I don't believe the FN FAL's power is enough to actually go through a body and hit another as you said, even at close range. While your general premise is correct, that the British soldiers would have been worried about accidentally shooting their own men, it most likely wouldn't have been because the bullet might have gone *through* the scimitar user. The 7.62 round used in the FAL tended to shatter and fragment inside the target rather than enter and exit. Correct me if I'm wrong though. :)
@lindybeige I remember hearing an account somewhere of a battlefield medic who had to treat a wound by one of those bullets where the damn thing had shattered into approx. 50 pieces within the wound. Can't remember where though. I'm pretty sure that by the time the British were using the FAL gunsmiths had realized that the idea of bullets is to release all their energy inside the target rather than leave a neat hole which is actually easier to deal with... shall we do some research? :)
@lindybeige You're probably right though, given the size and power of the cartridge it seems quite likely that there would be a risk of the bullet exiting and hitting someone else, especially at close range or even point blank... this is from what I've just read about terminal ballistics on wikipedia though, if you find anything different please do share. :)
You are wrong. Even in the 1970's, the British were using 7.62x51 (.308 Winchester) NATO rounds, meaning they were Full Metal Jacket. These are designed to punch fairly clean straight holes through targets while not expanding and causing extra damage. Just enough to stop an enemy soldier. A .308 (or 7.62) WOULD go through several people (assuming no body armor) quite easily. Even a .22LR round is capable of going through a person.
not sure if my comment was posted so I'll say it again.
Curved sabers or scimitars were first introduced by the Turks and Mongols in the 10th-11th centuries. These types of swords were good for slashing attacks and so, useful when fighting from horseback, which was the main method of fighting used by the Turks/Mongols. Arabian swords from the 7th century were all straight. After the Turks settled in the middle east the scimitar became very wide spread there.
Hm, interesting. I do think though they were definitely also used to cut and slash at least from horseback - I recall reading Napoleonic accounts from the French campaign in Egypt that the Mameluke scimitars were super-sharp - to the point the Mameluke's had a party trick of showing their strength by beheading oxen with one blow from their scimitar. Also they cut through musket barrels with them ... alledgedly.
@lindybeige Do you think scimitars were much use against armor, either using the horseback "wallop" style or the close-in "dervish" style you propose here? Is the blade relatively thin? How large is the contact area?
@lindybeige which may i add the arabs had no shortage of, maces especially, the ottomans and saracens had a massive number of maces, it was easily their second favorite sidearm.
I wonder if you know, since you seem like a knowlegable fellow...
But what did the Saracens actually use during the Crusades? I'm planning to do an RPG set in the Crusaders and it would be nice to find out.
I heard they used straight swords and the curved blade thing was just a rennasiance myth or whatever, but did the Mongols not have curved blades at the time, thus making it possible for Saracens to have them too?
@Dyp100 Curved sabers were introduced to the Muslim world by the Turks and Mongols. If you look at the Arabian swords from the 7th century you'll see they're all straight. they would have used either gladius-style short swords or Sassanid style longswords.
@Dyp100 During the Crusades the shamshir, which is a type of scimitar, was used by Cavalries. but the straight swords were more common with soldiers during this time period.
Perhaps that style is one used specifically in extremely close quarters (for example against spear wielding opponents). It'd make sense to have several different ways of using a weapon (like half swording with a longsword).
Hmm, there are some things to note here. First is the fact that many scimitars have rather extreme curvatures, much more than the sabre that you are holding. In such a case, thrusting is impossible but cutting can be done at much closer quarters than with a weapon like yours.
Second consideration is the severity of the wounds inflicted. Modern medicine nonwithstanding, I doubt that these wounds were very serious.
The "Mui Fa Do" form (Plum Flower Blossom) uses the chinese sabre in exactly the way you describe try searching on "Mui Fa Dhan-Do" gives a half reasonable rendition but the better ones are not available on the net regrettably. This form is one of only two that survived in pictorial form from the temples (That and Hung Tse Kuen Southern Monkey Stick).
@Alkanizator This style would probably be without shield. A person might carry a scimitar around on a normal day for personal defence, but you'd be a bit paranoid to carry a shield around with you when going shopping.
Given the recent surge in popularity of tomahawks among US servicemen, I wonder how successful such an attack would have been had the solders in your anecdote been equipped with them, and similarly trained in their use.
Most likely depending on the situation, the said style might be used only in very close quarters, but with the full length of the blade being utilized on horseback or on foot in a wide area.
the scmitar technique your showing with the hand looks more eastern or central asian than to western asian where I think there was more spinning constantly keeping the blade going.
you know, i don't quite know how i got here... let me think back for a moment.
i was searching through my favorites, and i saw that one video of the navy's record breaking rail gun shot... so i went and checked out some things about rail guns, which somehow led me to stones, which led me to metals, which led me to armour which led me toooo... your video about mail... now some twenty odd videos of yours later, here i am.
The weapon you have looks to be weighted for use on a horse. If you examine the work of M.M. Khorasani you will see scimitars designed for use on foot being used to cut and slash.
I had a look at some crusade period illuminations and couldn't see any use of scimitars in such a way, although the illuminations I did see were of Saracens on horse back, so doing anything other than swinging the scimitar would be a waste of its cutting potential, so they may well still have used it in that fashion. The artists may also have just been projecting their own fighting-culture onto those they were depicting which doesn't seem unlikely. It's a really interesting theory.
Not in any formal Army Group but Im sure that they were used in some of the Genocides that happened during the civil wars. Its ingrained in the "Slav" culture, Kosaks chopped a many a German when their guns froze and the Kossaks came with their horses and sabers in hand
@lindybeige actually, with themomentum of the horse behind the blade, along with its sweeping motion used in a uppercut kind of swing, a decapitation is not only easily done, but its extremelyb likely to happen given the horses hieght
@LPmaniac123 Given the angle of attack as opposed to the angle of someone's neck, however, decapitations would be next to impossible. And indeed, practically unheard of on the battlefields in all of history. For you to decapitate someone from horseback, the other fellow would have to be leaning back exposing his neck to your angle of attack. Why would he be doing that? Also, while the 1796 cavalry sabre was known to cause extremely ugly wounds, I haven't heard of any dismemberments.
@LPmaniac123 Hang on now.. taking into account the height of the average man, the size of a horse, and the length of a man's arm, I actually think decapitation is highly unlikely - the angles involved just don't make any sense. To aim for one's neck, the blade would be angled quite severely, probably hitting the colar bone or ribcage.. unlike maybe if you leaned closer to your opponent, but that kind of defies the whole purpose of the horse: creating distance.. Or do they ride tiny ponies there?
@akumabito2008 Actually, horses in battle weren't just used to create 'distance', they were used for speed and maneuverability, amongst other things. It's well documented in many different countries that cavalry riders could decapitate their foe on a charge - the Mongols and the Arab desert tribes were particularly skilled at this, and not just because they had smaller horses. There are plenty of European medieval tapestries and documents that attest to knights decapitating from horseback.
My gut tells me that's at least an unusual fighting style, as it necessitates letting your body get very close to the enemy, which seems to subvert the point of using a sword in the first place. Still, I can see it being effective in some cases...
The Chinese and Mongolians have a similar technique called singing sword. This involves gliding the blade directly along your torso. It's used for very close fighting. The old Chinese kung fu sword masters can do this easily with a 2 edged jian, or single edged dao or saber. And although I've never seen a master demonstrate it, it's called singing sword because the sword will actually hum and resonate when pulled over their silk clothing.
