Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* TheReasonYouSuckSpeech: [[https://youtu.be/DlX-3RIdmic This short video]] features Matt telling off Ridley Scott for blaming the youth for ''Film/TheLastDuel'' being a commercial flop, citing that those very youth are the people who would have watched the movie if Hollywood didn't [[HistoryMarchesOn stubbornly cling]] to the DungAges trope.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) from:
''Schola Gladiatoria'' is the Website/YouTube channel of Matt Easton, who makes videos utilizing his experience as a martial arts and fencing instructor, TV and film consultant, dealer of antique arms, and historical researcher. 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 WeaponsAndWieldingTropes.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 23 (click to see context) from:
* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Matt 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 there are fewer types of attacks you can describe with it. ''He doesn't even name 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 at the time took it seriously.
to:
* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Matt 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 completely missing the point 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 there are fewer types of attacks you can describe with it. ''He doesn't even name 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 at the time took it seriously.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:
* TheSouthpaw: In general you are encouraged to fight from your good side for the obvious advantages in free fights (but also because it is a pain to fight from your weak side - or to re-train your good side when you started learning on the wrong side). Once you get used to how to attack a right handed opponent on his left (vulnerable) shoulder when your opening position has the sword on your left shoulder it is no big deal anymore. (However most lefties also learn to do at least the basic moves also from the right side. Which is of high advantage when your opponent finally got used to you being a leftie and adjusts his attacks so you can attack him from the right. The other main advantage in general is that due to most people being right-handed, both lefties and righties primarily train to fight against righties. Matt, who is right handed, actually turns this to his advantage in [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8XIDdPRx04 this video]].
to:
* TheSouthpaw: SouthpawAdvantage: In general you are encouraged to fight from your good side for the obvious advantages in free fights (but also because it is a pain to fight from your weak side - or to re-train your good side when you started learning on the wrong side). Once you get used to how to attack a right handed opponent on his left (vulnerable) shoulder when your opening position has the sword on your left shoulder it is no big deal anymore. (However most lefties also learn to do at least the basic moves also from the right side. Which is of high advantage when your opponent finally got used to you being a leftie and adjusts his attacks so you can attack him from the right. The other main advantage in general is that due to most people being right-handed, both lefties and righties primarily train to fight against righties. Matt, who is right handed, actually turns this to his advantage in [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8XIDdPRx04 this video]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 29 (click to see context) from:
* {{Flynning}}: In "[[https://youtu.be/WWbOcOGadrU Screen combat/stage fencing vs real swordsmanship]]", Matt talks about the differences between what he does and what stage fight directors do. Matt teaches people how to hit each other, but stage fighting is all about how ''not'' to hit the other person while they're putting on a show. Matt can give advice about realism, and sometimes he's agreed to do this, but knowing how to set up a fight that can be filmed is an entirely different skill set that he doesn't have. What Matt will say is that if you want to ruin movie fights for yourself, the one thing that's always a dead giveaway is actors staying out of distance. You may see two guys swinging and grunting as if they were fighting ferociously, but if you pay attention you'll notice that they're just close enough to hit each other's swords, without being close enough to reach each other's bodies. You even see it in fisticuffs sometimes, where even forced perspective can't always conceal the fact that the punches and blocks they're trying to sell as real are way off target.
to:
* {{Flynning}}: {{Flynning}}:
** In "[[https://youtu.be/WWbOcOGadrU Screen combat/stage fencing vs real swordsmanship]]", Matt talks about the differences between what he does and what stage fight directors do. Matt teaches people how to hit each other, but stage fighting is all about how ''not'' to hit the other person while they're putting on a show. Matt can give advice about realism, and sometimes he's agreed to do this, but knowing how to set up a fight that can be filmed is an entirely different skill set that he doesn't have. What Matt will say is that if you want to ruin movie fights for yourself, the one thing that's always a dead giveaway is actors staying out of distance. You may see two guys swinging and grunting as if they were fighting ferociously, but if you pay attention you'll notice that they're just close enough to hit each other's swords, without being close enough to reach each other's bodies. You even see it in fisticuffs sometimes, where even forced perspective can't always conceal the fact that the punches and blocks they're trying to sell as real are way offtarget.target.
