He does have a point. However I don't fully agree with all of his conclusions. That being one. We have some untouched examples that are more balanced closer to the hand at a little bit of weight in exchange. It can help if you need to thrust against maile. And help in terms of archaic steels. Alot do tend to be that way but not all. And even many are aren't are still rather exceptionally functioning swords. I personally feel there's sweet spots. And sometimes the longer light swords seem liked they'd be rather whippy. I think Roland warzecha showcases some examples on his channel including the Lightest viking era sword ever found. Intend to reproduce a few for testing. Idk if it's just how things work for me given wider range of interests and research, vs Peter johnsson has alot more specific research into certain types of originals. But he seems to always make hybrid designs, and they seem to have a little bit of the modern preferences hold overs. Basically we're just seeming a little bit of his bias due to modern situations. I also think another reason for the modern preference for pobs closer to the hand is many people don't fully understand the concept of you can slightly adjust your movements to a blade to tailor things to work better. If you move the blade or pivot it around the balance point with slightly different arcs and such you can pick alot of speed and nimbleness back up. Especially if the blade isn't heavy. Think both topics also come down to specific time periods and use cases as well. Someone using a sword and shield as a primary might want a sturdier sword then someone actually using it as a back up weapon. And now in modern times. Are you using something like 1050 to 1080s to simulate really good old steel. Or are we using 5160 or other super steels that can handle designs that wouldn't work with Historic steels very well and can handle abuse originals might not. I think some historic examples. Actually a decent few tbh, would kinda prove that going too long and forwards balanced while keeping it light as possible show cases you can end up hurting its function before it even breaks and also decrease its usability and durability in that sense.

Great to hear! I didn't know they had landed in the UK yet.

Oh? An affordable 1796 with good blade geometry? _Interesting._

Why am I just now finding this out??? 😠

Helmets are universally terrible in HEMA especially for long sword.

A better fencing mask would be a great idea, but surprisingly complex I think.

Anyone who's been watching Matt for a while might understand that. But it does bear mentioning here.

I'm American, but I've actually read about the saber of General San Martín. That particular type of saber is called a kilij or Mamluke, and they are actually Muslim swords. They originated in the areas of Ottoman and Persian influence, such as the Arabian Peninsula, Turkey, and North Africa, as well as Mughal India, in about the 1500s. During the Napoleonic Wars, they became VERY popular with European militaries, and many European officers carried them instead of their own standard issued sword. They became so popular with American officers of this period that the "Mamluke" would eventually become the official sword of the United States Marines. Anyway, General San Martín was no exception to this trend, and like most other officers in Western armies of his time, wanted to make this fashion statement as well! So he got himself one!😁

This sounds reasonable if for no other reason that one would tire quickly trying to swing a very long sword if it's center of mass were far from the grip. All of the extreme great swords I've watched people like Shad wave around look quite nimble for their size. Of course you don't want the center of mass too close in because you want a hit to have some momentum behind it, so I guess the takeaway is that things are never as simple as they seem, and everything is a compromise.

Not sure if Matt's had the same experience but over the years I've found that it's easier to understand "how to wield" a weapon so not just a sword by trying a few with different points of balance, shape and use. I started with Bo staves which are handled more like medieval polearms, you can feel the kind of "centres" of the weapon where they're meant to be turned, gripped or manipulated when they're used properly. Same pretty much goes for a sword, I started learning with the Katana and moved onto more European ones like the Longsword and there isn't really that much difference in use because they're not just balanced to work in a certain way but you can feel their "centres" which in most cases are at the pommel (where you accelerate it), the hilt (where your hands meet the blade so how you can grip it and direct it makes a big difference) and a few inches up the blade (where it needs to be moved to be used properly)

There's another comment above that mentions that a badly balanced sword will seem to bounce off a target when you go for a cut. I was thinking that the location of the center of percussion (the sweet spot in baseball bat terms) relative to the center of balance will strongly affect the feel of the sword as well. Ideally (naively?) I would want to use that sweet spot to strike a target in order to maintain perfect control, but obviously that isn't possible all the time. Just another sword physics thing to complicate matters. ;)