@Jelperman Actually, scimitars are a type of saber, just like the Chinese dao and even, to a point, the Japanese katana, both of which have a greater history of being used on foot. The reason sabers are used as cavalry swords is a simple one: the curved blade combined with the momentum of a charge creates devastating wounds. Any weapon would, really, but the curve makes it easy to recover after a blow, whereas a straight blade could get stuck (lances breaking in a charge is another example).
@jokersrighthandman Take what I say with a pinch or three of salt. I doubt that they were always used this way. It wouldn't make them very useful when trying to close with a dense formation of foes, unless the wielders were very brave and skilful. But then, that would not be their battlefield role.
Well let's think about that story: Lebonese civil war in 1970s and the combatants use scimitars, instead of handgrenades, Ak-47s and Uzis!!!!! Sounds more like 1870s not 1970s...By the way what the hell are British soldiers do in Lebonan in 1970s anyway?? Are people in west ignorant enough to think people use scimitars in Middle East against soldiers with rifles in contemporary day???
@rasnac This may explain it: The UN Security Council passed Resolution 425 and Resolution 426 calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was created to enforce this mandate, and restore peace and sovereignty to Lebanon. UNIFIL forces arrived in Lebanon on 23 March 1978, setting up headquarters in Naqoura.
Well, for starter Lebonan is not Afghanistan. And even though Afghans might have worn chainmail for obvious reasons(they are still pretty good protectors) they were not attacking bunch of armed soliders with swords! Thinking that is possible, is same as thinking that Japanese people are walking with katanas on streets of Tokyo, or people duel with smallswords at streets of Paris.
@rasnac You are right to treat third hand anecdotes with suspicion. Perhaps with retelling one scimitar wielder became three and three wounded men became seventeen. I wasn't there. I think I make it clear enough in the video that this is anecdotal evidence.
@lindybeige What I don't like is that ancetode is based on the premise that Lebonan(or all West Asia) is an exotic faraway fantasyland with flying carpets and magical lambs and people using swords to fight. I can't believe this kind of made-up image of "Orient" is still valid and people still believe those stories in our contemporary age of information. Would you even consider this story to be true if it was in Spain at the 80s and the attacker was using a rapier?
@rasnac Perhaps the story is edited. Perhaps they also had pistols. The point is the technique. And yes, people attack people in the west today with knives and swords.
@rasnac Considering that swords of all types were in use up to the end of the 1940s, why is this so implausible? Hell, in the 1990s, in Somalia, some U.S troops recovered ornate 18th century muskets from Somalian fighters.
@rasnac It's funny you mention this because in World War 2 there was still cavalry unit being utilized. Heck the Chinese were still using spears and swords against the Japanese who were also using swords only on a more limited scale. The only problem while spears and swords work great against enemy that has run out of ammunition or in close quarters combat they next to useless when engaging well entrenched artillery and machine guns.
Fascinating anecdote. I've actually seen Chinese and Indian swordsman use the same technique. Wider strokes are used when they have a shield or another sword in the other hand.
that up close thing, if you're noticing all the comments I'm making at once sir, is quite similar to the way I'd do things if you read about my arm bar as a shield and knee up method, the idea is to protect and get close, now as I was weaponless, I'd use holds and submissions, or quick repetitive jabs for pain, but if I had a blade that's sharp, I can see myself just slicing nicely and neatly while denying swing room... against guns and other weapons that are big
@SrgGoofy i am pretty sure any modern armies train soldiers in basic knife techniques. Even if the guy is good a knife fighting, a combat knife vs a sword is pretty one sided for the scimitar.That is why a good secondary weapon like a pistol would be better.
Thank you so much. I've been having difficulty understanding precisely how to effectively use a scimitar and then I found this video. That . . . makes a lot of sense!
it's used in both ways. but mainly in medieval times a scimitar and most curved blades actually were slashing weapons made to cut. that was basically how hey were used. although while fighting on foot they did use the sword in a fluid motion close to the body and used a hand on the blunt side to be able to manuver hte blades direction better
Wouldn't Scimitars be more useful on horseback so that the blade didn't get stuck in the opponent's body and drag the weilder off the horse. Wouldn't the curved blade slide out of the body easier than a normal sword?
@NateStei This is one reason that sabres were used by cavalry and straight swords by infantry, yes, although not all cavalry swords were curved and not all infantry swords were straight.
I always thought that they were used that way though... What moron goes into a fight with a sword like that and starts slashing it with nothing to back it? They couldn't get an inch into the guy!
Very, very interesting! I mean, the "3 guys with swords wounding 17 guys with guns" part might be anecdotal, but that doesn't mean that the scimitar-handling insight is wrong altogether!
Does anyone here have any knowledge about a scimitar treatise or something like that? I mean, my only knowledge on curved blades is from military sabre - Hutton style mostly - and that can hardly be applied on scimitars.
yea, the deadliest warrior told me its better then katana (I which believed its faults). I want see scimitar cut a freaking light assault machine gun's bullet in half or break it multiple pieces. If it can't then that mean katana is better the scimitar. No offense against the scimitar, it just the deadliest warrior r not purely 100% perfect. hate them.
That is very interesting. I can easily imagine it being used as a very close quarter alternative to the big swoops someone with longsword or similar would use. I'm thinking warriors would probably have used both 'styles'.
That style of using the Tulwar (Scimitar is just a heavily curved sword, like the Tulwar you are holding, or a Shamshir for example) would not suprise me at all, the Japanese have very similar technique to what you have shown, so why not people from Lebanon?
The platoon obviously didn't have their bayonets fixed, that would probably have solved the situation quite quickly!
While this is a very possible style, the main style for curved blade is very close quarter slashes. This was especially documented during the Crusades, as the Western Europeans tried to use their rapiers and such to keep the Arabs at a distance. For the most part scimitars were not used in the way shown above, but close range slashes, using the scabbard in the off hand to block and parry and even to hook around the opponent's neck to get to his back, which would be the instant kill-quick.
@Thecando I have no reason to believe that men were trained to use sabres this way. There are surviving manuals for cavalry sabres, and they do not use this technique, but then fighting from horseback is a different matter, and soldiers were trained in battle fighting, not mixing it up with locals in street fights.
@lindybeige Exactly, fighting from horseback you need the reach, therefore extending your weapon arm is an asset. There is no reason why western sabre wielders would have been trained in this way. On a different note, I do remember seeing a movie a long (years) time ago where a pair of scimitar wielders used their weapons in the way you describe. I can't remember anything else about the movie other than it seemed to be older, 1960s or 70s.
I might say that they might be used that way for extremely close-in situations, that would be similar to half-swording in European systems, looks effective too for such situations. But, even then, I think this would in no way be the actual, main form to use the sword, only in rare-close in situations, as this very much reduces weapon reach and effective range you can fight and still pose a threat, not only defend.
thought you might like to know that most swords with tassels on the end, such as that one, the tassels are meant to distract the opponent (sort of like one of the counter sniper techniques the British used which was to tie a bright piece of fabric on a bit of wire to distract the eye of the opposing sniper)
his grip is all wrong...on a blade such as a tulwar or a scimitar you'd use a "hand shake grip." but it's possable to use that extra close in technique for use agenst people armed with a 7.62x51mm NATO or some other such round. for like the man in the video said "you'd shoot the guy with the blade and his opponet and youre buddy or a by standard or two. but i'd think that the scimitar is mostly used as a slashing weapon primarly...
