Swords Were NOT Primary Weapons | Medieval Warfare Myths Debunked With Weapons Expert Matt Easton

James Hanson is joined by the weapons expert, antiques dealer and KZbinr Matt Easton to debunk five myths about Medieval Warfare. This is Times Radio History.
Remember to subscribe to Times Radio History: / @timesradiohistory
Matt Easton of Schola Gladiatoria covers military history from all periods, ancient to medieval to Victorian and WW1. ‪@scholagladiatoria‬
#ww2 #ww1 #timesradio #thetimes #history

[@scholagladiatoria]

A fun chat! Thanks for having me on.🤘

[@JamesMcCloskey]

Always great to have Matt Easton! 🗡🛡

[@Dominator046]

Here from Matt's social media. Glad to see Times Radio History have him on.

[@DanielGreen-j4c]

Captain Context strikes again! Bravo

[@garethfergusson9538]

Matt Easton is everywhere recently it's great

[@martinahager4931]

Please Continue like this. Wonderful.Maybe more graphic examples.

[@Farweasel]

Thanks Matt - You just caused me to realise WHY the Spanish 'Conquistador' metal hats were the shape they were A low velocity bullet's more likely to skate off a helmet which looks like a pointy ship's prow than one which looks like Endevour's 🤔

[@derstoffausdemderjoghurtis]

Really grateful for the host letting Matt give long-form answers withouth interrupting. It really ups the quality of the content. Wouldn't have visited this channel if it weren't for the choice of guest.

[@soupordave]

Captain Context!

[@MarcRitzMD]

Why didn't you use your great wireless mic, Matt!

[@HawkmanWalker]

Matt: "lets look at medieval art" The show: *shows a 19th century painting*

[@matthewmillar3804]

The way I look at sword and armour affordability would be car and house, respectively. Some people can only afford a run down apartment, others a mansion on the shore. Some people can only afford a rusty chevy, others a Ferrari. But go back far enough in history and cars are so rare that only the rich could afford them. No idea if that's right, but that's how I see it. 🤔

[@Fundas-bikes]

Absolutely loved this, talk about the ancient sling! It's hard to find information about it, I would love to know more about the historical facts regarding the slings

[@cal2127]

theres actually a good channel on ancient slinging

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

Read Jean Froissart for examples of slingers in medieval warfare. They saw use in large numbers & had some success.

[@keyenbentley8179]

I love both these channels 🙏

[@thelonelybolter8245]

Matt Easton GOAT ;)

[@dominicnzl]

16:36 looks like the crossbowstring will lob off his thumb when he looses the bolt

[@dogmaticpyrrhonist543]

"How do you know he's a King?" "Well, he's not covered in mud"

[@MbisonBalrog]

A spear is like Garand in WW2. The sword like Tommy gun. Or for Brits, Lee Enfield and Sten. Both spear and sword had roles.

[@derekthered687]

Host looks so disengaged and like he's going to fall asleep.... Seems like he just wanted short simple answers from Matt.... Which isn't how Matt is. 😂

[@HawkmanWalker]

I disagree a bit regarding handheld guns because in the Hussite Wars handheld guns were featured prominently & too big success by the hussites & Jan Zizka. Then we have the black army by Mathias Corvinus & his use of arquebuses

[@duchessskye4072]

I do not quite like the comparison of swords to pistols. A pistol is in the modern army not all too important - some armies don't standard issue pistols at all and there's rarely a situation in which a pistol serves better than a rifle. This is absolutely not the case with swords in medieval combat, of which all available sources tells us that they were expected to be used in more or less any engagement.They might be secondary weapons in that they're usually not what you go into the fight holding but regardless the expectation that you will lose/break/drop your primary arm and draw your sword is essentially always there without fail. Not only that, but the fighting getting so intense as to breaking your backup weapons is also expected. Knights usually carry two swords (one on the person and one on the saddle) and Pietro Monte suggests that on top of this also carrying two maces. Juan Quijada de Reayo in _Doctrina del Arte de la Cavallería_ shares his weapon progression preference which goes lance > estoc > arming sword > mace > dagger (with the statement that you move on to the next weapon when the previous breaks). This is why soldiers are almost invariably required to come armed with swords in equipment statutes of the time. They're expected to need them. That is why, if I am to give a modern analogue I'd call a polearm something like an MBT and a sword something like an IFV. Both are necessary as they both serve different roles and neither is more important than the other as they both contribute to a whole doctrine of engagement.

[@crimsoncrusader4829]

Or swords as Carbine/assault rifle and Polearm as MMG or mortar.

[@fridrekr7510]

Yes swords are more comparable to carbines or assault rifles. Most modern soldiers don’t rely on ARs as their primary weapon either, even in the infantry it’s typically AR + role specific weapon/equipment. I don’t understand why you want to compare hand weapons and vehicles though.

[@duchessskye4072]

@@fridrekr7510 mostly because I couldn't think of a better comparison, and imo the comparison fits on a different scale with the same underlying principle of utilizing several tools for the job.

[@breakerdawn8429]

Your analysis is so good actually

[@guygibson1957]

Really interesting.

