History WebVideo / ScholaGladiatoria

* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Dan says what annoys him so much about Burton is that Burton never admits that he isn't an expert about everything, and even if there's a topic he's ignorant about he'll just start making up bullshit to keep up the pretense. In his 1876 manual ''New System of Sword Exercise'' Burton criticizes Henry Charles Angelo the Younger's ''Infantry Sword Exercise'', which was officially adopted by the British Army in 1817 and continued to be published through 1874. Henry Angelo was a master of internationally recognized expertise, being the third generation of the Angelo fencing dynasty, and his ''Infantry Sword Exercise'' was used for such a long time throughout the British Empire because it was such a practical and effective system. Meanwhile, despite containing some interesting tidbits, the style that Burton sets forth can hardly be called a complete system and contains some recommendations that are just nonsense. The example Matt focuses on is that Burton somehow seems to be CompletelyMissingThePoint about how the circular target and numbered cuts of Angelo's exercise are supposed to be used, scoffing that he never saw a man who was perfectly circular in shape. Matt does a FacePalm at this, since the manual specifically states that the circular diagram tells the recruit ''how'' to make each cut rather than ''where'' to cut, meaning that cuts 1, 3, and 5 can be directed at any body part from head to foot on the left, and cuts 2, 4, and 6 equally so on the right. There are just 7 cuts to remember[[note]]7 is a cut straight down; a cut number 8 which is vertically ascending did exist but was usually omitted[[/note]], and when you state the number together with a targeted body part you provide a very specific and concise description. Burton shows a man-shapped dummy as the target, but his system features 12 cuts, each of which describes both a specific angle ''and'' a specific body part on the target. Despite having more numbered cuts and thus making things more confusing, his shorthand is actually ''less'' specific and comprehensive; ''he doesn't even have any cuts to the legs!'' The fact that Burton misunderstood arguably the simplest part of Angelo's ''Exercise'' and came up with something markedly worse just exemplifies for Matt how Burton didn't know what he was talking about, and the fact that Burton's system was never adopted by any military or subsequently reprinted shows that nobody took it seriously.

* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Dan says what annoys him so much about Burton is that Burton never admits that he isn't an expert about everything, and even if there's a topic he's ignorant about he'll just start making up bullshit to keep up the pretense. In his 1876 manual ''New System of Sword Exercise'' Burton criticizes Henry Charles Angelo the Younger's ''Infantry Sword Exercise'', which was officially adopted by the British Army in 1817 and continued to be published through 1874. Henry Angelo was a master of internationally recognized expertise, being the third generation of the Angelo fencing dynasty, and his ''Infantry Sword Exercise'' was used for such a long time throughout the British Empire because it was such a practical and effective system. Meanwhile, despite containing some interesting tidbits, the style that Burton sets forth can hardly be called a complete system and contains some recommendations that are just nonsense. The example Matt focuses on is that Burton somehow seems to be CompletelyMissingThePoint about how the circular target and numbered cuts of Angelo's exercise are supposed to be used, scoffing that he never saw a man who was perfectly circular in shape. Matt does a FacePalm at this, since the manual specifically states that the circular diagram tells the recruit ''how'' to make each cut rather than ''where'' to cut, meaning that cuts 1, 3, and 5 can be directed at any body part from head to foot on the left, and cuts 2, 4, and 6 equally so on the right. There are just 7 cuts to remember[[note]]7 is a cut straight down; a cut number 8 which is vertically ascending did exist but was usually omitted[[/note]], and when you state the number together with a targeted body part you provide a very specific and concise description. Burton shows a man-shapped dummy as the target, but his system features 12 cuts, each of which describes both a specific angle ''and'' a specific body part on the target. Despite having more numbered cuts and thus making things more confusing, his shorthand is actually ''less'' specific and comprehensive; ''he doesn't even have any cuts to the legs!'' The fact that Burton misunderstood arguably the simplest part of Angelo's ''Exercise'' and came up with something markedly worse just exemplifies for Matt how Burton didn't know what he was talking about.

* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Dan says what annoys him so much about Burton is that Burton never admits that he isn't an expert about everything, and even if there's a topic he's ignorant about he'll just start making up bullshit to keep up the pretense. One example is his ''Book of the Sword''. In his ''New System of Sword Exercise'' Burton criticizes Henry Angelo's manual of swordsmanship--which was used throughout the British empire very successfully and in Matt's opinion is very solid, and yet the style he offers can hardly be called a coherent system, and contains some recommendations that are just nonsense.

* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Dan says what annoys him so much about Burton is that Burton never admits that he isn't an expert about everything, and even if there's a topic he's ignorant about he'll just start making up bullshit to keep up the pretense.

* BayonetYa: In "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjhrupDWYpw Bayonets and Blobsticks by Aaron Taylor Miedema]]", Matt uses this book on the Canadian experience of close combat in World War I to push back against the popular misconception that the bayonet was an obsolete weapon which foolish, out-of-touch generals clung to at the cost of many lives. The book refers to many firsthand accounts and Victoria Cross citations that describe incidents in which the bayonet was used effectively, and Matt suggests that he may read some passages from it in future videos. He also shows off an antique blobstick, which is a kind of bayonet training simulator that was used at the time.