@lindybeige ok...is it a tulwar? or a scimitar? intruth i know very little about tulwars. but i know for a fact the scimitar is a handshake grip though...
i know little about them save for the fact that they were the basis for the western saber, and that they are an indian weapon. it first i thought they also used a handshake grip...then i saw the hilt of one then i was more or less like "oh...crap...i was dead wrong on how to use one." so yeah...i'm sorry...windlass makes a scimitar for about $170 something i thing. (i'm saveing up for one. and it'd be nice if i knwe how to use one, both in the traditional ottoman and saracen fighting styles.
@lindybeige: I read that in the 50's the british developed the .280 cartridge (7x43mm) for both the FN FAL rifle and a experimental gun such as the Enfield EM-2, a bullpup automatic rifle that is in some ways the predecessor of the SA 80. The .280 had better terminal ballistics than a 5.56 and more stopping power than a AK-47 round (7.62x39mm), but America pressed up to adopt the 7.62 NATO for all battle rifles,
2. Australians patrolled with the master hand near the hip, barrel horizontal and following the eyes not the body. On close contact you can fire instantly -- not as accurate as an aimed shot, but after enough drills you hit 90% of the time at 20 m. And if someone lunges at you in a crowd it's easier to start bayonet drills (even w/o bayonet): straighten right arm, punch left forward as you lean in, and you've just slapped someone very hard on the head with a rather stout iron bar.
1. I wonder if the results were also affected by carry style, though? In the 80's and presumably 70's British troops usually patrolled with stock in shoulder, rifled sloped across body and down at ~60°. The idea being to avoid murdering some poor civvie if you had a UD, but it would also make defense at close quarters very difficult.
Well even if you use a curved blade in a more 'classical' sense, it does cut better, due to simple physics of less of the blade causing friction at a time, in effect making them sharper. So they also could use the sword in a normal style pretty effectively.
werent the scimitars mostly used as horseback weapons to cutt down enemies from behind or whilst running? btw I think thats a very convincing theory on how to use scimitars for close battle. The western style fighting would seem alot less effective.
Call me out if I'm wrong, but I think the curve on cavalry swords is to A) make them less likely to get stuck and B) help direct blow back from striking, think of using a straight square keel on a boat vs. using a curved one.
Nice video, nice point. I´m not that keen in weapons but it makes sense. I guess the way you use a scimitar on horse at full speed is different to the way you use it at close range... Nice video indeed.
Sorry it's two weeks old or so, but I'll answer anyway - a scimitar is a backsword (Single edged, heavy back) with origins in the middle east to Indochina. There is considerable overlap between Scimitars and Sabres, like the tulwar that lindybeige is using in the video here. It's a general term, like sabre, and doesn't refer to a single weapon. (That's an incredibly common mistake.)
All the mistakes made by that unit have been corrected over the years through training. If they had a pistol among them, it would've reduced the number of wounded by half.
Modern Marines are trained in martial arts that involves weapons of opportunity and edged combat
Jians used in combat are actually much thicker and larger than the ones you are talking about, and are very similar to a European broad sword. The style of jian you are talking about are meant to be used in martial arts, such as T'ai chi and Wushu, because of their lightweight, and in China would be the weapon of a nobleman, similar to that of a rapier, used as a form of protection in the streets.
@rozniy Looks like mounted swords are for slashing and cutting with the foreword speed of the horse. If your sword stick on an enemy, he is dead and your sword goes with the dead body.
@rozniy the chinese jian used in the later periods was much like a rapier in its form and funcion, minus the elaborate guard rapiers are famous for. you see that very quickly is you look a the applications of forms.
not only that in earlier stages the jian wasthis big thing, in the han period they were like arming swords. with hand and a half handles.
sai are fun, but theyre not swords, or even knives theyre light, pronged clubs. a stilleto at the most.
yes scimitars i prefer...the shape allows it to be used like you described. the scimitar can be used like a shield.
the scimitar has more curvature. this allows for faster, closer strikes. with a scimitar you can literally strike closer than arms length...with slightly turning the body and flicking of wrist.
also the curvature allows the user for weapon trapping as well.
Look at some of the Sikh Gatka stuff. Theres a few examples of tulwar work for instance that are similar. Eastern styles from that (vast) area of the world do not seem to extend the arm and utilise slashing motions as much as use the bodies movement to provide slashing power to carefully angled, closley held blades.
The guys in the story clearly knew what they were doing, and they must have learned this somewhere. (sword techniques that you get by watching TV or making them up yourself tend to get you killed) and the story itself sounds legit.
I think this is accurate. Unfortunately I can't find any info on how scimitars were actually used back in the day. Next time I visit my grandpa in jordan I should ask him about this. He knows a lot about this sort of thing.
The reason scimitar wielders are always portrayed as using there scimitars in that wide sloppy motion is because that's how bandits (who probably never received proper training) used them. A lot like how "gangsters" hold their guns side ways because they think it looks cool.
@LlamaZruleZ Except that using a gun sideways actually does have a use under very specific circumstances. It was a technique that started in WWII with machine guns, I believe - the point was to use the recoil to strafe the gun side to side with minimal effort. It's mostly applicable to small automatics like Uzis now.
I doubt many "gangsters" are aware of this, however...
id definately have to agree with the physics and logic aspects of this video, as i use my free palm occasionally on my bokken during sparring bouts. its certainly not proper japanese styling, but it offers a large amount of control over the weapon for certain manuevers.
I've been messing about with my bokken in the manner Lloyd outlines above - very effective indeed for close quarters and well worth adding to one's repertoire. Thanks for the pointer, so to speak.
the only good thing about the sa80 is the bullpup design, (allowing a longer barrel, in a shorter weqpon) the SLR is considerably better, if somewhat unweildy - surpassing the SA80 in accuracy, and reliability. many bullpup models are notorious for stoppages!
as for the scimitar, that is a very good point, because the from what i can see the hilt is rather small for the length of the blade, and it seems like you'd lose a lot of control when swinging the weapon about... however, i have also noticed one very nice thing... because of the curve, you don't need to extend your arm far when cutting, you can swing it with your arms closer to yourself, and in a curving motion, but the blade, due to its curve will still cut the same place...
in close quarters you shouldn't even be trying to fire your weapon, especially if your holding it in the ready position, not to mention with a long rifle like the SLR or the G3. in that situation you should revert to using your firearm as a blunt instrument. just because it doesnt have the bayonette on, doesn't mean it's not dangerous... the russian spetznas therefor are trained to utilize their AKs to the max both as a firearm, and as a cq weapon, which it's design lends itself too very nicely
I know this isn't about service rifles, but the British adopted the SA80 because every NATO power was adopting the 5.66mm cartridge as standard. Not only did it have less recoil (an asset for an automatic rifle) but it was smaller, lighter and so a soldier could carry more ammunition.
And the SA80 was foisted on the British Army by a Conservative Government that wanted to privatise the Royal Ordnance and needed to give it a big, profitable contract to sweeten the deal for potential buyers. I was in the Army at the time we switched over from the SLR to the SA80 and I still remember the sense of shock and dismay as we realised the limitations, inaccuracy and unreliability of the new weapon. It is still widely loathed by soldiers, serving and retired.
I have spoken with many soldiers about the SA80, and all of those who knew the SLR preferred the SLR, and most of those who knew only the SA80 still hated it. A magazine release button that bumps against your chest wasn't a great idea, nor a safety catch you have to work with the trigger finger, and the easy-shatter plastic handle isn't a bonus. The iron sights have a base of about five inches, and even if you hit something with it, it's only a pop-gun compared with the SLR.