@@markfergerson2145 the biggest thing to practice is effectively moving the centres to connect at the centre of percussion properly yeah. Biggest mistake people tend to make is that they don't maintain edge alignment when they connect, that's why it looks like it's bounced off

I own a Finish university blade my grandfather got when he was made a doctor in Finland. This has a blade with edges and a point, but it is purely decorative, and the easiest way to tell is that it is horribly balanced. I measured it now, the balance point is 9" from the hilt on a 34" blade. That is actually within your approximate area, slightly further out, I expected it to be halfway or more down the blade. Despite this it feels awful in the hand - I think I would rather use a stick than this "weapon". Its very pretty tough.

Shad from Shadiversity has a video out, where he throws an axe. Not a Dane axe, and he's not an expert thrower, by any means, but perhaps worth a look? It's fairly recent, as in the last couple of months.

@@erikjrn4080 may take a look, thx! I've unsubscribed from him a while ago, when the foolishness became more than the actual content.

@@Gabrong I know what you mean about the foolishness. He's losing his focus and spinning a bit out of control, chasing the easy views.

A sword with the balance towards the hilt. Increases the nimbleness of the swords defense. Comfort and endurance for the hand. But it weakens the strength of the cut and point. With a hilt balanced sword. It’s entirely possible to lose because of a broken defensive posture. Against a heavier sword with more weight towards the tip. This actually was why the the scimitar was invented. A sword designed for duels. Wasn’t always successful on the battlefield. Although it’s lightweight and well balanced. Has superior speed and agility. Strength of arm and technique along with superior experience. Proved itself many times throughout history to win over finesse. Better technology wasn’t always an improvement or advantage over inferior weapons used by a larger force. The small sword and the rapier. Have a slightly more forward balance. Because they were thrusting weapons primarily. Used to stab from a distance or through defensive structures. The idea of the dueling swashbuckling swordsman. Was mostly fantasy from books. Works of fiction. The real battles were not long duels of two swordsman pitted against each other. Going up and down stairs like the three musketeers. They blew each other to smithereens. Using bombs, cannons and rifles. Swords were always a weapon if last resort. Even in the Middle Ages. Siege warfare was about artillery and starving the enemy out. Places where swords were mainly used were In a civilian setting against the public. That is why the balance is more towards the hilt. They were using it more for defense than attack. Probably against unarmed untrained civilians. A sword designed to actually fight or kill in battle. Is more like the claymore or scimitar. It’s designed not to break. Weighs more as a result. Even the Spatha or Falcutta swords of the Romans. Although short balanced more towards blade. The sword of Henry the fifth. A hollow ground archers short sword. Was designed for superior cutting. With a balance outwards of six to seven inches away from the hilt. Shield tactics and archery. Were more often the chosen battle strategy when it really came down to it.

@@fettmaneiii4439 Yeah, 'tis a shame. I specifically said to the bladesmith I wanted it as a chopper like a kukri.

A longsword, two hands, light weight, stances are with hands held close to the body on account of lesser hand protection. One handed swords less and those with complex hilts even more so, becouse more weight and those swords are often held far forward, will tire your shoulder quicker.

@@vedymin1 10x

Hey I was right.

Canon fodder is usually first 😉

@@thefacebiters Im not sure if I agree with that...Marines are the first to go in and the last to get out of the field...commandos are not usually expendable forces.

POB / COG by itself also doesn't tell you much about how a sword handles. Two swords with wildly different mass distribution can have exactly the same POB / COG

@@scholagladiatoria yup. This would fall under mass distribution but pommel shape and weight, and even grip length can drastically change how a rapier feels. I get triggered everytime someone says put a heavier pommel on a rapier

And you're absolutely right: if we don't pick nits, don't the vast majority of swords balance at between, oh, about 3 inches and 8 inches or so? That *is* a pretty narrow range for a an object of about a yard.

The sword will tell you what it wants to do, just listen and use it as it wants to be used.

@@jonathanh4443 This! 😁