had leather from an old chair laying around. It now has it's decorative resting point on my garden gate ;) Also modern buy of the shelf shield buckles are bigger than historic ones, also adds a lot of weight. And it depends on the wood type, I have a book on shield finds in Illerup Adal (probably butchered that name) and depending on what wood the diameter and thickness varied a lot. Oak was thinner (and way rarer) while pine was thicker (and if I remember correctly the most common wood).

[@marting1056]

historicaly there is a great variaty in shilds. in the sagas we are told of duels with three sets of linden shields smashed. but there are also finds of thick oak shield. so if you are a chief you may have a linden one easy to handle, and you will get a new one if this is damaged from your shield bearer. but if you are a poor gay standing in line, you better take the toughest you can bear, cause you will get no replacement...

[@Glimmlampe1982]

@@marting1056 but then you have a door that might be near indestructible, but pretty useless because you can't move it were you need it to be fast enough. Archeological findings in bogs might be misleading because there were offerings, but those I know of are all far off from that overly heavy oak shield.

[@zsoltbocsi7546]

Someone send that man a Gladius!

[@keyserpacha3033]

I would think that, like you said at the end, group tactics and style of fighting play a role too. It's my (amateur and from an armchair position...) opinion that both the roman legion (and the greek hoplitic warfare) was a style of fighting (and equipment) very much linked to set piece battles. Large group of men fighting in formation, and that their style of fighting was very aggressive, pushing toward the ennemy line and engaging the fighting very close, shield to shield, rather than "fencing" from a distance. The could do that too, obviously... That would explain the overhand spear grip of the hoplites (striking behind the shield from above at a close distance), the "small" swords (relatively to other types) that would be enough for this type of contact and even probably easier to use in that context. That also point toward the protection of the face and the soulder/neck that you were speaking about too. So, other type of shields, like celtic/germanic shield, used with usually longer swords might imply a different style of fighting, or, maybe, a more universal/generic role, less specialised for set piece battle and more useful/polyvalent in day to day military life of the time (patrol, raid, skirmish etc) smaller scale fighting with more emphasis on using the space around you to fight (because you would have more room, to do so). The roman shift in the style of gear used by their soldiers in the late empire might be cause they had more and more germanic recruits, or simply because the emphasis for most of their troops shifted from preparing to be the decisive arm in a set piece battle, to more patroling, raiding, skirmishing and supporting other types of troops in battle (like cavalry, missiles troops etc) ?

[@DMZwerg]

The hypotheses make sense to me so adding them to my Heroes & Henchmen RPG :)

[@RonOhio]

Did sword length accommodate shields, or the reverse? Seems like you could make almost any size or shape of shield, but making a long sword took a lot of improvements in metallurgy over a long period of history.

[@kaizen5023]

If your sword is too long and shield too big you can't quickly move one around the other. The i.33 manuscript has many moves that involve this. Try handling a longsword or rapier and a kite shield together and you'll see what I mean. You can do it, but your movements are a lot more limited and you'll tend to get tangled up in your own kit more easily, especially under stress.

[@chengkuoklee5734]

​@@kaizen5023Under stress.. You have a good point there. To have a better picture, we need to run simulations with disadvantages into consideration.

[@statmonster]

This is really good.

[@Intranetusa]

From what I've read, the Roman mid Republican era gladius were longer than Roman imperial era gladius and Roman Republican scutum (at least the Dura-Europos scutum) were also larger than Roman imperial era scutums. So in that case, both the sword and shields were longer/larger in the mid Republic and both got shorter/smaller.

[@twosheds7105]

Hey Matt! An idea for a video, how common were foreign swords/weapons in feudal Japan? I saw Rashomon the other day and Toshiro Mifune's character carried a jian. It probably makes sense since he portrayed a bandit. Bonus question: katana vs jian as in the movie?

[@ravensthatflywiththenightm7319]

Beastmaster Season 2 has numbed me from the image of someone carrying a Bronze Age sword with a Viking Age shield.