Well, the SLR had its limitations too- heavy, 10-round magazine capacity, semi-automatic only, and based on a sort of "open field" type of fighting as opposed to built-up areas, which your story nicely illustrates. The bullpup design is not a bad one per se, and the carrysling allows one to have two hands free and still have the weapon close to hand (good for tactical smoke breaks), but the SA80 was a lousy design, and it was a stab in the back for the Army.
@thetwentinch The standard SLR magazine capacity was 20 rounds, not 10. There were also 30 round magazines made for the full-auto versions but not widely issued with SLRs. The original FN-FAL was actually select fire (full auto or semi), when the UK adopted it they found it too powerful to control on full auto and modified it to semi-auto only. Australia mainly used the SLR but also produced a full-auto version with bipod and heavy barrel, called the AR.
Which is like 0.22" - a very small calibre. In WW2 it was noted that troops hit with this calibre tended to get up again, whereas those hit with .303" didn't. Mind you, the rate of fire was slower so it was more important to hit with each shot.
It's .223 inches to be exact, but to be fair to NATO you really don't need a full-size cartridge on the modern battlefield, where the range of engagement is usually less than 300 meters.
What about daggers like kris/keris?
BlackSephir 2 weeks ago
What kind of Scimitar is the one you own?
MrDocProfHe 2 weeks ago
@MrDocProfHe An Indian tulwar.
lindybeige 2 weeks ago
Ya ok but I think we are talking light cavalry and such a blade is perfect for light cavalry.
lebarosky 3 weeks ago
Curved swords. Curved. Swords.
Gman556 1 month ago
I don't believe the FN FAL's power is enough to actually go through a body and hit another as you said, even at close range. While your general premise is correct, that the British soldiers would have been worried about accidentally shooting their own men, it most likely wouldn't have been because the bullet might have gone *through* the scimitar user. The 7.62 round used in the FAL tended to shatter and fragment inside the target rather than enter and exit. Correct me if I'm wrong though. :)
Deathwatch05 1 month ago
@Deathwatch05 I think the recommended thickness of brick to stop the bullets was 27".
lindybeige 1 month ago
@lindybeige I remember hearing an account somewhere of a battlefield medic who had to treat a wound by one of those bullets where the damn thing had shattered into approx. 50 pieces within the wound. Can't remember where though. I'm pretty sure that by the time the British were using the FAL gunsmiths had realized that the idea of bullets is to release all their energy inside the target rather than leave a neat hole which is actually easier to deal with... shall we do some research? :)
Deathwatch05 1 month ago
@lindybeige You're probably right though, given the size and power of the cartridge it seems quite likely that there would be a risk of the bullet exiting and hitting someone else, especially at close range or even point blank... this is from what I've just read about terminal ballistics on wikipedia though, if you find anything different please do share. :)
Deathwatch05 1 month ago
@Deathwatch05
"Correct me if I'm wrong though."
You are wrong. Even in the 1970's, the British were using 7.62x51 (.308 Winchester) NATO rounds, meaning they were Full Metal Jacket. These are designed to punch fairly clean straight holes through targets while not expanding and causing extra damage. Just enough to stop an enemy soldier. A .308 (or 7.62) WOULD go through several people (assuming no body armor) quite easily. Even a .22LR round is capable of going through a person.
CassyCalv 1 month ago
@Deathwatch05 a 7.62 NATO FMJ will easily go through a human body, even a 9mm pistol round will go through a your chest at close range
shububu12 1 month ago
Intereting sounds like that platoon could use some bayonets to defend themselves with.
SwordsmanMercenary 1 month ago
@SwordsmanMercenary They take time to fix. Walking around as a peacekeeper with fixed bayonets sends out a bad impression.
lindybeige 1 month ago
How would one parry a thrust with that stance though?
SuperJogvan 1 month ago
@SuperJogvan Turn your body and use the blade, while stepping closer to your foe.
lindybeige 1 month ago
Curved. Swords.
punkband14 1 month ago 15
not sure if my comment was posted so I'll say it again.
Curved sabers or scimitars were first introduced by the Turks and Mongols in the 10th-11th centuries. These types of swords were good for slashing attacks and so, useful when fighting from horseback, which was the main method of fighting used by the Turks/Mongols. Arabian swords from the 7th century were all straight. After the Turks settled in the middle east the scimitar became very wide spread there.
TheUTubeRebel 2 months ago
Hm, interesting. I do think though they were definitely also used to cut and slash at least from horseback - I recall reading Napoleonic accounts from the French campaign in Egypt that the Mameluke scimitars were super-sharp - to the point the Mameluke's had a party trick of showing their strength by beheading oxen with one blow from their scimitar. Also they cut through musket barrels with them ... alledgedly.
rockheimr 2 months ago
Two words: Fix bayonets!
haveswordwilltravel 2 months ago
@lindybeige Do you think scimitars were much use against armor, either using the horseback "wallop" style or the close-in "dervish" style you propose here? Is the blade relatively thin? How large is the contact area?
tenthousandsuns 2 months ago
@tenthousandsuns Against very heavy armour you want bashing power with axes and maces.
lindybeige 2 months ago
@lindybeige which may i add the arabs had no shortage of, maces especially, the ottomans and saracens had a massive number of maces, it was easily their second favorite sidearm.
elgostine 1 month ago
your are pretty dam intersting
thank you reddit/gaming :D
ROCK1337ful 2 months ago
I laughed so hard at the SA80 joke.
godofimagination 2 months ago
I wonder if you know, since you seem like a knowlegable fellow...
But what did the Saracens actually use during the Crusades? I'm planning to do an RPG set in the Crusaders and it would be nice to find out.
I heard they used straight swords and the curved blade thing was just a rennasiance myth or whatever, but did the Mongols not have curved blades at the time, thus making it possible for Saracens to have them too?
Dyp100 3 months ago
@Dyp100 The most common sword used by the Saracens was straight, yes, but there were curved ones too.
lindybeige 3 months ago
@lindybeige Thank you. :D
Dyp100 3 months ago
@Dyp100 Curved sabers were introduced to the Muslim world by the Turks and Mongols. If you look at the Arabian swords from the 7th century you'll see they're all straight. they would have used either gladius-style short swords or Sassanid style longswords.
TheUTubeRebel 2 months ago
@Dyp100 During the Crusades the shamshir, which is a type of scimitar, was used by Cavalries. but the straight swords were more common with soldiers during this time period.
Alcuard1992 2 months ago
"...very powerful, very accurate, very popular, therefore they replaced it with the SA-80."
Got a good laugh out of that.
Froggy22651 3 months ago 5
Well done video, Englishman. Here's another Youtube anecdote that supports yours:
"Turkish martial art, sword (kilic) techniques using Cold Steel Shamshir," by deejin25: watch?v=ydS810f0us4&feature=feedrec_grec_index
fuzzwarmy 3 months ago
Perhaps that style is one used specifically in extremely close quarters (for example against spear wielding opponents). It'd make sense to have several different ways of using a weapon (like half swording with a longsword).
darthmongoose2 3 months ago
Hmm, there are some things to note here. First is the fact that many scimitars have rather extreme curvatures, much more than the sabre that you are holding. In such a case, thrusting is impossible but cutting can be done at much closer quarters than with a weapon like yours.
Second consideration is the severity of the wounds inflicted. Modern medicine nonwithstanding, I doubt that these wounds were very serious.
