LOL

Fuckin dead

I'm dying LMAO

Matthaeus Contextius!? lol Loving it! Tank you for brightening my day, Sir. You shall have my like and good day to you!

I'd say it was more of a thrust or jab ;)

What’s the context here?

What's the context here? (2)

@@JimCullen Cold Steel is known for making videos where they test their weapons, including by stabbing car doors with them.

"It'll thrust straight through war chariot doors"

Profit Margins....

Because it will also kick the price up even higher too

@@ElliFong i mean you could probably call them to make it if your rich enough ;P

they do offer scabbard service, that costs almost as much as their swords

@@MrPanos2000 That's ridiculous. I get that scabbards take time to make, but those shouldn't cost nearly as much as the swords. If they offer basic scabbard included with the sword and their service was for custom scabbards for that price, that's one thing. But that just feels like trying to take advantage of the customers

By and large Roman civilians were not allowed to carry swords, also in the republican time. So a civilian use could be only reserved to special opportunities. I'm curious to hear about it, too.

Outside the pomerium is different than inside. Also consider even the soldiers owned their swords. They were all private property. Most free households would have arms , though in old republic days the arms were supposed to be stored out in the plain of mars. Each city would have different laws based on the Roman law.

It's more that the Viking sword and Roman spatha evolved as sibblings or cousins from common Germanian and Gaulic ancestors.

@@SonsOfLorgar yes, but I would love to hear Matt's take on the subject.

@@Vincere.academia not sure there is much more about it. The Celtic and Germanic tribes had long sword types in use before the formation of the Roman army system (I think already in the bronze age) and the Romans had direct contact with Celts of the Po valley (and were at the receiving end of their raids and nearly one conquest) and adopted various weapons and equipment from them. Beyond that it is simply: Our cavalry needs a dedicated sword, it needs to be longer, what is out there, what is our style of making swords. While in Celtic, Germanic and subsequently Scandinavian regions it simply was: How do we improve our swords we learnt to construct from our ancestory? (which happen to be always longer as mostly used in individual combat) Then late Roman thinking: We change our army system so the infantry will fight more like those barbarians do in looser formation and thus need swords with longer reach so let's adopt the cavalry sword for them and oh, those barbarian auxillaries actually already train with similar style of swords so double win in equipping troops. So in short: The Germanic tribes always had swords like that, which is incidently why they call other type of blades not a sword but a knife or a seax regardless of how substantial or long those blades are because to them the definition of a sword was that specific type of weapon. They simply improved over time as smithing and metallurgy improved.

@@mangalores-x_x A lot of the tribes ended up fighting in the Legions though. I don't think the similarities are accidental. Late Roman thinking about swords was possibly down to the fact that the Empire had become split and their recruits and above all officers were no longer Roman in their military thinking. Constantinople was a long way from Rome.

@@mangalores-x_x I think is a little more complex than that. The "official" history is that the Romans took the gladius from the gallics tribes, but I belive thats not the complete history. You could see some greek influence in early gladius that look more like a xiphos. The greeks influenced big part of the itallic peninsule, the etruscans for example were part of that influence. And I belive that the spatha is developed using external influences more than a internal in a similar way. But, like I said before, I would love to hear Matt's take on the matter, because is he said something about it, is because he have some kind of "evidence" that made him think in that way

Especially regular vibrations like those you would get in a truck. The way we correct this in the modern day is with nylon inserts or glue, neither of which are good if you know you will need to tighten it.

@@matthewcallahan7209 blue thread locker is sufficient to prevent them from loosening, while still allowing them to be easily tightened by hand. Not historically correct, but effective.

Didn't that armour type come out well after this particular type of sword ? Would be somewhat anachronistic to pair them together no ? Also don't you mean Legionnaire, Centurion was a specific rank no.

clothar23 the Lorica Segementata was reserved for high ranking officers. Centurions or higher

@@overeasymode Based on pictural evidences from gravestones, centurions worn lorica hamata and lorica squamata, but not lorica segmentata.

I believe that will be reserved for next video with Metatron as special guest.

@@xinweiliu617 depends on the time, the Segmentata used from 10BC to the 4th century. But it was expensive, and I believe Metatron said it was reserved for high ranking officers.

I think that's a very good point, ancient aesthetics were likely much different than what we imagine them to be today. What to us would be goddy would have been considered very nice way back when.

Yeah, I agree bronze would be best.

tbf, brass (or at least other copper alloys than bronze) are not completely ahistorical in the Roman period. . . they were just uncommon and expensive. There are copper ores in the Eastern Mediterranean that naturally contain zinc and sometimes produced brass accidentally during smelting. These were identified by the Hellenistic period even if the process of producing brass would not really be understood until the late empire

@@nothim7321 that would be impossible as they have widely different characteristics, appereance and oxydize differently. Contrary to what our school teachers with heads still stuck in the Victoria period would have you believe, people werent stupid untill 1860 and then became genius. If anything, we are "slower" than our ancestors.

