Medieval Weapons

[ttaskmaster]

Just watched Matt Easton's videos (all 3!) on sword vs quaterstaff... Can anyone sumarise why his views have been trashed as they seem quite logical and well thought out to me... Especially as he has experience of sparing in this area.

Matt teaches sword systems. He has some experience of those, but even then it's more 19th century fencing rather than medieval combat. His main medieval system is Fiore, whose work features very little staff anyway.
He spends a good deal of time hosting 'cutting parties', where people bring their swords along and practice cutting open fruit and water-filled plastic bottles mounted on posts, presumably to prove how good their swords are at cutting...

His claims to HEMA organisations are less than stellar, given how those he supposedly founded these organisations with have all broken with him and gone their own way, even fellow Fiore practitioners and instructors. Matt also has a history of sending his students "undercover" to these other schools to spy on them and see how they were doing things, before adopting what he could glean. James 'Spanker' Marwood was one who did the rounds.

In short, Matt has no idea how the staff works and almost zero experience of it.
For example, in his very first video he explains how a staff "might break bones but not do any significant damage like a sword can"... If you really think you can even hold a sword after your hand or wrist has been broken, or that you can still stand and fight with your knee joint busted apart, you're kidding yourself.
That's just the first minute or so and already a fundamental flaw 'to his way of thinking'.

If you want a blow-by-blow breakdown of the whole series, I'll have to sit down and watch them all, but from recallection the majority of this stuff is a recycling of select remarks (never the entirety, or the explanations behind them) from other HEMA type instructors, as well as some random ill-considered findings of his own pondering.
For someone that knows nothing of martial arts, this can seem to make sense - A little knowledge, and all that, especially when you don't have the entire argument in opposition. But anyone with a basic understanding of weapons can see the flaws in his argument.
Many of his arguments go that way, selectively omitting anything too in-depth that might disprove his assertions. "Some people might argue that XYZ....", rather than everyone but Matt arguing that XYZ because it's been proven time and time again, in fight manuals and by modern instructors, to the point where it's common knowledge among practitioners.

Truth is, the whole series is how he reckons things go, rather than any working knowledge of them.
I do know he has had a couple of goes against staff with other instructors and that he walked away throughly put in his place. Stephen Hand and Paul Wagner suffered similar fates, but unlike Matty, these two took their experiences on board, re-examined their research and returned with some pretty good work that stood up well to testing.
Matt, on the other hand, ended up posting over 10,000 posts a year (on the SFI forum alone, so likely more on others) challenging everyone elses' works and bigging himself up, to the point of outright lying. I suppose the theory being the louder you shout everyone else down, the more others will believe you.

There is a "martial artist" out there called Mike Loades. You might remember him from Weapons That Made Britain on TV. Mike is primarily a fight director for film and TV. In WTMB, he claimed there are "no sources of English fighting methods, but they probably used something like this:", whereupon we cut to training scenes of Talhoffer's German Longsword, the one system he himself has studied. The claim was shot with him stood on the steps of the British Library where several examples of English fight treatises, the very thing he denies the existence of, are kept and are available to be viewed!!
Matt Easton is along similar lines to Mike Loades, but more prolific in posting his opinions around and far more whiny about everything.

If you want lots of witter and how someone "imagines" martial arts work, go to Matt Easton.
If you want a good and proven understanding, especially of quarterstaff, you want the likes of Terry Brown, Frank Docherty, Chris Myers, or any number of other instructors.

I do wonder if there has been a bit of romanticism about the quarterstaff among some groups who do this reenactment stuff and/or combined with the effect he described (some guy with a quarterstaff keeping three swordsmen at bay by tapping them with the staff when in reality, against real swords it isn't so realistic)

Have a go with one, then. Figure it out for yourself. Plenty of instructions in correct staff usage, even online.

Early Roman armies had spearmen (hastati), but that was before Rome had the highly trained professional standing army it became famous for. By those days, the hastati were still called hastati but had changed to using swords because that was better.