** In the ''Film/DieAnotherDay'' review, besides slice-and-dice swordsmanship and unnecessary spinning, Matt points out the under-use of the lunge and recovery. In a real fight with the kind of military sword that Graves and Bond are using, you wouldn’t want to stay within easy reach of your opponent’s weapon for any length of time. As George Silver described, the hand by itself moves so quickly that it’s difficult to react to a blow from your enemy at close distance, compared to wider distance where he needs to step in first and you have time to see it coming. The purpose of the lunge is to quickly get in distance to attack, and if your attack doesn’t stop him you can quickly recover to reestablish safe distance. The difference is that movie choreographers want to minimize the delay between blows so the exchange will look more fast and exciting, and they don’t want fighters constantly stepping in and out of frame while the camera’s zoomed in on them. The solution is to have the actors shuffle about within fairly close distance as they Flynn at each other, and they have no trouble defending themselves because they’ve spent hours rehearsing the sequence, and know every time what their adversary is about to throw at them.
** In "[[https://youtu.be/WWbOcOGadrU Screen combat/stage fencing vs real swordsmanship]]", Matt talks about the differences between what he does and what stage fight directors do. Matt teaches people how to hit each other, but stage fighting is all about how ''not'' to hit the other person while they're putting on a show. Matt can give advice about realism, and sometimes he's agreed to do this, but knowing how to set up a fight that can be filmed is an entirely different skill set that he doesn't have. What Matt will say is that if you want to ruin movie fights for yourself, the one thing that's always a dead giveaway is actors staying out of distance. You may see two guys swinging and grunting as if they were fighting ferociously, but if you pay attention you'll notice that they're just close enough to hit each other's swords, without being close enough to reach each other's bodies. You even see it in fisticuffs sometimes, where even forced perspective can't always conceal the fact that the punches and blocks they're trying to sell as real are way off
** In the ''Film/DieAnotherDay'' review, besides slice-and-dice swordsmanship and unnecessary spinning, Matt points out the under-use of the lunge and recovery. In a real fight with the kind of military sword that Graves and Bond are using, you wouldn’t want to stay within easy reach of your opponent’s weapon for any length of time. As George Silver described, the hand by itself moves so quickly that it’s difficult to react to a blow from your enemy at close distance, compared to wider distance where he needs to step in first and you have time to see it coming. The purpose of the lunge is to quickly get in distance to attack, and if your attack doesn’t stop him you can quickly recover to reestablish safe distance. The difference is that movie choreographers want to minimize the delay between blows so the exchange will look more fast and exciting, and they don’t want fighters constantly stepping in and out of frame while the camera’s zoomed in on them. The solution is to have the actors shuffle about within fairly close distance as they Flynn at each other, and they have no trouble defending themselves because they’ve spent hours rehearsing the sequence, and know every time what their adversary is about to throw at them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Revising description to be less biographical
Changed line(s) 5,15 (click to see context) from:
Schola Gladiatoria is the Website/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 WeaponsAndWieldingTropes.
In January, 2018, Matt had 178,700 subscribers. He shares a lot of his fans with WebVideo/{{Skallagrim}} and WebVideo/{{Lindybeige}}, and also makes responses to videos by WebVideo/{{Shadiversity}} and The Metatron.
The channel itself can be found [[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt14YOvYhd5FCGCwcjhrOdA here]].
%%Works discussed by Matt Easton include:
%%* ''Series/GameOfThrones''
%%* ''Film/TheLordOfTheRings''
%%* ''Film/{{Excalibur}}''
In January, 2018, Matt had 178,700 subscribers. He shares a lot of his fans with WebVideo/{{Skallagrim}} and WebVideo/{{Lindybeige}}, and also makes responses to videos by WebVideo/{{Shadiversity}} and The Metatron.
The channel itself can be found [[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt14YOvYhd5FCGCwcjhrOdA here]].
