Well, I'm sold. I definitely want a side-sword now.

I view the sidesword as the final evolution of the medieval arming sword, before it further develops down two diverging paths: into the rapier and eventually the smallsword; and into the basket-hilted broadsword. The first path focuses on point control and eventually loses so much blade mass that it can no longer deliver powerful cuts or parry heavier weapons. The second path develops such restrictive hand protection that it gives up the wrist mobility that allows for optimal alignment of thrusts from various angles. The sidesword is thus the last in that evolutionary tree that can do a little bit of everything.

Nice short overview of the side-sword, but there are a few points that aren't entirely correct. You said more complex hand protection starts to appear when heavy armor went out of favour, so around the mid to late 16th century. But complex hilts start to evolve from the early 15th century. The reason is that it came from an unarmored civillian context. In a warfare context however I agree with you that swords with protective hilts like the side-swod or the basket-hilted sword become more popular when heavy armor was less and less used. The other thing you said is that the rapier came after the side-sowrd. It is true that the first swords one could consider a side-sword came before the first rapiers but they coexisted for quite a while. It's not linear evolution from the side-sword to the rapier. Your example is based on a early 17th century sword. At that time rapiers were already a thing. They are different swords for different uses. As you mentioned, the rapier is a specialized dueling weapon where as the side-sword is more generalized and more practical as a side arm on the battlefield. The next thing is that rapiers CAN cut. It depents on the type of rapier it has to be said but early rapiers from the 16th century and early 17th century definitely have some cutting capacity. Of course they don't cat as well as an arming-sword or a side-sword, but they can cut. Later examples like the typical cup-hilt-rapier have little to none cutting capacity. Also I don't agree with the statement that the rapier blade wouldn't "survive" a block against a halberd strike. Earlier rapiers were design so that you could defent yourself against polearms, although it's far away from ideal. They were pretty long and quite heavy for a one-handed sowrd for that reason. The blade would most likely survive the blow but you wouldn't be able to BLOCK a powerfuls strike. A deflective parry however is possible I believe. You also said, thrusts are saver quicker and deadlier than cuts. They are quicker and deadlier but not saver. With a thrust you have to open up a leave yourself vulnerable . In contrast with a cut you always cover a line and it can always intefere with an opponents attack, making it generally saver. Dispite my crticism I agree with your general message that the side-sword is an exellent design for a multy-purpose-sword. It's good as a side arm on the battlefield and in civillian life and it should definitely be more represented in movies and video games etc. I also like the cutting/thrusting footage. :)

The side sword is my favorite sword. Bolognese swordsmanship is by far my absolute favorite.

sidesword and longsword are the epitome of sword design imo

It's basically a hybrid between a Arming sword and a Rapier.

Very cool and informative video! You gained a subscriber :>

the are functionally very similar to British backswords and broadswords.

I like your analysis and thesis. How would you compare the Sideword with an English Backsword as far as utility, effectiveness and all the rest?

Do you know who makes the specific sword featured in the video?