So why did armies stop using Roman tactics and weapons, if they were any good?
I mean, a whole shield wall/testudo thing, impregnable and with just swords to stab with in close range, sounds ideal, no? Any half-decent opposition armed with billhooks would rip that formation to shreds. Much of the tactic would be pulling open the shields while your mates thrust and cut in, especially if the Romans only have little swords... I could understand it if they had spears

So why did the Romans drop that in favour of cavalry?
Why did Principes carry two spears as well as a gladius?
Triarii too carried spears (but not a gladius) and were considered the last line of defence. How come?
Legionnaires and Centurions carried a pillum or two. Why would that be?
I also understand the Hastati later on had to carry a gladius in addition to their spear(s)?

I don't actually know much about the Romans themselves, but a quick look for weapons and tactics brought ^that lot up. Please feel free to explain a bit more about how and why they felt swords were better. Genuinely interested.

I'd expect the same sort of thing with staves, since it would still be very important to avoid being hit, although maybe not so much because it's blunt force rather than point or edge.

So being stabbed with a little penknife is more dangerous than being hit with, say, the front of a bus, because the penknife is sharp and the bus is blunt?
It's not about how pointy your weapon is, it's about the AMOUNT of force you hit with. 200lbs of blunt force is still 200lbs compared to ten or twenty with a sword.
And no, I've no idea what the exact numerical differences are between the two weapons, but I'm betting a staff is a good 3-4 times that of even the sharpest sword. I wouldn't even know what machines you'd use to measure it.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Excellent thread. Trying to determine a scientific experiment. Where's the flaw in my thinking: two kendo practitioners (who appear very similarly armed and armoured to the guys in the first YouTube video posted) bout. One scores with any touch (our "sword fighter") and the other scores only with hits hard enough to cause blunt force trauma (our "staff fighter"). By all accounts somehow the 2nd guy should win every time.

Take away their armour and have each one hit full speed full power, hard as they like.
Let each know that hits are for real and will hurt, you'll see a dramatic change in the way they fight!

For example, a quarterstaff could be used to deflect an attack from a sword with one end and almost immediately counter-attack with the other end. A skilled wielder can change grip and direction surprisingly quickly and the length is such that it could even be one movement,

Better to avoid changing grips and slowing yourself down. Ward with the quarter grip and strike from that position. Not only is it faster, but you'll occupy the space, keep yourself free from harm and likely wheel the end round for a far more powerful strike, while still landing your hit before the swordsman can recover from being warded.
This assumes you're holding the staff properly in the quarter grip, not halfstaffing like Little John, or something.

Looking at it the other way, a deflected blow from a sword could be rapidly changed into a cut along the staff into the wielder's hand, which is unprotected.

Most staff stops and wards do not deflect. They either stop the weapon dead before it even reaches full force, in which case the sword must withdraw and attack again, or they batter the weapon very wide off the line of attack... both of which give the staff the 'initiative' and create the opening through which the staff may attack. That's also the reason why they are called stops and wards, rather than 'blocks'.

Blunt force weapons are far worse in that respect. You can't undo that or counter it with armour to an extent that would be acceptably safe. If you make the weapon a realistic weight and weight distribution, it's too dangerous. If you don't, it's not accurate. Maybe a simulation?

Even most children can manage to pull their blows. You simply tense your muscles and stop the weapon. It takes far more training to develop power and speed. But if you can stop your blows and control that, you may fight safely with minimal padding. Speed dictates who hits first and from there it's obvious from the amount of power each weapon has which wins.

 

[Edrof]

Snip.

Regarding Matt Easton: attack the argument not the man - otherwise it comes across as petty to neutrals like me. His videos are reasonably presented and it's clear that he opines, not lectures. Cutting practice is surely essential in teaching edge-alignment - an extremely important part of swordsmanship, I don't see what's wrong with that. Lastly, I've been an SFI member for years and I can say right now he doesn't post 10,000 times on any subject at all.