%%Works discussed by Matt Easton include:
%%* ''Series/GameOfThrones''
%%* ''Film/TheLordOfTheRings''
%%* ''Film/{{Excalibur}}''
to:
%%Works discussed by Matt Easton include:
%%* ''Series/GameOfThrones''
%%* ''Film/TheLordOfTheRings''
%%* ''Film/{{Excalibur}}''
Changed line(s) 17,18 (click to see context) from:
'''Tropes that appear on Matt Easton's Channel include:'''
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
* MoralLuck. He discusses this in his "Strategy versus Results" video and is critical of the simplistic misunderstanding usually put out by fans of shows like ''Game of Thrones'', where they assume that if one side wins using a certain plan that means it was a good plan, and if they lost that means their plan was stupid. As he points out, a number of people who were famously defeated in history had very sound strategies based on the information they had, yet things didn't work out for them because battles are extremely complex situations and they DidntSeeThatComing. He says for instance that the strategy that led to French defeats at Crecy ultimately bore fruit in the later stages of the war.
Deleted line(s) 47 (click to see context) :
* LogicalFallacies: Hindsight Bias. He discusses this in his "Strategy versus Results" video and is critical of the simplistic misunderstanding usually put out by fans of shows like ''Game of Thrones'', where they assume that because something succeeded it's because the strategy was better. As he points out, a number of famous defeats in history had very sound strategy based on the available information, yet it went wrong because battles are extremely complex situations. He says for instance that the strategy that led to French defeats at Crecy ultimately bore fruit in the later stages of the war. Conversely, people will sometimes think that if one side succeeded it proves that their strategy was better, which is not always true.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 47 (click to see context) from:
* StrategyVersusTactics: He discusses this in his "Strategy versus Results" video and is critical for the simplistic misunderstanding usually put out by fans of shows like ''Game of Thrones'' where the assume that because something is successful it means the strategy is better. As he points out, a number of famous defeats in history had what was on paper and in the context of available information at the time, very sound strategy but that it went wrong because battles are extremely complex situations. He says for instance that the strategy that led to French defeats at Crecy ultimately bore fruit in the later stages of the war when the same strategy that failed against the English longbow initially would later prove successful for the French.
to:
* StrategyVersusTactics: LogicalFallacies: Hindsight Bias. He discusses this in his "Strategy versus Results" video and is critical for of the simplistic misunderstanding usually put out by fans of shows like ''Game of Thrones'' Thrones'', where the they assume that because something is successful it means succeeded it's because the strategy is was better. As he points out, a number of famous defeats in history had what was on paper and in the context of available information at the time, very sound strategy but that based on the available information, yet it went wrong because battles are extremely complex situations. He says for instance that the strategy that led to French defeats at Crecy ultimately bore fruit in the later stages of the war when the same war. Conversely, people will sometimes think that if one side succeeded it proves that their strategy that failed against the English longbow initially would later prove successful for the French. was better, which is not always true.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 39,40 (click to see context) from:
* KatanasAreJustBetter: Averted when he discusses the katana in relation to the longsword, making some particular points but generally deflating the hype to show that the katana is a sword with advantages and disadvantages, just like any other.
* MilesGloriosus: Sir Richard Francis Burton may have done some pretty cool things, but he was a bit of a braggart. There are some things he claimed to have done--such as smuggling himself into Mecca--for which there were no independent Western witnesses, and which he might have just made up.
* MilesGloriosus: Sir Richard Francis Burton may have done some pretty cool things, but he was a bit of a braggart. There are some things he claimed to have done--such as smuggling himself into Mecca--for which there were no independent Western witnesses, and which he might have just made up.
to:
* KatanasAreJustBetter: Averted when he discusses the katana in relation to the longsword, making some particular points but generally deflating the hype to show that the katana is a sword with advantages and disadvantages, just like any other.
disadvantages that depend on context.
* MilesGloriosus: Sir Richard Francis Burton may have done some pretty cool things, but he wasa bit of probably also a braggart. There are some things he claimed to have done--such as smuggling himself into Mecca--for which there were no independent Western witnesses, and which he might have just made up.