* TheCoconutEffect: From time to time he discusses how hollywood often presents things in a way that isn't realistic simply because it's easier to film, such that people watching movies will assume that's what whatever weapon or tactic would actually look like. For example, when cannon fire is depicted in films like ''Film/ThePatriot'', they will show the cannons firing, and then have an explosive charge buried in the ground shoot up a cloud of smoke and dirt. The thing is, regular 18th century cannon balls were not explosive shells, and rather than explode on impact they tended to bounce and roll until they either spent all their energy or hit something large.

** In response to popular demand, Matt produced "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGf7n7iUF_k Medieval flails! An introduction]]". One of the most frequent questions people ask him is, "were they actually used?" The answer is yes. Matt recounts that maybe fifteen years before he made the video, there was a pervasive belief among medieval enthusiasts on the internet that the flail was a kind of "fantasy weapon" invented by Hollywood, based on the fact that they weren't seeing them in the artistic sources they were looking at, and yet they appeared frequently in medieval movies since at least TheForties. Thankfully there are a lot more artistic sources known and digitized, and the current consensus is that yes, flails existed, yes all kinds of flail are depicted in art (i.e. long- or short-handled, longer or shorter chains, one or multiple heads, and with or without spikes), but it's also clear that they were generally not very common, with a few interesting exceptions such as 15th century Central Europe. A general rule is that the chain should be shorter than the handle so the head doesn't crack you in the hand, but--having said that--there are Indian and Indo-Persian flails where the chain is considerably longer than the handle. Also, he's learned from experience that the ball doesn't hit you as long as you keep it moving around, using continuous circle and figure-eight movements.

* RapePillageAndBurn: In "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUsYzRWcVv8 Medieval Soldier Pay & Skirmishing vs Battles]]", he talks about how the wages of English soldiers in UsefulNotes/TheHundredYearsWar were not particularly good compared to civilian occupations, especially since they needed to spend most of it on their food, weapons, horse fodder, and any retainers or hangers-on they might be responsible for. He thinks the ''real'' enticement of being a soldier was probably that they were entitled to a share of whatever loot they could pillage from the French, which could amount to a considerable windfall.

%%* ''Film/Excalibur''

* OneHandedZweihander: Demonstrates in his "Can the two-handed greatsword be used one handed?" video that a lot of the moves done with a two handed sword are at least possible one handed, but also extremely exhausting (and doing them two handed's no mean feat in the first place using the somewhat overbuilt Del Tin Spadone). He also shows the single handed thrust mentioned in the Giacomo di Grassi manual.

* DanBrowned: In [[Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense? "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44"]], Dan says what annoys him so much about Burton is that Burton never admits that he isn't an expert about everything, and even if there's a topic he's ignorant about he'll just start making up bullshit to keep up the pretense.

In January, 2018, Matt had 178,700 subscribers. He shares a lot of his fans with WebVideo/{{Skallagrim}} and WebVideo/{{Lindybeige}}.

As of 25 August 2017, Matt has over 161,300 subscribers. He shares a lot of his fans with WebVideo/{{Skallagrim}} and WebVideo/{{Lindybeige}}.

** In "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B85tEumvz3w Short medieval flails - some observations", Matt discusses the fact that although most medieval flails seem to have had a long shaft, they did exist and he's learned certain things about them.

* EpicFlail: In response to popular demand, Matt produced "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGf7n7iUF_k Medieval flails! An introduction]]". One of the most frequent questions people ask him is, "were they actually used?" The answer is yes. Matt recounts that maybe fifteen years before he made the video, there was a pervasive belief among medieval enthusiasts on the internet that the flail was a kind of "fantasy weapon" invented by Hollywood, based on the fact that they weren't seeing them in the artistic sources they were looking at, and yet they appeared frequently in medieval movies of, say, the 40s and 60s. Thankfully there are a lot more artistic sources known and digitized, and the current consensus is that yes, flails existed, yes various forms of flail (both long- and short-handled) are depicted in art, but it's also clear that they were generally not common, with a few interesting exceptions such as 15th century Central Europe.

* RapePillageAndBurn: In "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUsYzRWcVv8 Medieval Soldier Pay & Skirmishing vs Battles]]", he talks about how the wages of English soldiers in UsefulNotes/TheHundredYearsWar were not particularly good compared to civilian occupations, and how the real enticement of being a soldier was probably that they were entitled to a share of whatever loot they could pillage from the French.

As of August 2016, Matt has over 125,000 subscribers. He shares a lot of his fans with WebVideo/{{Skallagrim}} and WebVideo/{{Lindybeige}}.

* CatchPhrase: Begins each video with, "Hi folks, Matt Easton here, Schola Gladiatoria!"

Schola Gladiatoria is the YouTube channel of Matt Easton, a martial arts instructor, TV and film consultant, dealer of antique arms, and historical researcher from London who currently lives in Surrey. Matt has been teaching fencing since 2000, which is also when he earned his BA in Medieval Archaeology and History from University College London; in 2001 he founded the [[UsefulNotes/EuropeanSwordsmanship historical European martial arts]] (HEMA) group Schola Gladiatoria. His videos cover topics including historical fencing, military history, antique arms and armour, and busting myths and misconceptions. Matt often examines the accuracy of films and television shows, which makes him a fount of commentary on various weapons and wielding tropes.

As of August 2016, Matt has over 125,000 subscribers. He shares a lot of his fans with WebVideo/Skallagrim and WebVideo/{{Lindybeige}}.