In regard to the Roman Army - pila are not comparable to quarterstaves in any way as they both have different uses; I'm not sure what you mean with the cavalry reference. Are you trying to say that swords are not very good when you subsequently list the ranks? To say a "half-decent opposition armed with billhooks" would easily destroy a Roman Army is bizarre, frankly. In their high period, the Romans created an efficient and terrifying meat grinder of a martial system and it was extremely effective. That machine involved all manner of weapons.

 

[The IPB]

I thought his points were fair, he doesn't ever say it's a bad weapon, in fact he says repeatedly it's a good weapon.

I know I would rather take a full whack on the arm with a stick, rather than a sword. That's for sure.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Regarding Matt Easton: attack the argument not the man - otherwise it comes across as petty to neutrals like me.

That was the general aim, but with some background on him and his level of expertise as to why I find his opinions mostly *****.
If you want a direct breakdown on these specific three videos then, as mentioned, I'll have to sit down later and go through them.

His videos are reasonably presented and it's clear that he opines, not lectures.

His opinions still come from his own very limited understanding of the weapon and half-understood, misquoted information from that of others, though. This latter aspect, where he brings up what "some might argue" and then defeats them is almost strawman logic, as the points said people are arguing are not the actual points he's defeating...

Cutting practice is surely essential in teaching edge-alignment - an extremely important part of swordsmanship, I don't see what's wrong with that.

Not really, IMO.
Even most semi-reasonable swords are made with grips that naturally align the cutting edge with your knuckles anyway, so it's not exactly difficult. But at the end of the day, it's still 3' of steel and if you're not 100% pinpoint-precisely aligned with your target, you're still going to carve into it. If that weren't the case, how come people don't need years of practice in order to split logs with an axe?
Even in Iaito, edge-alignment is mostly for precision displays, not for combat. Certainly I've never found it to be any kind of factor in all the systems I've encountered.

Lastly, I've been an SFI member for years and I can say right now he doesn't post 10,000 times on any subject at all.

On one, no, but we all watched as his post count went up and up, to the point where we wondered if he actually had a job. We did clock him at over 10k in one year.

In regard to the Roman Army - pila are not comparable to quarterstaves in any way as they both have different uses

Both are still long weapons, with the implication that keeping the enemy distant is better than letting them get close enough for a shortsword.

I'm not sure what you mean with the cavalry reference.

Some of the lengthy articles on the changes to Roman military structure spoke of reducing these hastati types in favour of increased cavalry numbers, armed with spears instead of gladiuses (gladii?).
If the sword is so much better, why give spears to cavalry and other troops?

Are you trying to say that swords are not very good when you subsequently list the ranks?

I'm suggesting that what little I know and found regarding Roman tactics is more conducive to the longer spear-type weapon than the very short gladius. Therefore it makes little sense to me to assert that the sword is better.

To say a "half-decent opposition armed with billhooks" would easily destroy a Roman Army is bizarre, frankly.

I didn't say that.
I specifically said that billhooks would tear apart a shield formation. Because they did. Did rather well against shield and pikes too, from what I've read.

I know I would rather take a full whack on the arm with a stick, rather than a sword. That's for sure.

Having been hit with both, even with seriously heavy padding and full plate, I wouldn't go near even an amateur with a staff.

 

[Dis86]

This thread is comedy gold. Keep it coming!

 

[The IPB]

Having been hit with both, even with seriously heavy padding and full plate, I wouldn't go near even an amateur with a staff.

Do you have one arm now ?

 

[ttaskmaster]

Do you have one arm now ?

No, but I do have a rather knackered knee, from one of those "light taps" off a staff.
The sword did not even cut through the padding, incidentally.

 

[Angilion]

So why did armies stop using Roman tactics and weapons, if they were any good?

i) They stopped having very large, very well organised permanent standing armies of professional soldiers.
ii) They used them as much as they could in those changed circumstances. De Re Militari was a huge influence and pretty much a standard text during the middle ages.

I mean, a whole shield wall/testudo thing, impregnable and with just swords to stab with in close range, sounds ideal, no? Any half-decent opposition armed with billhooks would rip that formation to shreds. Much of the tactic would be pulling open the shields while your mates thrust and cut in, especially if the Romans only have little swords... I could understand it if they had spears

That would be fine if the legionaries stayed out of sword range and let you kill them, which isn't likely.