* MilesGloriosus: Sir Richard Francis Burton may have done some pretty cool things, but he was
Added DiffLines:
* SticksToTheBack: Has a video about how sick he is that this trope's still around, especially when soldiers are depicted with long polearms stuck to their back because it's completely ahistorical and it looks ridiculous. People didn't stick spears and pikes to their backs; if they needed to free their hands they would just drop the polearm, and if possible come back for it later.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 26 (click to see context) from:
* 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.
to:
* TheCoconutEffect: From time to time he time, Matt discusses how Hollywood often presents things weapons and combat in a way that isn't realistic unrealistic ways simply because it's they're more spectacular or easier to film, such that leading the people watching who grow up on those movies will to assume that's what whatever weapon or tactic how things would actually look like. have been done historically. Over time, even when it becomes possible to replace the hollywood method with something more realistic, movie makers will often continue doing it the old way because they know their audience has been conditioned to expect it.
** 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 somethinglarge.large.
** In his review of Brienne of Tarth vs the Hound in ''Game of Thrones'', he notes that friends of his who were involved with the show said the weapons used in filming were reasonably light. Nevertheless, the actors tend to make a show of grunting and straining as if their swords were really heavy.
** 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
** In his review of Brienne of Tarth vs the Hound in ''Game of Thrones'', he notes that friends of his who were involved with the show said the weapons used in filming were reasonably light. Nevertheless, the actors tend to make a show of grunting and straining as if their swords were really heavy.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* ShieldsAreUseless: Discussed in his video "Too Many Two Handed Weapons in Movies/TV", where he notes that main characters often throw away their shield or don't bring one in the first place despite it being unrealistic in many cases. He suspects one reason for this shield contempt is the trouble of training actors to use them and their tendency to interfere with line of sight during filming.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* StrategyVersusTactics: He discusses this in his "Strategy versus Results" video and is critical for the simplistic misunderstanding usually put out by fans of shows like ''Game of Thrones'' where the assume that because something is successful it means the strategy is better. As he points out, a number of famous defeats in history had what was on paper and in the context of available information at the time, very sound strategy but that it went wrong because battles are extremely complex situations. He says for instance that the strategy that led to French defeats at Crecy ultimately bore fruit in the later stages of the war when the same strategy that failed against the English longbow initially would later prove successful for the French.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5,6 (click to see context) from:
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 WeaponsAndWieldingTropes.
to:
Schola Gladiatoria is the YouTube Website/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 WeaponsAndWieldingTropes.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
* BadassMoustache: Matt, a fellow who knows more than a thing or two about swordfighting, is rocking a muttonstache as of January 2019.
Changed line(s) 22 (click to see context) from:
** In "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piBGBTgz1Xs Cuirassier Sword compared to Estoc]]", while comparing the French Model 1816 Line Cavalry Sabre and an example of a "Preval blade" sword with a light cavalry hilt, mentions that one point against the Preval blade is that such a hollow-ground triangular blade might have gotten stuck in a person more easily than an edged blade. This, he notes, may be part of the reason that spike bayonets were replaced in popularity by sword and knife-style bayonets during the 19th century.
to:
** In "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piBGBTgz1Xs Cuirassier Sword compared to Estoc]]", while comparing the French Model 1816 Line Cavalry Sabre and an example of a "Preval blade" sword with a light cavalry hilt, mentions that one point against the Preval blade is that such a hollow-ground triangular blade might have gotten stuck in a person more easily than an edged blade. This, he notes, may be part of the reason that spike bayonets were replaced in popularity by sword sword- and knife-style bayonets during the 19th century.