Bankstercide 4 months ago
The "Mui Fa Do" form (Plum Flower Blossom) uses the chinese sabre in exactly the way you describe try searching on "Mui Fa Dhan-Do" gives a half reasonable rendition but the better ones are not available on the net regrettably. This form is one of only two that survived in pictorial form from the temples (That and Hung Tse Kuen Southern Monkey Stick).
NoFaithNoPain 4 months ago
But how would you use it with a shield then =/
Alkanizator 5 months ago
@Alkanizator This style would probably be without shield. A person might carry a scimitar around on a normal day for personal defence, but you'd be a bit paranoid to carry a shield around with you when going shopping.
lindybeige 5 months ago
@lindybeige Good point =P
Alkanizator 5 months ago
Interresting, I never thought a scimitar could be efficiently used that way.
Just goes to show that there are a lot of styles possible with the same weapon
ofnir123 5 months ago
I need to get out more. I knew that already before watching this video, and now you enforced that thought. Thank you.
DiabolusIgnis 5 months ago
SO interesting.
Chriswitahawk 6 months ago
Given the recent surge in popularity of tomahawks among US servicemen, I wonder how successful such an attack would have been had the solders in your anecdote been equipped with them, and similarly trained in their use.
Lukos0036 6 months ago
Most likely depending on the situation, the said style might be used only in very close quarters, but with the full length of the blade being utilized on horseback or on foot in a wide area.
barriolimbas 8 months ago
Surely the sword can be used anyway it fit.
Keasri 8 months ago
the scmitar technique your showing with the hand looks more eastern or central asian than to western asian where I think there was more spinning constantly keeping the blade going.
RalphyGreene 8 months ago
There could very well be something to that.
I have often found myself doing something quite similar to that, when fighting freestyle with a curved blade.
Getting right up to your opponent works well against bladed weapons, for the exact same reason it works well against a long rifle.
qwiksquirrel 8 months ago
@lindybeige
you know, i don't quite know how i got here... let me think back for a moment.
i was searching through my favorites, and i saw that one video of the navy's record breaking rail gun shot... so i went and checked out some things about rail guns, which somehow led me to stones, which led me to metals, which led me to armour which led me toooo... your video about mail... now some twenty odd videos of yours later, here i am.
why are you so incredibly interesting?
Ayomide345 8 months ago 22
@Ayomide345 I think it's mainly the jumpers.
lindybeige 8 months ago 29
@lindybeige BEST. REASON. EVER.
DazzaBo 7 months ago
The weapon you have looks to be weighted for use on a horse. If you examine the work of M.M. Khorasani you will see scimitars designed for use on foot being used to cut and slash.
temmy9 8 months ago
I had a look at some crusade period illuminations and couldn't see any use of scimitars in such a way, although the illuminations I did see were of Saracens on horse back, so doing anything other than swinging the scimitar would be a waste of its cutting potential, so they may well still have used it in that fashion. The artists may also have just been projecting their own fighting-culture onto those they were depicting which doesn't seem unlikely. It's a really interesting theory.
666satanification666 9 months ago
/watch?v=ydS810f0us4 Turkish shamsir/scimitar martial art
Regalya 10 months ago
Not in any formal Army Group but Im sure that they were used in some of the Genocides that happened during the civil wars. Its ingrained in the "Slav" culture, Kosaks chopped a many a German when their guns froze and the Kossaks came with their horses and sabers in hand
mandaltby 11 months ago
That thing is real mean on a horse, they use those where I was born in Yugoslavia. Heads just fly
mandaltby 11 months ago
@mandaltby They still use cavalry sabres in (the former Republic of) Yugoslavia? I suspect that decapitations by sabre are rarities.
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige actually, with themomentum of the horse behind the blade, along with its sweeping motion used in a uppercut kind of swing, a decapitation is not only easily done, but its extremelyb likely to happen given the horses hieght
LPmaniac123 11 months ago 4
@LPmaniac123 Yugoslavia is much more dangerous than I realised.
lindybeige 11 months ago 37
@LPmaniac123 Given the angle of attack as opposed to the angle of someone's neck, however, decapitations would be next to impossible. And indeed, practically unheard of on the battlefields in all of history. For you to decapitate someone from horseback, the other fellow would have to be leaning back exposing his neck to your angle of attack. Why would he be doing that? Also, while the 1796 cavalry sabre was known to cause extremely ugly wounds, I haven't heard of any dismemberments.
Gilmaris 8 months ago
@LPmaniac123 Hang on now.. taking into account the height of the average man, the size of a horse, and the length of a man's arm, I actually think decapitation is highly unlikely - the angles involved just don't make any sense. To aim for one's neck, the blade would be angled quite severely, probably hitting the colar bone or ribcage.. unlike maybe if you leaned closer to your opponent, but that kind of defies the whole purpose of the horse: creating distance.. Or do they ride tiny ponies there?
akumabito2008 7 months ago
@akumabito2008 Actually, horses in battle weren't just used to create 'distance', they were used for speed and maneuverability, amongst other things. It's well documented in many different countries that cavalry riders could decapitate their foe on a charge - the Mongols and the Arab desert tribes were particularly skilled at this, and not just because they had smaller horses. There are plenty of European medieval tapestries and documents that attest to knights decapitating from horseback.
Kairra1 7 months ago
@Kairra1 Plus in European combat, the horse itself was a weapon, able to kick and trample infantry.
yerk3 4 months ago
@mandaltby im also from yugoslavia
axhibeck 9 months ago
My gut tells me that's at least an unusual fighting style, as it necessitates letting your body get very close to the enemy, which seems to subvert the point of using a sword in the first place. Still, I can see it being effective in some cases...
DireSloth 1 year ago
nice demonstration. very enlightening.
Thank you for sharing
Wiinajamizzi 1 year ago
The Chinese and Mongolians have a similar technique called singing sword. This involves gliding the blade directly along your torso. It's used for very close fighting. The old Chinese kung fu sword masters can do this easily with a 2 edged jian, or single edged dao or saber. And although I've never seen a master demonstrate it, it's called singing sword because the sword will actually hum and resonate when pulled over their silk clothing.
deepashtray 1 year ago
I always assumed that scimitars were mostly cavalry weapons. This technique for fighting on foot makes perfect sense, though.
Jelperman 1 year ago
@Jelperman Actually, scimitars are a type of saber, just like the Chinese dao and even, to a point, the Japanese katana, both of which have a greater history of being used on foot. The reason sabers are used as cavalry swords is a simple one: the curved blade combined with the momentum of a charge creates devastating wounds. Any weapon would, really, but the curve makes it easy to recover after a blow, whereas a straight blade could get stuck (lances breaking in a charge is another example).
ChishioAme 10 months ago
Is it strange that i can't find any other videos of Scimitars being used like this yet i still trust you more.