A testudo was designed for use against ranged weapons, not melee weapons.

Romans adapted their military in response to changes in terrain and enemies. It wasn't entirely static.

So why did the Romans drop that in favour of cavalry?

When did they do that? Cavalry certainly has its uses but it's not a plug-in replacement for infantry and Roman armies were always centred on infantry. They always had cavalry, but they used it as cavalry and not as replacement infantry (which it isn't and can't be).

Why did Principes carry two spears as well as a gladius?

They didn't. This isn't an RPG where you can run all day carrying a dozen large weapons without any encumbrance.

Pila, yes, though the number is uncertain (1 or 2? Probably 2). But not spears.

Triarii too carried spears (but not a gladius) and were considered the last line of defence. How come?

Because they were. So much so that it entered the language - "it has come to the triarii" entered general usage to signify that something had gone badly and there was no backup after this.

Also, a triarius carried a sword as well as a spear. And they were phased out in favour of all legionaries being armed with sword and shield. Because that worked better.

Legionnaires and Centurions carried a pillum or two. Why would that be?

Because it was often useful to be able to make an initial ranged attack on an enemy at a short distance. Throw pilum, go in with sword and shield before the enemy unit has recovered. Pila were also quite effective at decreasing the usefulness of an enemy's shield. They were designed to pierce and then bend - look at how thin the metal shaft is behind the head. Now imagine trying to get a bent one out of your shield in the few seconds you have before the front rank of the legionaries hits you. You can't. Do you keep your now rather encumbered shield? Do you drop it? Either is bad.

I also understand the Hastati later on had to carry a gladius in addition to their spear(s)?

Before switching to sword and shield only. Because it worked better. They would have had a sword from the start if they could, anyway. Even in a unit intended to fight with six foot spears, it's useful to have a backup close quarters weapon and a sword can be worn with little inconvenience unless it's a lot bigger than Roman infantry swords were.

I don't actually know much about the Romans themselves, but a quick look for weapons and tactics brought ^that lot up. Please feel free to explain a bit more about how and why they felt swords were better. Genuinely interested.

The guts of the reason is winning or losing battles. They adapted in response to results and they found that a standing army of highly trained professional soldiers armed with sword and large shield with short range specialised javelins for throwing immediately prior to hand to hand fighting with sword and shield worked best as the core of their army.

So being stabbed with a little penknife is more dangerous than being hit with, say, the front of a bus, because the penknife is sharp and the bus is blunt?

Eh? I see no connection between that bizarre question and what I wrote.

It's not about how pointy your weapon is, it's about the AMOUNT of force you hit with. 200lbs of blunt force is still 200lbs compared to ten or twenty with a sword.
And no, I've no idea what the exact numerical differences are between the two weapons, but I'm betting a staff is a good 3-4 times that of even the sharpest sword. I wouldn't even know what machines you'd use to measure it.

So you're making numbers up and assuming that every hit with a quarterstaff is with maximum force, full swing, full distance of movement.

You're also ignoring the fact that a sword is sharp. That's wildly unrealistic because being sharp is pretty much the whole point of a sword if it's being used as a weapon. The blunt force impact of a sword might also be harmful but it's not the main thing.

It doesn't require "200lbs of blunt force" to cut into a person's thigh and cut their femoral artery with a sharp blade.

It doesn't require "200lbs of blunt force" to get a sharp point through a person's abdominal muscles.

Etc.

Sword fighting isn't only about mostly nude muscular barbarians wielding completely blunt sword-shaped clubs 6 feet long with heroic force. That's a subset of heroic fantasy. In reality, swords were sharp. Usually at the end as well as one or both edges.

EDIT: I see you referring to wearing plate armour. It's true that really good full plate armour is bordering on invulnerable to blades. The really good kit had pretty much no gaps that could be even thrust into, let alone cut into. But that didn't come about until the 15th century and was extremely expensive even when it did exist. Earlier full plate armour had at least some gaps and even that came fairly late in the medieval period. The cost of full plate armour was always far too high for it to be practical to equip every soldier in an army with it.