[@railspony]

Regarding the bronze age, it makes a lot of sense. The primary weapon would be the spear; and since you can't hold it at bay with the length of your arm, instead you'd have a large shield. In Xenophon's Anabasis there are lots of descriptions of battles against less advanced groups, and many had large hide or even grass shields combined with spears. So if you assume that is the main weapon, then the shield is matched to the spear. Because the shield is large, and therefore held close to the body, the bronze sword is a good backup weapon, even if you leaves you using a mostly defensive style.

[@NeeSut]

Although mad shares quite an interesting point of view, I still believe that the size of the sword is mainly defined by the mettalurgy level. 1. Bronze and iron swords could not simply be large. They'll either bend or become too heavy. 2. While you don't have a full plated armour, you cannot rely on it fully and you have to use a shield. Using a shield means you have only one arm to use the sword. While invention of a spring steel allowed to have a larger sword, one-hand action became an obvious limitation to the length and weight of the sword. 3. Only with a full plate armour you can deal effectively without a shield and use both arms to manipulate the weapon. Here's when we have a rise of a longsword.

[@elijahoconnell]

i love the proportionality of weapons and swords to the user. i had a big ol neck surgery, and i drew my will as the schematics of a sword based off of my bodily proportions and made from the carbon content of my ashes. but alas, not today.

[@Zenith292]

When you started intimating that there was a 'trick' to the length of these swords, I thought, "Must be an arm's reach" - given that two arms' lengths would get you into striking distance if you were fistfighting. Now with a sword that long, you can hit their body before they can reach yours with small weapons or for a grapple. And yet I didn't think of shields at all 🤓

[@foldionepapyrus3441]

I'd suggest its much more about being able to still reach past your own defence easily than striking the other person despite their defence. Allowing you to actively push opponent with your shield, create an opening and still have some hope to exploit it - a blade of that sort of length just lets you use the shield actively and even offensively without taking the opponent safely out of range of your more dangerous weapon. Which would also make more sense to sizing the sword to your own reach, rather than going as long as you can possibly wield just in case you meet a giant - most folks with sword sized to them would be by the time that few inches difference in our wingspan is applied both ways falling so far short of being able to reach past my shield while I can stick the pointy end right through them still...

[@petrapetrakoliou8979]

The bronze rapier found at Hattousa has a blade 79 cm long, which is not that short I think.

[@MQuinn-eb3zz]

Interesting, I never thought about this before. However, it makes perfect sense when, as you pointed out many times, the sword and shield are a 'weapons set'. I do wonder if the spear and shield 'weapon set' also have some kind of corresponding size ratio.

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

Low trained citizen militias used mostly spears with shield, while it took professionals, or at least people who fought often, to have advantage in sword fight. Also if soldiers had good armour or used some other weapon in addition to sword, shields tended to be smaller. Buckler was used in time of best armours ever, and theoretically arkebuseer or musketeer could have carried rapier and buckler on belt without impeding his main weapon.

[@nbsmith100]

I agree with a lot of your ideas... altho I'd wager that it's the opponents defense (ie mostly shield and tactics) that dictates more influence on sword length more than your own. BUT in general, localized populations tend to share a lot in attributes so you probably could measure yourself to get an idea of what you would likely face in an opponent in many places.

[@chrisball3778]

There are a few long Bronze Age swords, so it was certainly possible to make them longer. Bronze is much easier to work as a material, hence the fact they carried on using it for armour (and later statues, etc), even after they'd switched to iron for weapons and tools. I don't think there's any shape you can make from iron that you can't make from bronze. But I do think the reason most are short is due to the limitations of bronze as a material. It's much easier to bend or break it than it is iron, so very long blades might not have been suitable for use in combat. Certainly the long bronze swords I've seen in museums have generally seemed pretty ornate, suggesting they might have been intended more as status symbols than weapons.