(plus it seems more logical to use scimitars like this.)
jokersrighthandman 1 year ago
@jokersrighthandman Take what I say with a pinch or three of salt. I doubt that they were always used this way. It wouldn't make them very useful when trying to close with a dense formation of foes, unless the wielders were very brave and skilful. But then, that would not be their battlefield role.
lindybeige 1 year ago
Well let's think about that story: Lebonese civil war in 1970s and the combatants use scimitars, instead of handgrenades, Ak-47s and Uzis!!!!! Sounds more like 1870s not 1970s...By the way what the hell are British soldiers do in Lebonan in 1970s anyway?? Are people in west ignorant enough to think people use scimitars in Middle East against soldiers with rifles in contemporary day???
rasnac 1 year ago
@rasnac When the Afghans were fighting the Russians in the 1980s, they were still using chainmail armour at first.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@rasnac This may explain it: The UN Security Council passed Resolution 425 and Resolution 426 calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was created to enforce this mandate, and restore peace and sovereignty to Lebanon. UNIFIL forces arrived in Lebanon on 23 March 1978, setting up headquarters in Naqoura.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@lindybeige
Well, for starter Lebonan is not Afghanistan. And even though Afghans might have worn chainmail for obvious reasons(they are still pretty good protectors) they were not attacking bunch of armed soliders with swords! Thinking that is possible, is same as thinking that Japanese people are walking with katanas on streets of Tokyo, or people duel with smallswords at streets of Paris.
rasnac 1 year ago
@rasnac You are right to treat third hand anecdotes with suspicion. Perhaps with retelling one scimitar wielder became three and three wounded men became seventeen. I wasn't there. I think I make it clear enough in the video that this is anecdotal evidence.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@lindybeige What I don't like is that ancetode is based on the premise that Lebonan(or all West Asia) is an exotic faraway fantasyland with flying carpets and magical lambs and people using swords to fight. I can't believe this kind of made-up image of "Orient" is still valid and people still believe those stories in our contemporary age of information. Would you even consider this story to be true if it was in Spain at the 80s and the attacker was using a rapier?
rasnac 1 year ago
@rasnac Perhaps the story is edited. Perhaps they also had pistols. The point is the technique. And yes, people attack people in the west today with knives and swords.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@rasnac Considering that swords of all types were in use up to the end of the 1940s, why is this so implausible? Hell, in the 1990s, in Somalia, some U.S troops recovered ornate 18th century muskets from Somalian fighters.
LucanJacups 10 months ago
@LucanJacups I should specify: By cavalry and batshit insane British officers.
LucanJacups 10 months ago
@rasnac It's funny you mention this because in World War 2 there was still cavalry unit being utilized. Heck the Chinese were still using spears and swords against the Japanese who were also using swords only on a more limited scale. The only problem while spears and swords work great against enemy that has run out of ammunition or in close quarters combat they next to useless when engaging well entrenched artillery and machine guns.
lastswordfighter 1 year ago
That's believable. Look at how the Filipinos fight with their bolo machetes. Really close to the body too.
raimundough 1 year ago
Fascinating anecdote. I've actually seen Chinese and Indian swordsman use the same technique. Wider strokes are used when they have a shield or another sword in the other hand.
Tareltonlives 1 year ago
that up close thing, if you're noticing all the comments I'm making at once sir, is quite similar to the way I'd do things if you read about my arm bar as a shield and knee up method, the idea is to protect and get close, now as I was weaponless, I'd use holds and submissions, or quick repetitive jabs for pain, but if I had a blade that's sharp, I can see myself just slicing nicely and neatly while denying swing room... against guns and other weapons that are big
noobler9 1 year ago
Thank you so much for the reminder on the technique, cant believe I forgot all about it... I call it sword pushing.
omarfarid 1 year ago
Great video .
KamyarM 1 year ago
That is why soldiers should always carry (and be trained) to use a knife.
SrgGoofy 1 year ago 28
@SrgGoofy Or a nice pistol, a 1911 45 ACP would have done a number on those sword wielders.
Kylef7735 1 year ago
@SrgGoofy i am pretty sure any modern armies train soldiers in basic knife techniques. Even if the guy is good a knife fighting, a combat knife vs a sword is pretty one sided for the scimitar.That is why a good secondary weapon like a pistol would be better.
lordmat666 1 year ago
Thank you so much. I've been having difficulty understanding precisely how to effectively use a scimitar and then I found this video. That . . . makes a lot of sense!
It's really neat!
PinkdeRais 1 year ago
it's used in both ways. but mainly in medieval times a scimitar and most curved blades actually were slashing weapons made to cut. that was basically how hey were used. although while fighting on foot they did use the sword in a fluid motion close to the body and used a hand on the blunt side to be able to manuver hte blades direction better
TonyStormrage 1 year ago
Did yout get that sword from Rajasthan India?
Pakistan899 1 year ago
@Pakistan899 No, a British antique shop.
lindybeige 1 year ago
Is it a Mughal Tulwar?
Pakistan899 1 year ago
@Pakistan899 Yes.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@lindybeige Now I want that thing really bad
Pakistan899 1 year ago
@lindybeige And now I really badly want that thing.
Pakistan899 1 year ago
Wouldn't Scimitars be more useful on horseback so that the blade didn't get stuck in the opponent's body and drag the weilder off the horse. Wouldn't the curved blade slide out of the body easier than a normal sword?
NateStei 1 year ago
@NateStei This is one reason that sabres were used by cavalry and straight swords by infantry, yes, although not all cavalry swords were curved and not all infantry swords were straight.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@NateStei scimitars were often used by cavalry in the middle east, so it might be another reason for the curved shape.
the curved blade is more of a slash weapon then for stabbing, same as how a katana works.
flamedrag18 1 year ago
Nice quip about the L1A1 being a very good rifle, and being discarded as a result.
LucanJacups 1 year ago
the ninjas used that same idea when wielding a ninjato in back hand grip (praying mantis style)
waterswind 1 year ago
that's how the chinese used their curved swords, they kept it close to their body
lolofdoom 1 year ago
I always thought that they were used that way though... What moron goes into a fight with a sword like that and starts slashing it with nothing to back it? They couldn't get an inch into the guy!
derFischmoerder 1 year ago
Good point but how would u use it agenst a sword.
44SCB 1 year ago
1:04 LMFAO. Spot on! :)
madaxe606 1 year ago
Very, very interesting! I mean, the "3 guys with swords wounding 17 guys with guns" part might be anecdotal, but that doesn't mean that the scimitar-handling insight is wrong altogether!
Does anyone here have any knowledge about a scimitar treatise or something like that? I mean, my only knowledge on curved blades is from military sabre - Hutton style mostly - and that can hardly be applied on scimitars.
Thanks a lot!
AzileNef 1 year ago
3 guys with swords wounding 17 guys with guns.
Ladies and gentlemen, reality is a video game.
GigaHands 1 year ago
yea, the deadliest warrior told me its better then katana (I which believed its faults). I want see scimitar cut a freaking light assault machine gun's bullet in half or break it multiple pieces. If it can't then that mean katana is better the scimitar. No offense against the scimitar, it just the deadliest warrior r not purely 100% perfect. hate them.
TheBastered 1 year ago
The end caption very much applies to me.
NoisemakerArrow 1 year ago
very good story.I believe it was much as the men would have been deperately running at them to disarm or strike them.
such a way of half swording would have seem to be inviting attacks and at the same time reserve a lot of energy
I think it was a bit of both actually.I also bet those men struck those men in the legs as well
NewZealfighter 1 year ago
That is very interesting. I can easily imagine it being used as a very close quarter alternative to the big swoops someone with longsword or similar would use. I'm thinking warriors would probably have used both 'styles'.
FrisianDude 1 year ago
PS I agree the SLR was a much better bit of kit than the SA80!
sirupate 1 year ago
That style of using the Tulwar (Scimitar is just a heavily curved sword, like the Tulwar you are holding, or a Shamshir for example) would not suprise me at all, the Japanese have very similar technique to what you have shown, so why not people from Lebanon?
The platoon obviously didn't have their bayonets fixed, that would probably have solved the situation quite quickly!
sirupate 1 year ago
I believe in Kingdom of Heaven, the duel between Balian and the cavalier just after the shipwreck had the scimitar or tulwar wielded like that.
kardentyrell 1 year ago
While this is a very possible style, the main style for curved blade is very close quarter slashes. This was especially documented during the Crusades, as the Western Europeans tried to use their rapiers and such to keep the Arabs at a distance. For the most part scimitars were not used in the way shown above, but close range slashes, using the scabbard in the off hand to block and parry and even to hook around the opponent's neck to get to his back, which would be the instant kill-quick.