Metal armour, even just a mail shirt, is certainly very useful in protecting the wearer against sharp weapons. But it wasn't invulnerability, with the possible exception of the top of the range custom made full plate armour of the very end of the medieval period.

 

[Angilion]

No, but I do have a rather knackered knee, from one of those "light taps" off a staff.
The sword did not even cut through the padding, incidentally.

You were fighting with properly sharpened swords of appropriate hardness? Why?

 

[Angilion]

Take away their armour and have each one hit full speed full power, hard as they like.
Let each know that hits are for real and will hurt, you'll see a dramatic change in the way they fight! [..]

Even most children can manage to pull their blows. You simply tense your muscles and stop the weapon. It takes far more training to develop power and speed. But if you can stop your blows and control that, you may fight safely with minimal padding. Speed dictates who hits first and from there it's obvious from the amount of power each weapon has which wins.

Two contradictory statements regarding the same scenario (the experiment garnett proposed). Which one do you mean?

Also, you're still ignoring sharpness. But only in a very restricted context. I very much doubt, for example, that you divide your food into pieces of a size convenient for eating by bashing it with a length of wood until it's pulped. You probably cut it. With a sharp edge. Because you do understand that cutting and piercing exist.

 

[ttaskmaster]

That would be fine if the legionaries stayed out of sword range and let you kill them, which isn't likely.

If all they have is a sword and shield, they have no choice - Closing to sword range breaks the shield wall and leaves their buddies open. Staying in teh wall allows the polearmed opponents to close and rake the wall open.

A testudo was designed for use against ranged weapons, not melee weapons.

Presumably after the archers and artillery and cavalry and everything have done their jobs, though, there's still some close-in fighting? Why else would they need swords, with all that backing them up?

When did they do that? Cavalry certainly has its uses but it's not a plug-in replacement for infantry and Roman armies were always centred on infantry. They always had cavalry, but they used it as cavalry and not as replacement infantry (which it isn't and can't be).

I'd have to go though my history, but it was one of the changes some emperor (I think) made, around the time the Hasti blokes had to start carrying a gladius. Their numbers were reduced and the cavalry were increased.

They didn't. This isn't an RPG where you can run all day carrying a dozen large weapons without any encumbrance. Pila, yes, though the number is uncertain (1 or 2? Probably 2). But not spears.

What's the (Roman) difference?
Pila look to be shorter but about the same weight as an average spear, with more metal.

Because they were.

No, how come the last line is still a distance-favouring pole weapon?

They were designed to pierce and then bend - look at how thin the metal shaft is behind the head.

There seems to be some disagreement between historians over whether or not that is a myth.

Do you keep your now rather encumbered shield? Do you drop it? Either is bad.

If my lot had polearms, I'd have them drop the shields and present a bristling wall of death, personally.... unless they had overly long things like pikes, which are too awkward for infantry work.

Even in a unit intended to fight with six foot spears, it's useful to have a backup close quarters weapon and a sword can be worn with little inconvenience unless it's a lot bigger than Roman infantry swords were.

Which has been my assertion regarding swords from the beginning.
It's also an assertion that, as times changed, shields were abandoned as melee weapons in favour of reach and damage, which is why you see things like the Tudor army using polearms, being itself a standing professional body with some of the most advanced military kit available.

The guts of the reason is winning or losing battles.

The core... but they had archers, slingers, artillery, cavalry and probably more, also working in support. Presumably they'd destroy much of the opposition before these guys even closed to distance?

Eh? I see no connection between that bizarre question and what I wrote.

"Not as important to avoid being hit because it's blunt force rather than point or edge".
The issue not being whether it's pointed or not, so much as it being a lot more force in the first place.

So you're making numbers up and assuming that every hit with a quarterstaff is with maximum force, full swing, full distance of movement.

Using numbers for the sake of analogy. It wasn't meant to be anything other than illustrative. If you want exact values, get me something with which to measure.