[@emarsk77]

My first thought is that if reach were a problem with bronze blades, they could've simply used longer handles: a pair of wooden scales would have provided all the mechanical reinforcements needed. You could even keep the metal part exactly as is and extend just the wooden part, it's not like the technology for attaching a blade to a shaft wasn't there.

[@Wien1938]

Most interesting. Shield type and style defines combat.

[@FrankLandis-m9n]

Hi Matt, I’d add a point from Musashi. He said he liked swords because they were useful indoors and out, while other weapons were more specialized. Perhaps bronze swords were “everyday carry” weapons, useful in roundhouses and other confined spaces as well as in armored battle?

[@michaelel650]

Just saying, I have a relatively early BA sword made by Neil, a Type Cii I think, (around 15th Century BCE), with a 25" blade and I know that there were even bigger swords, extending even back into the Chalcolithic. Also at the end of the BA, in Western Europe at least, there were some swords at least this length and more, usually optimised for 'slashing'. I do not have one of those but I know that Neil makes them and has made museum pieces with even longer blades. Some of the longer swords are demonstrated in the Merneptah stele plus re: Ramses III and the Sea Peoples. You would be interested in the book, 'The End of the Bronze Age' by Robert Drews which details his hypothesis of the changes in warfare at the time, from chariot dominated to light infantry which, at least in terms of Greece, culminated in Hoplite warfare. Anyway read it and see what you think. Just trying to provide a wider context! Loving the sojourn into the BA by the way. All the best, Mick.

[@ilejovcevski79]

The material hypothesis holds most water here i think. I mean, we do have some exceptionally (for the era) long bronze blades, actually reaching length of medieval arming swords on the larger side, but they are rather rare. So one could argue if those aren't perhaps specialized weapons, like status symbols or perhaps chariot/cavalry weapons. But difficulties in production and wieldability would probably limit those in numbers.

[@temptempy1360]

Close shields also tend to have a curve. It helps strengthen the most forward edge, which is always a vulnerable point in defense in any fight. Lead wrist, lead foot, blade tip, shield edge. Shield it is max leverage point for enemy to mess with. As you say the reach past edge also is important, curved doubly good. Also depends on opponent. Heavy unit of pike or hoplite, wide shield, Discipline troop. Big shield good. Late Roman, different area, often wider recruit area, but against less solid formations, and mobility becomes needed

[@oliverohnemus5791]

I believe that swords were primarily a secondary personal defense weapon much like the modern day pistol. The tools may change and become more deadly/easier to kill with but the job remains the same.. kill the other person before they kill you. As you said the primary weapon were spears or other pole arms (in later periods), much like the adage today (use the pistol to get to your rifle or primary weapon) the sword would be used after you’ve broken or otherwise used up your spear and need to somehow survive and get to another spear or the hell outa the kill zone

[@williamarthur4801]

Really interesting and nice to see an 'ancient' vid, re arm / sword length theory, sorry I'm not convinced, at least not in the way it is often put forward as scientific reasoning , rather than just 'I could do with a longer sword.'

[@starytruten4389]

some words about "combat agate" from Pylos, please.

[@dreamok732]

Absolutely. I was trying to remember what it was called.

[@alicelund147]

I think it is important to look at what comes first. Technologically Shields could be made in various sizes since pre-history, like the length of spears could. Regarding Swords on the other hand their length is dependant on technology. Bronze swords probably gets more prone to bending if too long, maybe they also get too heavy? Iron probably has a similar issue. But as the quality of steel improves, and the knowledge to temper the steel to spring steel, you can make them longer without bending and still light enough. If shields sizes has anything to do with the length of the swords the shield is a reaction to the sword not the other way around.

[@andriiyevdokymov6781]

Goliath had a shield bearer with him. I suspect the hero had two shields. One, smaller, for fighting with a spear, and a larger one, for fighting with a sword.

