Swords: complete history of swords

[Gunthamund Hasding]

Hi guys and gals
before loosing 90 min of my precious time looking at the film I want to ask you if is worth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g8TPI_5n9U

thanks for input
G

[Dan Howard]

If you don't want to spend 90 mins of your time looking at it, why would you expect one of us to? I watched the first five minutes and saw Neil Burridge making some bronze so it can't be all bad.

[Virilis]

I watched about 15 min, stopped watching when they claimed that the "visigoths beat the roman armies at Adrianople due to the new invention, the stirrups". :whistle:

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I laughed so hard when I saw that in your post. :lol:

Stirrups weren't introduced to Eastern Europe until the arrival of the Avars in the mid 6th century and as find of them in Dalmatia dating to 550(ish).

[Gunthamund Hasding]

@ Dan I don#t expect you to look at it
I was asking myself if someone already saw it and he can comment on it
@Virilis well I am no expert in stirrups but I also heard about Avars

[Antonius Insulae]

I wathced it through.
Other notes besides the stirrup argument:

The bronze age section is good.

Arthurian section features a mythical warrior dressed in fantasy garb.

Roman section is otherwise good but gladiators are not. The gladiatrices (women gladiators) really fought bare breasted with helmets, not with armour and bareheaded, as in this film. Hoplomachus gladiator type uses sword instead of a spear in this. Also the gladiators fight badly, clashing their swords against each other. The woman explaining about gladiators has a fantasy armour and inaccurate replica sword.

When talking about vikings, the documentary shows a fantasy helmet with metal bat wings.

Medieval section is good.

Katanas are over-hyped as always (blah!), and the documentary claims they would be three times faster than european broad swords, which is not correct. The fastness depends much of the strike. Gladly the film announces the fact that Japanese swords are not sharper than any other well sharpened swords.

Ioan Gruffudd (the actor playing Lancelot in 2004 King Arther film) is interviewed even though he has no actual knowledge of real sword fighting. In King Arthur he wields two swords on his back, neither of which was never done anywhere ever by anyone (those being two sword fighting, or sword drawn from a scabbard on back). He is also shown wielding a rapier in this documentary, a sword which has nothing to do with the time period the mythical tale of King Arthur is said to been happened.

The stage fighters turn their backs to their opponents, which in reality could be a fatal mistake.
Modern age section is otherwise decent. Swords shown in a store which sells "swords for re-enactors" are low quality wall hanger swords which are not historically accurate.

Other annoyances include horrible intro to the documentary, terrible video effects (shiny light effect when showing re-enactors in combat) and awful sound editing (adding "shwiing" sounds when drawing swords, "clash" sounds from aluminium swords when clashing real steel swords and the overall "sword battle" sound effect used every time a TV-documentary shows a battle involving bladed weapons).

3/5, overall good watch for beginners.

[Antonius Insulae]

I watched it through.
Other notes besides the stirrup argument:

The bronze age section is good.

Arthurian section features a mythical warrior dressed in fantasy garb.

Roman section is otherwise good but gladiators are not. The gladiatrices (women gladiators) really fought bare breasted with helmets, not with armour and bareheaded, as in this film. Hoplomachus gladiator type uses sword instead of a spear in this. Also the gladiators fight badly, clashing their swords against each other. The woman explaining about gladiators has a fantasy armour and inaccurate replica sword.

When talking about vikings, the documentary shows a fantasy helmet with metal bat wings.

Medieval section is good.

Katanas are over-hyped as always (blah!), and the documentary claims they would be three times faster than european broad swords, which is not correct. The fastness depends much of the strike. Gladly the film announces the fact that Japanese swords are not sharper than any other well sharpened swords.

Ioan Gruffudd (the actor playing Lancelot in 2004 King Arther film) is interviewed even though he has no actual knowledge of real sword fighting. In King Arthur he wields two swords on his back, neither of which was never done anywhere ever by anyone (those being two sword fighting, or sword drawn from a scabbard on back). He is also shown wielding a rapier in this documentary, a sword which has nothing to do with the time period the mythical tale of King Arthur is said to been happened.

The stage fighters turn their backs to their opponents, which in reality could be a fatal mistake.
Modern age section is otherwise decent. Swords shown in a store which sells "swords for re-enactors" are low quality wall hanger swords which are not historically accurate.

Other annoyances include horrible intro to the documentary, terrible video effects (shiny light effect when showing re-enactors in combat) and awful sound editing (adding "shwiing" sounds when drawing swords, "clash" sounds from aluminium swords when clashing real steel swords and the overall "sword battle" sound effect used every time a TV-documentary shows a battle involving bladed weapons).

3/5, overall good watch for beginners.

[john m roberts]

Actually, the hoplomachus type of gladiator had a short sword as a backup to his spear, and when he is fighting a Thracian he is always shown using a sword alone. Presumably, the spear would give him too big an advantage over another small-shield fighter. The spear was reserved for fighting a Murmillo.

[Antonius Insulae]

Interesting! I didn't know that hoplomachus would use his backup sword as an only weapon against thraex gladiator. Now I know. Thanks!

[Gunthamund Hasding]

thanks guys I will give it a try today will let you know my opinion after