But yes, if you have an opening and you're going to attack with a staff, there's no reason not to use full force. Kinda the same with a sword, in fact, as anything less is a waste of an opening.

You're also ignoring the fact that a sword is sharp.

It won't cut metal. It won't slice through chainmaille. It won't cut through thick padding.
Even if the staff's force doesn't break your ribs or shatter your arm through the padding, it can still knock you to the ground, at which point you're in serious trouble in a fight.

The point is that being sharp or not, both weapons can kill, so it's equally important to avoid being hit by either one!

In reality, swords were sharp. Usually at the end as well as one or both edges.

I know... I'm a big fan of that, specifically both edges.
What's your point?

You were fighting with properly sharpened swords of appropriate hardness? Why?

They were sharp, certainly. Some things you just do, mainly to test techniques (or in our case armour). Just like how some techniques just won't work without full force behind them, or as near as you can get without killing your training partners, obviously.

Two contradictory statements regarding the same scenario (the experiment garnett proposed). Which one do you mean?

Two different contexts.
Generally one does not use full power with the intent to kill their opponent during training, instead opting for control, so allowing you to forego full body armour, if you so choose.

But in that same scenario, it teaches the habit of pulling blows, which is one area where many martial artists fall foul in real fights. It also removes the fear of being hit, because in each fighter's mind their opponent will pull their blows. Same as having loads of armour - People don't fear the hits and they make silly moves in sparring which generally don't get them especially hurt.

If you take away that safety by removing their armour and allowing full power blows, it forces the fighters to fear getting hit. They avoid getting hit and so practice the principles and techniques properly.
Same as if you put a motorcyclist on their bike without lid & leathers - They will feel far more vulnerable, simply from that lack of protection.

I very much doubt, for example, that you divide your food into pieces of a size convenient for eating by bashing it with a length of wood until it's pulped.

And I very much doubt you hammer a nail into wood, or smash up concrete blocks with a knife....
What's your point?
Both are equally dangerous.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Regarding Matt Easton: attack the argument not the man - otherwise it comes across as petty to neutrals like me. His videos are reasonably presented and it's clear that he opines, not lectures.

As requested:


- 'Lack of hand protection'... Matt does mention slipping the staff and moving the hand out the way. Unfortunately he does not actually demonstrate this in any useful fashion, instead opting to move his weapon completely off-line and leaving a notable opening. He doesn't even mention the staffman simply moving himself, as would be the easiest and most usual thing to do while also keeping your weapon on-line and able to strike or defend. His assumption seems to be that the staffman would stand there and allow himself to be hit.
Furthermore, his idea of the basket hilt offering a little protection is correct... but it also makes it a larger target and so more easily put aside with a ward or an attack, so not the advantage he perhaps thinks.

- 'The staff doesn't do an awful lot of damage'... As mentioned previously, Matt seems to think broken legs, hands, ribs or a collarbone does not incapacitate. I can only guess he has never had broken bones, especially while having to fight afterward. He further underestimates how much damage a staff can actually do, likely from limited experience in a safe classroom scenario with controlled hits. This is a weapon famed for dishing out damage, not just fracturing, but utterly shattering bone and rupturing internal organs. Most people would be on the floor at this point, or at the very least unable to still hold their weapon, so either Matt is Superman, or his assertion about the staff not incapacitating an opponent is flawed. I suspect the latter, since he contradicts this with his own finding in a later video.

He further goes on about the weight of a staff and how sufficient weight to deal damage slows the staff. A common argument he has heard from fellow practitioners is that they use ash or oak to add weight and so deliver greater force - Whilst this does slow the staff *a little* when compared to featherweight rattan, which Matt points out he is using, it does not slow the staff especially significantly. The reason Matt has heard this argument from others so often is because it holds up. Matt himself may not be able to get any decent speed from a heavier staff, especially the way he was twirling his rattan in the videos, but plenty of others can (both historically and in modern times), which is why he meets this argument so often - It was true back then and it's true now.
Moreover, while a sword hand may seem to have a little less distance to travel and thus appears faster, the staff is used to keep the opponent far away enough to give the staffman time to hit. Moreover, used properly, while the staff tip travels further to move around an opponent's defences, the basic leverage in using it actually moves the staff much faster, part of the reason it can move around defences in the first place. Again, he goes toward contradicting this with his own findings later on.