[@luigicondorelli2323]

Gladius was a very specialized sword, which need a very specialistic training to be used effectively. The legionaries were trained to shorten the distance and strike beyond or below the shields of their opponents. Roman emperor Augustus (27 BC-14 AD) had about 250k men trained in this kind of warfare. In the following centuries the barbarians increased the pressure at the borders, and the Romans needed bigger and bigger armies to repell them. Unfortunately, hiring new soldiers without conquering new territories and having new gains from looting, was a net loss, so the military budget skyrocketed. At the times of Emperor Costantinus (306-337 AD) indeed, the roman army had about 600k men, and most of them were Germanic immingants, who perfectly knew, since childhood, how to use a long sword like the spatha, together with a round shield, but weren't trained in the very specialized use of gladius and scutum. So it would have been too much costly to force them to forget their basic training and learn a completely new way to fight: having no money and no time, to adapt the new soldiers to the old weapons, Roman commanders preferred to equip the new soldiers with the weapons they were more proficent in fighting.

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

Well, one I think that famous bronze "rapiers" does exists. Now when you do not have much armor, big shield - simplest and most effective way of protection. Especially considering bows and other javelins from one side and any form of concentrated group of people as military formation from another. You pretty much have to have a big shield if you do not have an armor.

[@TorvusVae]

@6:50 IIRC Vegetius tells us that the legions trained with double weight training shields. Perhaps for a Roman soldier they didn't find it quite so cumbersome to strike someone with that huge shield

[@molochi]

The optimal length for a sidearm sword is as long as you can make it and still be able to simply draw it from a Scabbard at your side. That happens to be about the distance from your sternum to your fingertips.

[@graham6774]

I loved the observation that you can't physically make a long bronze sword. I always wondered why the ones in museums were short swords.

[@balasaashti3146]

You can make longer then a short sword. I own one with a 25 inch blade so on the shorter end of a Viking era sword. Works fine but longer then that might give you some problems at least to my eyes. Edit a large part of them being short I believe is lack of material, tin was hard to get so most swords were more copper then anything and were of poor quality.

[@reaperwithnoname]

I would think that the sword length issue would still be relevant in the bronze age, because you don't bring a backup unless you think it could potentially come up. But as you say, they may have simply been forced to suck it up and deal with the reach issue due to technological limitations.

[@koosh138]

I'd also imagine in a straight tussle (maybe in a self defense situation) you'd do what you can to make sure your assailant or opponent is at arm's length either by pushing or pulling and trying to get your point in line.

[@hic_tus]

it makes sense but like you said I think they relied a lot more on spears. maybe yes, swords were used more for selfdefence and backup, or in a "civilian" environment. or maybe they didn't fully figured out a complex fighting system based on swords like happened later. I believe the limitation of the technology might be the culprit here. also during that time we see a change of civilizations, the famous bronze age collapse, so there's been a bit of a remix of cultures and probably war tactics back then, to face these new invading people and adverse conditions, especially in the middle east. In britain probably the wave reached a bit later through trade, I'm not sure what kind of evidence we have of that. but remember that yes, in the greek and roman world they used short swords and large shields, but other people like the gauls liked longer blades too. it is reported that they bent quite a lot, so limitations were also in the use of early iron and steel. it makes a lot of sense if we look at the whole picture. lots of spears and metallurgy limitations favoured short stabby swords, until they got better at forging, in the early middle ages. I mean, they tried, of course, but it was not ideal. and the romans didn't like "less than ideal" 😆

[@davidhawley3337]

Well, as depicted in some ancient Egyptian stone carvings, at least some of the mysterious Sea Peoples seemed to be using relatively long swords for the period (circa 1200 B.C.-ish). I presume they were bronze.

[@larsbkurin1740]

I think you are correct in your theory, maybe they used short spears if they needed to fight at half range. Wondering if most weapons during the Bronze Age weren't balanced for stabs and the small bronze ax as a secondary weapon and cleaver.