[@Kadesbattleground]

Genoese crossbowmen would stake their pavise shield down and fire from behind it.

[@guygibson1957]

Any Battle of Agincourt analysis has to take into account that although the French knights were well covered against the longbow, their horses were less protected. Any info on horse armour Matt?

[@duchessskye4072]

Horse armour was not that common and most knights/men-at-arms would've not had barding. The ones who did would've had principally leather, with only a minority having something like mail. Plate barding in 1415 would've been exceedingly rare even among people with barding.

[@awilk418]

The cavalry charge was not the decisive portion of the battle at Agincourt though. The main French battle line advanced on foot after the initial disastrous cavalry charge.

[@scholagladiatoria]

The French had learned at Crecy and other earlier battles that cavalry charges against archers behind wooden stakes was a recipe for disaster, so they looked to other plans. The English archers traditionally deployed sharpened wooden stakes in front, exactly to protect from a cavalry charge. At Agincourt most of the French army fought on foot as a result, but there was a cavalry attack which was supposed to flank around the sides of the English army. This did not work because of the land chosen by Henry V, and that is partly why we have this scene in Shakespeare of the French cavalry attacking the English baggage/camp. Horse armour was a thing, but was expensive and restrictive for the horse, reducing their speed and increasing the amount of time it took to deliver a charge. That said, the French DID use armoured cavalry (Italian mercenaries) later on, against English archers, to great effect. It seems that barded/armoured-horse cavalry was highly effective against archers, but it was a huge and expensive resource to muster.

[@Vendell_23]

Daggers, poleaxe and warhammer was the go to weapon when fighting on foot

[@chengkuoklee5734]

Correction- dagger is backup weapon, not primary pick.

[@duchessskye4072]

Warhammers are absolutely not a go-to weapon when fighting on foot and we don't see them carried by footsoldiers almost ever - nor do we have sources implying they were popular picks even for knights when on foot.

[@justdl]

Metal on stick is the best.

[@TheReykjavik]

The idea that armor is better distributed than a backpack is pretty suspect. Certainly armor was designed to be as mobile as possible for a given level of protection, and that is largely done by putting as much of the weight as possible onto the waist. A well fitted backpack does the same thing, but weight on your forearms and on your feet is at the end of a lever arm and is very tiring, and armor has to deal with that where a backpack doesn't. Compare going for a run with a 5lb weight belt vs with 2.5lb weight around each ankle. If I had to march with 70lbs of kit, I'd rather it be in a good pack than distributed in a good suit of armor. An ill-fitting pack would be worse than well fitted armor, and ill-fitted armor would be the worst of all.

[@davidpnewton]

Could archers shoot through armour? Yes. Mail is armour and is extremely vulnerable to archers. Plate armour on the other hand? Much different proposition. Arm and leg plate absolutely could be and was pierced by arrows. Breastplates and helmets on the other hand? Absolutely NOT. It literally took a modern 131 lb draw weight compound bow to punch through a replica 15th century cuirass. That was done earlier this year. A 160 lb longbow absolutely could not have done that.

[@SAS1122334455]

as always presenter has a face like he's about to fall asleep

[@MbisonBalrog]

When I watch modern armored combat I see more swords than spears.

[@matthewmillar3804]

I think that's because it's safer to use swords and modern people are more risk-adverse. Not that that's a bad thing.

[@scholagladiatoria]

Modern armoured combat, such as seen in bohurt (eg. HMB, Battle of the Nations etc) forbids thrusts. Thrusts are the main way of killing armoured opponents, but of course if you forbid thrusts for modern sporting and safety reasons you will not see spears, which mainly thrust. Swords used in a historically correct way are used almost entirely differently to what is seen in bohurt, where the objective is really just to bash the armour and throw the person on the ground to get them out of the competition.

[@fridrekr7510]

They use swords because swords can easily be made safe, compared to spears, poleaxes, halbers, or even hand axes and maces. Don’t draw too much from modern sporting combat.

[@MbisonBalrog]

I disagree about swords. If you wearing full plate armor sword is better. Is more wieldy than spear. Since already wear full plate don’t need keep distance with spear. Heck you can grab spears with gauntlet. If you archer run out of arrows will you have a spear? No likely have sword.

[@garrenbrooks4778]

An archers primary weapon is a bow. The sword is their backup weapon.

[@MbisonBalrog]

@ when run out of arrows do they not join battle in another role?

[@jeremiahmiller3310]

Not really... when mounted as cavalry, it's going to be a lance. Sword is too small to do the big smashy stabby charge thing from horseback. And on foot, it's probably going to be a poleaxe, better for dealing with others like you in full plate. Sure, pull out the sword for less armored folks.

[@MbisonBalrog]

@ when off horse not using lance. In fact during early modern warfare cavalry had gun then used swords.

[@jeremiahmiller3310]

Yes, of course. And no one on the battlefields of that era was wearing full plate. Different jobs, different tools.

[@pancho1993]

Matt is so obnoxious, can't stand his channel.

[@fridrekr7510]

Do you happen to be one of Shad’s morons?