- 'The staff has no force'... Matt thinks putting an arm up to stop a quarterstaff strike will only result in a broken arm. Far more likely the arm will be shattered and be battered down as the strike continues through to hit the head anyway. Anyone who does not believe this is welcome to test this theory!!!
The basic principle leverage that gives the staff such speed is also what gives it the capacity for immense power - You hold the lead hand fairly stationary and move the back end with your rearmost hand - A short, sharp movement at the back end will shift the front end much further and very fast, roughly 3-4 times the distance, if I had to guess.
Anyone with a basic understanding of physics will see how this creates immense speed and from this I'm sure they can see how that kind of weight moving that fast will hit with significant force. Matt even demonstrates this in the videos with his rattan stick, so how he cannot see the amount of force he'd generate with very little effort at his end is just nonsensical. Also part-contradicted later when he explains how a mere thrust with a lightweight staff put his students flat on the floor.

- 'Safe sparring'... Yes, people generally will be tapping lightly with the 'practice' staff. Same reason behind tapping lightly with practice swords - If they were to hit full on, they'd kill people. In general, a lot of HEMA systems put emphasis on moving out the way of incoming hits rather that stopping or blocking them. As a result, accidental hits are relatively uncommon and so more accomodating of 'full contact'. But in case of an accidental hit, students are still taught to pull their strikes to avoid seriously injuring their fellows, often resulting in 'taps' to still make it clear a hit has landed. If you can lansd a tap on someone, you're just as able to smack them full-on.
If people being careful during training is Matt's best evidence of how a staff supposedly does such little damage in a real fight, he either should stick to D&D or go get hit with one for real.

- 'You can wear/carry a sword'.... So what?
You can wear/carry a pistol. Doesn't make it a superior weapon when battling against against a .30cal machine gun. The sword is most often a back-up weapon in battle and usually prohibitively expensive outside of that. How that is an advantage over teh staff during a fight, unless your opponent chose to wear a scarf that day instead of wearing his staff, is unclear... and a bit off topic, really.

- 'Why carry a staff, when you can carry a staff with a bit of pointy metal'... again, such things cost and could be seen as weapons or even symbols of authority, while a simple 'walking stick' is nigh-on free and was not immediately offensive. Swords were often banned, as were many other weapons, especially among the peasantry. Even farm tools like a forest bill have no place in a town centre or down the local tavern, for example. You can carry a staff, as people did and it's a very effective weapon, as evidenced by how many people were tried for killing with one.
Historical context matters... and still doesn't address the contest of staff against sword.

- 'Silly snooker cue style thrust around 3:20'.... Yeah, OK, that works to illustrate a point, but that isn't exactly how one would normally thrust with a staff, even one-handed. He then goes on to now explain how the staff does have a lot of power... Matt seems inconsistent in this respect, even now admitting it can disable an opponent.

- 'A decent strike with a sword will cause more damage than an average strike with a staff'... Firstly, if ever you have an opening to attack, why would you waste it on an 'average' strike with any kind of weapon? Secondly, the very advantage that even Matt agrees upon in that the staff is able to keep the sword out of range pretty much negates however good the sword might be. A weapon is useless if you cannot reach to use it.

'Thrusting with the staff'... So again Matt points out the kind of force even a rattan staff can inflict, in some cases putting the opponent flat on the floor, with a mere thrust... yet has previously insisted the 'cut' strikes have very little force...

Matt's summary - "Staves are in fact superior against swords, but not as good as more elaborate polearms... but it's not fair to compare a staff to a sword... but the staff isn't a weapon anyway"...
So it began as sword against staff in a fight, but then instead became about each weapon's merit as a choice of weapon??!!


There seems to be a trend of people responding to Matt's various videos, calling him on both the information presented and the opinion thus derived.
I think the most reasonable in this case is Martin Austwick, a long term practitioner himself and Matt's own brother-in-law:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC4f_uAgwYU

 

[wolfie138]

this thread needs an episode of Deadliest Warrior.