Changed line(s) 28 (click to see context) from:
* DentedIron: In "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNd_Ipw_YGU Older Warriors: Injuries & Ailments in Ageing Martial Artists]]", Matt points out that the popular notion that experience and training in martial arts helps you avoid injury isn't true. The more you train, the more chances for injury you take, making it inevitable over time. Just doing normal training exercises puts wear and tear on your body, most commonly your knees and elbows. Also, as you get older, old injuries will bother you more, and it will take longer to recover from new injuries than when you were young. Matt, 41 as of this video, can testify to the difference. His suggestion for RPG games is that older characters' stats should reflect their accumulated wear and tear as well as their experience.
to:
* DentedIron: In "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNd_Ipw_YGU Older Warriors: Injuries & Ailments in Ageing Martial Artists]]", Matt points out that the popular notion that experience and training in martial arts helps you avoid injury actually isn't true. The more you train, the more chances for injury you take, making it inevitable over time. Just doing normal training exercises puts wear and tear on your body, most commonly your knees and elbows. Also, as you get older, old injuries will bother you more, and it will take longer to recover from new injuries than when you were young. Matt, 41 as of this video, can testify to the difference. His suggestion for RPG games is that older characters' stats should reflect their accumulated wear and tear as well as their experience.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7,8 (click to see context) from:
In January, 2018, Matt had 178,700 subscribers. He shares a lot of his fans with WebVideo/{{Skallagrim}} and WebVideo/{{Lindybeige}}, and also makes responses to videos by Shadiversity and The Metatron.
to:
In January, 2018, Matt had 178,700 subscribers. He shares a lot of his fans with WebVideo/{{Skallagrim}} and WebVideo/{{Lindybeige}}, and also makes responses to videos by Shadiversity WebVideo/{{Shadiversity}} and The Metatron.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 34 (click to see context) from:
* GentlemanAdventurer: Sir Richard Francis Burton--according to TheOtherWiki, an "explorer, geographer, translator, writer, soldier, orientalist, cartographer, ethnologist, spy, linguist, poet, fencer, and diplomat", certainly cultivated an image as a great adventurer, scholar, fighter, and lover. Matt points out that he's been quite romanticized in the 20th and 21st centuries despite the fact that he had some beliefs that would be subject to ValuesDissonance today, as well as various scandals that made him controversial during his lifetime and tend to get brushed under the rug when talking about him, but more particularly he thinks we shouldn't let this glamor distract us from some questionable or even ridiculous things he wrote about swordsmanship.
to:
* GentlemanAdventurer: Sir Richard Francis Burton--according to TheOtherWiki, Wiki/TheOtherWiki, an "explorer, geographer, translator, writer, soldier, orientalist, cartographer, ethnologist, spy, linguist, poet, fencer, and diplomat", certainly cultivated an image as a great adventurer, scholar, fighter, and lover. Matt points out that he's been quite romanticized in the 20th and 21st centuries despite the fact that he had some beliefs that would be subject to ValuesDissonance today, as well as various scandals that made him controversial during his lifetime and tend to get brushed under the rug when talking about him, but more particularly he thinks we shouldn't let this glamor distract us from some questionable or even ridiculous things he wrote about swordsmanship.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 27 (click to see context) from:
* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Matt 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 there are fewer types of attacks you can describe with it. ''He doesn't even name 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 at the time took it seriously.
to:
* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Matt 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 manual, ''New System of Sword Exercise'' 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 there are fewer types of attacks you can describe with it. ''He doesn't even name 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 at the time took it seriously.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 28 (click to see context) from:
* DentedIron: In "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNd_Ipw_YGU Older Warriors: Injuries & Ailments in Ageing Martial Artists]]", Matt points out that the popular notion that experience and training in martial arts helps you avoid injury isn't true. The more you train, the more chances for injury you take, making it inevitable over time. Just doing normal training exercises puts wear and tear on your body, most commonly your knees and elbows. Also, as you get older, old injuries will bother you more, and it will take longer to recover from injuries than when you were young. Matt, 41 as of this video, can testify to the difference. His suggestion for RPG games is that older characters' stats should reflect their accumulated wear and tear as well as their experience.
to:
* DentedIron: In "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNd_Ipw_YGU Older Warriors: Injuries & Ailments in Ageing Martial Artists]]", Matt points out that the popular notion that experience and training in martial arts helps you avoid injury isn't true. The more you train, the more chances for injury you take, making it inevitable over time. Just doing normal training exercises puts wear and tear on your body, most commonly your knees and elbows. Also, as you get older, old injuries will bother you more, and it will take longer to recover from new injuries than when you were young. Matt, 41 as of this video, can testify to the difference. His suggestion for RPG games is that older characters' stats should reflect their accumulated wear and tear as well as their experience.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 27 (click to see context) from:
* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Matt 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 there are fewer types of attacks you can describe with it. ''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 at the time took it seriously.
to:
* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Matt 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 there are fewer types of attacks you can describe with it. ''He doesn't even have name 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 at the time took it seriously.seriously.