[@skunclep1938]

Perhaps the average height (and reach) of Bronze Age warriors also had more of an influence? Assuming that they were 1.67m (5’5” in old money) and that their average arm span was proportional, then holding a shield at arms length could still be viable with the shorter Bronze Age sword? Of course it would vary across diverse populations, but perhaps it was a factor for many?

[@petrapetrakoliou8979]

50 cm in diameter for the bronze shields which appeared in the Carpathian basin, around 1200 BC.

[@CDKohmy]

When you compared it to the gladius, I find a better comparison is to consider velites and caetrati as they had small round shields. My idea is to look at other cultures to compare such as Filipino martial arts noting they used short swords with smallish shields (despite now using two sticks).

[@liambrooks2330]

Just my thoughts, but reading the Iliad gives some insight regardless of whether it's fiction or fact Homer would have had an idea of how people in his own time would have fought. Most of the combat is with spear and shield with a second spear in the shield hand, and when swords come out it's when there is nothing else and it's in a chop

[@gabrielgfsilva9875]

Great video, as always, I recently watched one of matt's videos aboput bronze age sword pommels, and watching this video I wonder if is it possible that even the smaller shields were held closer to the body or in some other way? because as far as the use of bronze age swords (analizing the pommel) the cuts weren't as extended as with some other sowrd styles.

[@paleowhite8027]

Great video. As I was watching and Matt was saying that the scutum was often held with the bottom out, how did they keep from having the other guy's blade slide up the shield and hit them in the chin or face?

[@MoseyOnout]

"Mulling over with a glass of port." or "a glass and some port?" Have you ever shaved your head with one of your swords?

[@thezieg]

I am not convinced of this argument regarding the inverse relationship of shield size and sword length, not because the shield size determines the sword length but because the inverse is true: The ability to craft a longer sword permits the shield to shrink. Bronze and iron do not permit as long a blade due to material fragility (which is why I do not agree with you that the Bronze Age sword was a hacking blade, but instead the fighters stabbed more than cut). You get around to this point eventually, but I think you have to undercut your argument to do it. Anyway, great video, as ALWAYS! Now, any chance you can get Windlass to reproduce a 1728 Pattern Spanish Cavalry Sword (aka Bilbo) for us? ❤

[@kaizen5023]

Showing us that Boss Grip 😎 💪

[@giftzwerg7345]

Mat, fistly, spears, as you said yourselve, whats also really Important is that in a battle/ close order group fight, you dont want to ooen your shield, bc thats the hest way to get speared by sombody to your right... The rimans adopted an oval flat shield, its used simular ti the scutum id say, with a bit more movement/ quick openings, to block certain areas if atack and ooen others, but i dont think you hold it streched out for any amount of time. With vikings ara combat uts Important that a lot us small scale raids and scirmishes si lita of one on one combat (with swords if you have) so the shield and Fightingstyle you talked about makes more sense, in battle they stull used shieldwalls bc if you dont use yozr shield as passive armour you get speared. Look at reenactment fighting

[@graveyard1979]

I strongly suspect that the so-called Bronze Age "rapiers" were designed to stab around or over the shield rim. Not only because they do not have much going for them except for a really pointy sharp end, but also because they come from the part of the Mediterranean where shields tended to be both large and concave.

[@robh5492]

Port: the Easton-approved mulling tipple

[@guyplachy9688]

Metallurgy has to be the No. 1 reason that bronze swords were not longer, anything longer would snap as the alloy (which can only be cast, not forged) is far too brittle. (Note: Cast iron swords would, likewise, be too brittle, too, prior to the development of forging & steel, & f-a-r too expensive.) Usage would be the No. 2 reason, as during the Bronze Age spears were by far the most prominent weapon, with knives being the predominant back-up weapon. Swords were for professional soldiers and/or the wealthy.