@@nothim7321 yeah, who'd a thunk it ;)

Brass was used for decorative fittings sometimes, and I think relatively often for Mainz gladii, consisting of 80 parts copper and 20 parts zinc. Also a lot of the metal fittings would have been tinned or silvered to the upmost shinyness. We have to take into account that the Romans, as most other ancient and medieval people, liked bright colors much more than we today.

exactly they are historical... but not sure on swords...

You could, but I don't really like any sort of plastic-like coating on wood. It spoils the grip and feel.

I can't think of any legal port that allow you to use sharp pointy weapons. If it was to protective gear in a port, the blade would be blunt.

While round shields were, in fact, used in gladiatorial combat, perhaps the most prominent gladius using "class" of gladiator was, to the best of my knowledge, Murmillo. Those used scuta. The most prominent round shield using class of gladiator was Hoplomachus, meant to imitate the Greek hoplites. Their main offensive weapon was a spear.

@@Someonestrange1000 Thanks, seems I had a false image in my head. Well, it might still be a fit, maybe for a Dimachaerus. But as I wrote before, I don't think that was what it was made for.

Gaunlets weren't invented yet in Roan times and simple leather gloves aren't that bulky

It's not lighter. The stats published online are wrong.

@@scholagladiatoria Well I naively trusted the Albion and The Knight Shop websites... Have you measured directly the stats of both gladii?

It only makes sense that the horses were shorter back then! j/k

@@FyremaelGlittersparkle actualy they where... a very big one was usualy around 15 hands; an average one around13-14 hands what we call poneys now.

Good point. Iron doesn't keep well.

It is only due to market flooding by cheap shinny stainless steel replica during the 80's and onward that mirror finish fell out of favor as having a "cheap wall hanger smell" to it. But from antiquity (or even prehistory, think polished stone axe...) up to 50 years ago, a sword buffed up to mirror finish was a sign of quality, high status and martial excellence. To our surprise, the romans would have undoubtly prefered that shinny shelack handle varnish (thinking that is was a top notch burnishing) and would have found the albion sword quite crude and second grade. They would have marveled at the screwed in tang too. There is tons of evidence for mirror polish preference, you can look up at the "song of Roland" it talks about the mirror polish of Durandal, but you can also look at period iconography like tapestries, the knight swords are often depicted with deep blue fullers, that's a mirror polish. Ancestral european written knowledge concerning age old techniques of smithing (including sword furbishing) has been kept in a french book called "Manuel de l'armurier" by Paulin Desormeaux (1832). Most of the techniques, material and tools disclosed in the book have been around for at least thousand year. In the manual, high polishing is considered as an integral part and final step of sharpening.

@@aryafeydakin Thanks for the detailed reply, man! And for providing sources. I'll check them out

how big are your hands?

Slaves XD

Adjudication

Bo. I've seen it in Muso Shindoryu, and it's a real pain to get into striking position with a sword against a competent staff fighter. The learning curve is quite unforgiving, though.

Bo is the staff that's shorter than a person? I would say longsword. Against a much longer quarterstaff I'd give it to the staff.

Well, for me it would come down to the fight parameters. Are the combatants armoured? Is the fight over after a hit or do you take the type of wound into consideration? I know, I know - a bo staff hit can break bones, but it has to be a hard one or perfectly hitting one, while a sword thrust or cut is in most cases much more severe. And as somebody mentioned already.. it also comes down to length (yea bois, that's right :p). A long sword against a short bo staff in my opinion is far superior. Against a quarter staff it changes drastically. Although, and that is why I brought up the fighting parameters, I'd gladly take a staff hit, if I can overcome my opponent and close distance to thrust through his body. Other way round... no thx :D

This might be of interest kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jK6Kfque1seUe40.html Sword vs Staff - basic test of principles, rather than combat

Yes, I have worked on product development with several companies and totally designed one with Kvetun. Whether Dynasty Forge will change any of the designs, I cannot say.

@@scholagladiatoria That's good

As someone who owns the cold steel gladius machete: *BAHAHAHAHAAHHAA* that things not historically accurate at all. If you want a cheap machete, it'll do (with some sharpening) but it is not historically accurate at all.

@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat what ?!?!? But the historical blade coating and natural high impact plastic handle screams historical.

Evidence suggest that people (in general) were about a foot shorter then they are now, compare that to Matt, a relatively tall person by today's standards. So its likely that their hands would be smaller than Matt's, with gloves their hands would be near to the same size as Matt's. From my guesterments There is a lot of left over handle on that sword, in any climate.

@@TheWok1336 a foot smaller!? Do you have sources on that? 30cm/a foot is a shit ton of height difference.

The problem is that usually the grips are not complete or totally missing in the findings, so it's difficult to judge. When looking at ancient depictions there is usually no room left between hand and pommel when a sword is gripped.

Surprisingly a lot of original Roman sword grips survive, so we have a fairly decent amount of data about their sizes - we also have the tang length from the blades. But there is the problem that we are bigger on average than them - I seem to recall the average height of people at Pompei is about 5'4". But as Wolfgang says, from the art it appears these hilts are supposed to be a snug fit to the hand. They also work better like that.

@@scholagladiatoria Thanks for the information. I tend to forget that on average that human are a bit bigger than they were.