* DentedIron: In "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNd_Ipw_YGU Older Warriors: Injuries & Ailments in Ageing Martial Artists]]", Matt points out that the popular notion that experience and training in martial arts helps you avoid injury isn't true. The more you train, the more chances for injury you take, making it inevitable over time. Just doing normal training exercises puts wear and tear on your body, most commonly your knees and elbows. Also, as you get older, old injuries will bother you more, and it will take longer to recover from injuries than when you were young. Matt, 41 as of this video, can testify to the difference. His suggestion for RPG games is that older characters' stats should reflect their accumulated wear and tear as well as their experience.
* DentedIron: In "[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNd_Ipw_YGU Older Warriors: Injuries & Ailments in Ageing Martial Artists]]", Matt points out that the popular notion that experience and training in martial arts helps you avoid injury isn't true. The more you train, the more chances for injury you take, making it inevitable over time. Just doing normal training exercises puts wear and tear on your body, most commonly your knees and elbows. Also, as you get older, old injuries will bother you more, and it will take longer to recover from injuries than when you were young. Matt, 41 as of this video, can testify to the difference. His suggestion for RPG games is that older characters' stats should reflect their accumulated wear and tear as well as their experience.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:
* VerbalTic: Habitually sprinkles his speech with "okay?" "isn't it?" as if he wants to make sure that viewers are following his train of thought.
to:
* VerbalTic: Habitually sprinkles his speech with "okay?" and "isn't it?" it?", as if he wants to make sure that viewers are following his train of thought.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:
* VerbalTic: Habitually prinkles his speech with "okay?" "isn't it?" as if he wants to make sure that viewers are following his train of thought.
to:
* VerbalTic: Habitually prinkles sprinkles his speech with "okay?" "isn't it?" as if he wants to make sure that viewers are following his train of thought.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* VerbalTic: Habitually prinkles his speech with "okay?" "isn't it?" as if he wants to make sure that viewers are following his train of thought.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 36 (click to see context) from:
* MilesGloriosus: Sir Richard Francis Burton may have done some pretty cool things, but he was a bit of a braggart. There are some things he claimed to have done--such as smuggling himself into Mecca--for which there were no independent Wester witnesses, and which he might have made up.
to:
* MilesGloriosus: Sir Richard Francis Burton may have done some pretty cool things, but he was a bit of a braggart. There are some things he claimed to have done--such as smuggling himself into Mecca--for which there were no independent Wester Western witnesses, and which he might have just made up.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 34 (click to see context) from:
* HardHead: In [[https://youtu.be/Ru-Zxs35Ct8 Hard Heads & Broken Swords: An Indian Mutiny Victoria Cross]], Matt reads from the Victoria Cross citation of James Blair: On the 23rd of October, 1857, in fighting his way through a body of rebels who'd literally surrounded him, he broke the end of his sword on one of their heads and recieved a severe sword cut on his right arm. He then rejoined his troop in his wounded condition, and--with no other weapon than the hilt of his broken sword--he put himself at the head of his men and charged the rebels most effectively, dispersing them. The first point that Matt wants to make in the video is that while you may assume it must have been a piece-of-crap sword to break against somebody's head, he's actually read numerous accounts like this from the 19th century. Evolution has provided humans with a very hard bony covering around the brain, and there is always a risk of breaking your blade against your opponent's cranium, particularly when using less robust blades like rapiers or some of the lighter sabers. In fact, John Musgrave Waite's fencing treatise of 1880 specifically advises that when chopping into someone's head, you should aim at the level of the eye or below where the thinner bones and squishier parts of the head are located, as well as the neck. This can incapacitate someone just as effectively as a cut into the brain, and at less risk of wrecking your blade.