[@Relikson]

I know the Spartans Xiphos was quite short and was really intended only to be used at distances you could not use a spear, basically when lines of infantry came into grappling/arms length distance with their shields pressed against each other and with other shoulders around, you shoulder to shoulder, you really didnt have room to use anything bigger.

[@hjorturerlend]

The xiphos becoming shorter was a function of time rather than location. There is no evidence that the Spartans used shorter swords than the other Greeks other than a Laconic clap back written down in the 2nd century AD by Plutarch. By the 3rd century BC the 30-40cm short xiphos seems to be the norm and if anything is correlated with the abandonment of hoplite warfare - one of the best depictions of the short xiphos is a terracotta figure of two Pergamese youths training with thyreos shields.

[@karloswald407]

when did the decorated cover for the dane axe show up? beautiful piece

[@petrapetrakoliou8979]

Bronze sword blades of 95 cm are not uncommon at least in the Carpathian basin: you find it in the Podhering hoard at the museum of Budapest (there is a new book dedicated to it and to bronze swords at the National Museum). So the limit to the length of a bronze sword may not be that determined by metallurgy, but perhaps by size of the warrior (sword lengths vary extremely in the same hoards).

[@samsonsoturian6013]

All weapons were personal arms at that time, meaning it's also a fuction of how rich a warrior was

[@UnbeltedSundew]

I think sword relates more to material science and metallurgy and their expected use, this is true not just between bronze and iron, but also iron and steel, and of course the quality that these materials could be produced at. For instance they couldn't build great big rapiers that were 4' to 5' long until the period they actually got invented. The swords had to be smaller and shorter to be strong enough and stay sharp enough enough to not get ruined through normal use. Or they had to be much heavier, which obviously doesn't work very well. If you wanted a longer sword you had to put it on the end of a stick. That said the development of weapons and defensive systems are always totally interrelated, they each respond to each other always and always at the same time.

[@mnk9073]

Big shields are used close to the body which means short swords, small shields you can use with a stretched out arm mean long swords or spears.

[@stefthorman8548]

small sword, big shield, small shield, big sword, for that Broze age sword, i would imagine an big oval shield, like those Zulu shields

[@DemianX6x6x6X]

i tend to agree, however i must point out that it seems to me that holding out a shield this far removed from your body seems more like its meant for duelling and not a tightly packed battle line

[@andyedwards9222]

I suspect the size of weapon and shield is based on mass and structural integrity. Sword length is limited by metallurgy. Generally people had swords as long as they could make and easily wield. Shields were similar. Obviously structural integrity is not an issue, you could build a shield the size of a barn door but you couldn't use it. So weight is the limiting factor. Lighter shields are more wieldy and can be held further from the body and large heavy shields closer. Sword construction often limits length, unless there was another factor - dictated use - Spartan and Roman shorter swords. Shield size and shape is governed by anticipated use - close/loose formation, foot or mounted. I believe the variations are independent they just often produce a pattern. Thought provoking topic.😊

[@JosephAllen-d2e]

I think it is a lovely belief. A spectacular belief. A belief above all others. The best belief. A stupendous belief that stands proud among competing alternatives that are positively mired in mediocrity.

[@silverjohn6037]

As an alternative theory that length of sword would be long enough to stab an opponent that's been knocked to the ground without having to bend over and expose yourself to an attack from one of his friends.

[@braddbradd5671]

Shorts swords are preferred today in London because its harder to carry a long sword around or conceal it

[@petrapetrakoliou8979]

I know of a Mycenaean rapier blade 74 cm long - many are probably longer. They are made of bronze and are very thin, reinforced by a central ridge.

[@graham6774]

Personally, whenever i lose my bronze tipped spear, i only use my sword until i can prize a spear from the dead hands of a worthy adversary. Then, I'm right back to spear.

[@smsfte4699]

Hasn’t Roland Warzecha said that in vining era sword/shield fighting it’s basically just shield vs shield contact until you finally develop an opening where you can use your sword? So you might not be fully extending your shield hand when delivering a cut.