HolyHydra 1 year ago
@HolyHydra There were no battlefield rapiers,indeed there were no rapiers,in the 1200' and the 1300'.
ItalkYoulistenOk 1 year ago
@ItalkYoulistenOk Well, some side-swords did see some military use but there were definitely no rapiers in the Crusades, you're totally right!
AzileNef 1 year ago
I loved it! Do you feel that this same style could apply to a western style Sabre, a 1840 heavy Calvary possibly?
Thecando 1 year ago
@Thecando I have no reason to believe that men were trained to use sabres this way. There are surviving manuals for cavalry sabres, and they do not use this technique, but then fighting from horseback is a different matter, and soldiers were trained in battle fighting, not mixing it up with locals in street fights.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@lindybeige Exactly, fighting from horseback you need the reach, therefore extending your weapon arm is an asset. There is no reason why western sabre wielders would have been trained in this way. On a different note, I do remember seeing a movie a long (years) time ago where a pair of scimitar wielders used their weapons in the way you describe. I can't remember anything else about the movie other than it seemed to be older, 1960s or 70s.
DistendedPerinium 1 year ago
That is indeed a fascinating point....
TheVoraciousSnapmare 1 year ago
you are right.
WoebringerofDoom 1 year ago
My two cents;
I might say that they might be used that way for extremely close-in situations, that would be similar to half-swording in European systems, looks effective too for such situations. But, even then, I think this would in no way be the actual, main form to use the sword, only in rare-close in situations, as this very much reduces weapon reach and effective range you can fight and still pose a threat, not only defend.
SirTwilight83 1 year ago
thought you might like to know that most swords with tassels on the end, such as that one, the tassels are meant to distract the opponent (sort of like one of the counter sniper techniques the British used which was to tie a bright piece of fabric on a bit of wire to distract the eye of the opposing sniper)
comicfan21 1 year ago
his grip is all wrong...on a blade such as a tulwar or a scimitar you'd use a "hand shake grip." but it's possable to use that extra close in technique for use agenst people armed with a 7.62x51mm NATO or some other such round. for like the man in the video said "you'd shoot the guy with the blade and his opponet and youre buddy or a by standard or two. but i'd think that the scimitar is mostly used as a slashing weapon primarly...
drstrangeman 1 year ago
@drstrangeman I doubt that my grip is very wrong, simply because the shape of the hilt give me little option but to hold it that way.
lindybeige 1 year ago
@lindybeige ok...is it a tulwar? or a scimitar? intruth i know very little about tulwars. but i know for a fact the scimitar is a handshake grip though...
drstrangeman 1 year ago
@drstrangeman The thing I'm holding is a tulwar.
lindybeige 1 year ago
i know little about them save for the fact that they were the basis for the western saber, and that they are an indian weapon. it first i thought they also used a handshake grip...then i saw the hilt of one then i was more or less like "oh...crap...i was dead wrong on how to use one." so yeah...i'm sorry...windlass makes a scimitar for about $170 something i thing. (i'm saveing up for one. and it'd be nice if i knwe how to use one, both in the traditional ottoman and saracen fighting styles.
drstrangeman 1 year ago
@lindybeige: I read that in the 50's the british developed the .280 cartridge (7x43mm) for both the FN FAL rifle and a experimental gun such as the Enfield EM-2, a bullpup automatic rifle that is in some ways the predecessor of the SA 80. The .280 had better terminal ballistics than a 5.56 and more stopping power than a AK-47 round (7.62x39mm), but America pressed up to adopt the 7.62 NATO for all battle rifles,
Xerxes1688 1 year ago
2. Australians patrolled with the master hand near the hip, barrel horizontal and following the eyes not the body. On close contact you can fire instantly -- not as accurate as an aimed shot, but after enough drills you hit 90% of the time at 20 m. And if someone lunges at you in a crowd it's easier to start bayonet drills (even w/o bayonet): straighten right arm, punch left forward as you lean in, and you've just slapped someone very hard on the head with a rather stout iron bar.
chromiumtrioxide 1 year ago
Very interesting about the blade technique.
1. I wonder if the results were also affected by carry style, though? In the 80's and presumably 70's British troops usually patrolled with stock in shoulder, rifled sloped across body and down at ~60°. The idea being to avoid murdering some poor civvie if you had a UD, but it would also make defense at close quarters very difficult.
chromiumtrioxide 1 year ago
interesting
i find being unmounted and using a curved blade- i guess it makes sense to weild it like that
1x93cm 1 year ago
damn i need to get out more....
renegade94pro 1 year ago
Well even if you use a curved blade in a more 'classical' sense, it does cut better, due to simple physics of less of the blade causing friction at a time, in effect making them sharper. So they also could use the sword in a normal style pretty effectively.
idlenessss 1 year ago
werent the scimitars mostly used as horseback weapons to cutt down enemies from behind or whilst running? btw I think thats a very convincing theory on how to use scimitars for close battle. The western style fighting would seem alot less effective.
BrutusAlbion 1 year ago
Call me out if I'm wrong, but I think the curve on cavalry swords is to A) make them less likely to get stuck and B) help direct blow back from striking, think of using a straight square keel on a boat vs. using a curved one.
18yardsout 1 year ago
Nice video, nice point. I´m not that keen in weapons but it makes sense. I guess the way you use a scimitar on horse at full speed is different to the way you use it at close range... Nice video indeed.
Bistol1 1 year ago
however though. the arabs, like the europeans, used shields for a fair bit. im not to sure how long though. especially during the middle ages,
elgostine 1 year ago
what is the different between scimitar and sabre ?
shittyfuck 2 years ago
Sorry it's two weeks old or so, but I'll answer anyway - a scimitar is a backsword (Single edged, heavy back) with origins in the middle east to Indochina. There is considerable overlap between Scimitars and Sabres, like the tulwar that lindybeige is using in the video here. It's a general term, like sabre, and doesn't refer to a single weapon. (That's an incredibly common mistake.)
NoAsking 1 year ago
Interesting case of 2 civilizations colliding.
All the mistakes made by that unit have been corrected over the years through training. If they had a pistol among them, it would've reduced the number of wounded by half.
Modern Marines are trained in martial arts that involves weapons of opportunity and edged combat
USMCM249gunner 2 years ago
Scimitars are cavalry weapons, mainly, but it makes sense to modify the style for fighting on foot at close range, I guess.
Oooh, can't wait for you to try out Sai and Jitte! And I've never understood the Chinese Jian, too fragile-looking.
rozniy 2 years ago
@rozniy
Jians used in combat are actually much thicker and larger than the ones you are talking about, and are very similar to a European broad sword. The style of jian you are talking about are meant to be used in martial arts, such as T'ai chi and Wushu, because of their lightweight, and in China would be the weapon of a nobleman, similar to that of a rapier, used as a form of protection in the streets.