 

[=XDC=FluphyBunny]

Well. Against expectations but this thread delivered.

It has been a while since I studied History but I did always have an interest in medieval weaponry. Maybe its an age thing, but I am failing to remember the battle of >anywhere< won by the invincible stick wielders. Could some one link me please as that would be a great read.

 

[Angilion]

Well. Against expectations but this thread delivered.

It has been a while since I studied History but I did always have an interest in medieval weaponry. Maybe its an age thing, but I am failing to remember the battle of >anywhere< won by the invincible stick wielders. Could some one link me please as that would be a great read.

And back in civilian life we apparently had a large proportion of people routinely carrying rigid staves at least 7 feet long and at least an inch thick (and usually longer and thicker than that). Around town all the time. In the market, in the tavern, everywhere all the time as a normal part of daily life in town. I wonder where all those staves were kept in taverns. They probably wouldn't even be able to stack them upright. There would have to be a relatively large room just for staff storage. Shopping would be a problem - many medieval shops were far from large enough to have several people inside them with poles 7, 8, 9 feet long.

Bladed polearms on the battlefield. Clubs (which could be called staves - there wasn't an ISO number for minimum length) in the streets. But not quarterstaffs. Not routinely.

Staffs? Staves? I think both are right.

 

[ttaskmaster]

And back in civilian life we apparently had a large proportion of people routinely carrying rigid staves at least 7 feet long and at least an inch thick (and usually longer and thicker than that).

"I might here speak of the excessive staves which divers that travel the way do carry upon their shoulders whereof some are twelve or fourteen foot long besides a pike of twelve...."
(Description of England. William Harrison 1534-93)

there wasn't an ISO number for minimum length

Length is tailored to individual stature:

"You shall stand upright, holding the staff upright close to your body with your left hand, reaching with your right hand youre staffe as high as you can, and then allow to that length a space to set both your hands when you come to fight, wherein you may conveniently strike, thrust and ward, and that is your just length to be made according to your stature. And this note, that those lengths will commonly fall out to be eight or nine foot long"
George Silver, 1598

Staffs? Staves? I think both are right.

Pretty much, yeah.

 

[Lowe]

Been enjoying the discussion here.

Made me remember this video when a few of the lads/ladies at my Jujitsu club picked up some of the training weapons and had a laugh one of the afternoons. The staff certainly won in this case haha!

https://youtu.be/wVvs8dMV_tM?t=70

 

[Roar87]

Staves aren't practical because you need space to swing them, which you most likely wouldn't have in the midst of a large battle. Also while you're wielding a stave you can't hold a shield to defend yourself against projectiles like arrows, stones and spears which would commonly feature in any medieval or earlier battle. Is a stave a great weapon if you have lots of room to swing it? Sure. As other people have pointed out though, you don't often hear about large armies of men armed with staffs for a good reason.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Staves aren't practical because you need space to swing them, which you most likely wouldn't have in the midst of a large battle.

So why on earth, then, did they have so many different types of polearm featuring cutting edges that also 'need to be swung'?
I mean, if they were so restricted and all.... I assume they were stood shoulder to shoulder and could only stab with pointy ends of swords, then?

Also while you're wielding a stave you can't hold a shield to defend yourself against projectiles like arrows, stones and spears which would commonly feature in any medieval or earlier battle.

What, like the Tudor Army, for example?
Have a quick google on that, tell me how many shields you see there.
Heck, have a look at the Bayeux tapestry or medieval armies in general, see how many two-handed pole weapons you see.

As other people have pointed out though, you don't often hear about large armies of men armed with staffs for a good reason.

It was relatively cheap and easy to stick a halberd or bill head on, yes.
And yet contemporary authors still list the longstaff as a battlefield weapon in fight manuals. Why on earth would they do such a thing, if it were not true...? Is it a conspiracy? Are they lying to the fellow countrymen upon whom they rely for their defence? Are they "teaching them wrong on purpose, as a joke"?