to:
* HardHead: In [[https://youtu.be/Ru-Zxs35Ct8 Hard Heads & Broken Swords: An Indian Mutiny Victoria Cross]], Matt reads from the Victoria Cross citation of James Blair: On the 23rd of October, 1857, in fighting his way through a body of rebels who'd literally surrounded him, he broke the end of his sword on one of their heads and recieved a severe sword cut on his right arm. He then rejoined his troop in his wounded condition, and--with no other weapon than the hilt of his broken sword--he put himself at the head of his men and charged the rebels most effectively, dispersing them. The first point that Matt wants to make in the video is that while you may assume it must have been a piece-of-crap sword to break against somebody's head, he's actually read numerous accounts like this from the 19th century. Evolution has provided humans with a very hard bony covering around the brain, and there is always a risk of breaking your blade against your opponent's cranium, particularly when using less robust blades like rapiers or some of the lighter sabers. In fact, John Musgrave Waite's fencing treatise of 1880 specifically advises that when chopping into someone's head, you should aim at the level of the eye or below where the thinner bones and squishier parts of the head are located, as well as or target the neck. This can incapacitate someone just as effectively as a cut into the brain, and at less risk of wrecking your blade.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* {{Flynning}}: In "[[https://youtu.be/WWbOcOGadrU Screen combat/stage fencing vs real swordsmanship]]", Matt talks about the differences between what he does and what stage fight directors do. Matt teaches people how to hit each other, but stage fighting is all about how ''not'' to hit the other person while they're putting on a show. Matt can give advice about realism, and sometimes he's agreed to do this, but knowing how to set up a fight that can be filmed is an entirely different skill set that he doesn't have. What Matt will say is that if you want to ruin movie fights for yourself, the one thing that's always a dead giveaway is actors staying out of distance. You may see two guys swinging and grunting as if they were fighting ferociously, but if you pay attention you'll notice that they're just close enough to hit each other's swords, without being close enough to reach each other's bodies. You even see it in fisticuffs sometimes, where even forced perspective can't always conceal the fact that the punches and blocks they're trying to sell as real are way off target.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* AnAxeToGrind: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55Sb93pz1Xk Cutting With The Viking Era Dane Axe]], Matt takes a Dane Axe made by Tord Bergelin of Thor's Forge and tests it on water bottles using different kinds of grips and cuts: hands medium distance appart, hands close together for a powerful swing, and hands far apart for a short, close-up attack. There are some neat tricks that might not seem immediately obvious, such as a thrusting attack that inflicts a surprisingly effective push-cut. One general disadvantage of axes that he notices is how compared to a sword blade, the head of an axe has a relatively short cutting edge. The edge of a sword blade is so long that you can cut off somebody's arm or leg without having to worry about under- or overshooting the target, but even just trying to hit stationary water bottles with the axe, Matt has to make more of an effort to judge the distance. Whenever he hits a bottle with the middle of the edge, the blade cleanly chops it in half, but sometimes sometimes he ends up hitting with only the upper or lower part of the axe's edge, causing the bottle to be only partially cut through. He may have known it before to some extent, but this test really helps it sink in for him that trying to cut through an opponent's neck or calf in the heat of battle might have often resulted in only partially cutting through.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 26 (click to see context) from:
* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Matt 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 there are fewer types of attacks you can describe with it. ''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.
to:
* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Matt 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 there are fewer types of attacks you can describe with it. ''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 at the time took it seriously.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 26 (click to see context) from:
* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Matt 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 there are fewer types of attacks you can describe with it; ''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.
to:
* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Matt 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 there are fewer types of attacks you can describe with it; ''he it. ''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.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 26 (click to see context) from:
* 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 there are fewer types of attacks you can describe with it; ''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.
to:
* DanBrowned: In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44 "Richard Francis Burton - Sword Exercise Nonsense?"]], Dan Matt 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 there are fewer types of attacks you can describe with it; ''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.