HojoOSanagi 2 years ago
@rozniy Looks like mounted swords are for slashing and cutting with the foreword speed of the horse. If your sword stick on an enemy, he is dead and your sword goes with the dead body.
ktchk100 2 years ago
@rozniy the chinese jian used in the later periods was much like a rapier in its form and funcion, minus the elaborate guard rapiers are famous for. you see that very quickly is you look a the applications of forms.
not only that in earlier stages the jian wasthis big thing, in the han period they were like arming swords. with hand and a half handles.
sai are fun, but theyre not swords, or even knives theyre light, pronged clubs. a stilleto at the most.
elgostine 1 year ago
yes scimitars i prefer...the shape allows it to be used like you described. the scimitar can be used like a shield.
the scimitar has more curvature. this allows for faster, closer strikes. with a scimitar you can literally strike closer than arms length...with slightly turning the body and flicking of wrist.
also the curvature allows the user for weapon trapping as well.
underrated weapon.
doctorsizzle 2 years ago
He's not holding a scimitar but an Indian tulwar.
MohammedanVibration 2 years ago 2
Yes, it is a tulwar. I don't own a real scimitar, but a tulwar is of similar enough size and shape to illustrate the point.
lindybeige 2 years ago
@lindybeige It looks new. Wish I had one. Where did you buy it?
BTW the story you recounted here sounds entirely plausible as I've seen that style demonstrated before.
MohammedanVibration 2 years ago
Comment removed
MohammedanVibration 2 years ago
wow scimitar in realife look really different from runescape -.-... KATANAS are better than scimmy shit
Narutontf6 2 years ago
it depends on your fighting style really...
Stormforce101 2 years ago
The scim's in runescape are based on a different variation of scimitars, which were shorter and broader. They also emphasized that curve more.
LlamaZruleZ 2 years ago
@LlamaZruleZ theyre based on what appear to be falchions, maybe since it was used in eastern areas?
whowantsabighug 2 years ago
Honestly never thought of it using it that way but it does make sense that that is the proper way. Good video.
GunDelight 2 years ago
Look at some of the Sikh Gatka stuff. Theres a few examples of tulwar work for instance that are similar. Eastern styles from that (vast) area of the world do not seem to extend the arm and utilise slashing motions as much as use the bodies movement to provide slashing power to carefully angled, closley held blades.
In any event they are lovely weapons.
Eladriell 2 years ago
The guys in the story clearly knew what they were doing, and they must have learned this somewhere. (sword techniques that you get by watching TV or making them up yourself tend to get you killed) and the story itself sounds legit.
I think this is accurate. Unfortunately I can't find any info on how scimitars were actually used back in the day. Next time I visit my grandpa in jordan I should ask him about this. He knows a lot about this sort of thing.
LlamaZruleZ 2 years ago
The reason scimitar wielders are always portrayed as using there scimitars in that wide sloppy motion is because that's how bandits (who probably never received proper training) used them. A lot like how "gangsters" hold their guns side ways because they think it looks cool.
LlamaZruleZ 2 years ago 11
@LlamaZruleZ Except that using a gun sideways actually does have a use under very specific circumstances. It was a technique that started in WWII with machine guns, I believe - the point was to use the recoil to strafe the gun side to side with minimal effort. It's mostly applicable to small automatics like Uzis now.
I doubt many "gangsters" are aware of this, however...
Squeejee09 1 year ago
id definately have to agree with the physics and logic aspects of this video, as i use my free palm occasionally on my bokken during sparring bouts. its certainly not proper japanese styling, but it offers a large amount of control over the weapon for certain manuevers.
Blademasta989 2 years ago
how big is a platoon generally then, and by wounded.. how seriously do they mean by that
as for rifles.. they should adopt the austeyer, its the standard ise weapon for aussie servicemen/women and it seems to be pretty well liked.
sucks to be the british ill say that much though.
elgostine 2 years ago
Roughly thirty men in a platoon. I have no information as to the severity of the wounds.
lindybeige 2 years ago
I've been messing about with my bokken in the manner Lloyd outlines above - very effective indeed for close quarters and well worth adding to one's repertoire. Thanks for the pointer, so to speak.
thetwentinch 2 years ago
the only good thing about the sa80 is the bullpup design, (allowing a longer barrel, in a shorter weqpon) the SLR is considerably better, if somewhat unweildy - surpassing the SA80 in accuracy, and reliability. many bullpup models are notorious for stoppages!
gregarioushand 2 years ago
as for the scimitar, that is a very good point, because the from what i can see the hilt is rather small for the length of the blade, and it seems like you'd lose a lot of control when swinging the weapon about... however, i have also noticed one very nice thing... because of the curve, you don't need to extend your arm far when cutting, you can swing it with your arms closer to yourself, and in a curving motion, but the blade, due to its curve will still cut the same place...
MatoVuc 2 years ago
in close quarters you shouldn't even be trying to fire your weapon, especially if your holding it in the ready position, not to mention with a long rifle like the SLR or the G3. in that situation you should revert to using your firearm as a blunt instrument. just because it doesnt have the bayonette on, doesn't mean it's not dangerous... the russian spetznas therefor are trained to utilize their AKs to the max both as a firearm, and as a cq weapon, which it's design lends itself too very nicely
MatoVuc 2 years ago
I know this isn't about service rifles, but the British adopted the SA80 because every NATO power was adopting the 5.66mm cartridge as standard. Not only did it have less recoil (an asset for an automatic rifle) but it was smaller, lighter and so a soldier could carry more ammunition.
CountArtha 2 years ago
*ahem*
5.56.
And the SA80 was foisted on the British Army by a Conservative Government that wanted to privatise the Royal Ordnance and needed to give it a big, profitable contract to sweeten the deal for potential buyers. I was in the Army at the time we switched over from the SLR to the SA80 and I still remember the sense of shock and dismay as we realised the limitations, inaccuracy and unreliability of the new weapon. It is still widely loathed by soldiers, serving and retired.
thetwentinch 2 years ago
I have spoken with many soldiers about the SA80, and all of those who knew the SLR preferred the SLR, and most of those who knew only the SA80 still hated it. A magazine release button that bumps against your chest wasn't a great idea, nor a safety catch you have to work with the trigger finger, and the easy-shatter plastic handle isn't a bonus. The iron sights have a base of about five inches, and even if you hit something with it, it's only a pop-gun compared with the SLR.
lindybeige 2 years ago
Well, the SLR had its limitations too- heavy, 10-round magazine capacity, semi-automatic only, and based on a sort of "open field" type of fighting as opposed to built-up areas, which your story nicely illustrates. The bullpup design is not a bad one per se, and the carrysling allows one to have two hands free and still have the weapon close to hand (good for tactical smoke breaks), but the SA80 was a lousy design, and it was a stab in the back for the Army.
Love the vids, needless to say.
thetwentinch 2 years ago
@thetwentinch The standard SLR magazine capacity was 20 rounds, not 10. There were also 30 round magazines made for the full-auto versions but not widely issued with SLRs. The original FN-FAL was actually select fire (full auto or semi), when the UK adopted it they found it too powerful to control on full auto and modified it to semi-auto only. Australia mainly used the SLR but also produced a full-auto version with bipod and heavy barrel, called the AR.
chromiumtrioxide 1 year ago
Yes, 5.56 - typo there.
CountArtha 2 years ago
Which is like 0.22" - a very small calibre. In WW2 it was noted that troops hit with this calibre tended to get up again, whereas those hit with .303" didn't. Mind you, the rate of fire was slower so it was more important to hit with each shot.
lindybeige 2 years ago
It's .223 inches to be exact, but to be fair to NATO you really don't need a full-size cartridge on the modern battlefield, where the range of engagement is usually less than 300 meters.
CountArtha 2 years ago
There are those who are unimpressed by the modern army 's inability to hit enemies at 800 yards, and even at twenty feet stopping power is an issue.
lindybeige 2 years ago