-
-
- Some others elsewhere were discussing which martial-arts style swords to buy. I don’t have any interest or experience so I had no input, but one thing that was commented on I am curious about. One person commented that most cheap swords made today are not made well enough to use at all–and I got to wondering how well any sword had ever been made. That is to say–in movies you see them being used to chop up all kinds of things that are fairly solid. I would be willing to bet that I could take most-any “oriental”-style sword and swing it once at a fence post and visibly bend the blade, if not break the thing off entirely.
…Now we might assume that the proper use of a sword is upon another person, which is not a practically re-creatable test, but I would assume that even then (if used to chop at a side of thawed beef for example) most thin-blade swords would still not hold up to this sort of use long. There are many types of swords of course, but this question is really only concerning Asian/martial-arts type swords.
- Some others elsewhere were discussing which martial-arts style swords to buy. I don’t have any interest or experience so I had no input, but one thing that was commented on I am curious about. One person commented that most cheap swords made today are not made well enough to use at all–and I got to wondering how well any sword had ever been made. That is to say–in movies you see them being used to chop up all kinds of things that are fairly solid. I would be willing to bet that I could take most-any “oriental”-style sword and swing it once at a fence post and visibly bend the blade, if not break the thing off entirely.
-
- From what little I know of fencing, the final move is a stabbing/thrusting move, and that swinging moves are only for clearing the room to complete a stabbing move. But this is not the way that Asian swords are usually show used. Were Asian swords really used to “chop” with? And how often did they break?
~
How much milage you can get from a blade was dependant upon where they were made. Some places made better swords than others. Italian blades during the heyday of dueling/fencing were made from somewhat crappy steel. The blades would break and the fencer was left with a sword handle and a stump of blade. Consequently, the stump would be resharpened and the fencer would use it in his left hand as a second weapon or to parry his opponent. Japanese swords, despite the legendary hype, were also made from rather poor steel and broke quite a bit. So like the italians, they sharpened the stump and called it their short sword. Also, the broken off section of blade would be mounted on a pole or other mount and could be used as a sort of pole arm. And yes, Samurai used their swords primarily for slashing attacks.
Even in places that had pretty good steel, swords broke quite a bit. It’s to be expected in a wild melee where everyone is swinging visciously.
I have a few hand-forged swords and found that they notch rather quickly and disturbingly deep with even one swing at each other. So I wouldn’t be surprised if even good swords only lasted a few encounters.
The processing of iron into a steel (or a reasonably close facsimile) was pretty much a hit or miss technology until the mid 1800’s. That is why the Ruling families would employ alchemist to oversee thier important metalurgical processes such as weapons manufacturing (and turning lead into gold). Broken blades were more the rule than the exception. I believe that there are a few legends based upon the use of metorites being used for blades because of thier supposed increase in purity.
But you asked about Asian blades. I believe that true samurai blades got around the impurities by work hardening the blades by pounding them into thin sheets and folding them over on themselves something like a thousand times. This helped to break down the carbon deposits that weaken steel and also produced a layering effect that significantly increased the toughness of the blades edge.
I am sure that someone with more knowledge than I will be able to link you to some reputable samurai sites shortly.
Slashing techniques were very common–pick up the Book of Five Rings sometime, a treatise by a 17th-century master swordsman. He describes a bunch of sword techniques, and almost all of them involve slashing at your opponent’s hands or chopping his hands off. Not, perhaps, what we would think of as a fair fight, but extremely effective, as it makes it difficult for your foe to swing back at you.
Also, don’t forget that samurai were the knightly class, AKA horsemen, and the katana is very similar in design to cavalry sabers. Slashing with a curved blade is the most effecctive sword technique when you’re on horseback.
Hmmmm, lots of misconceptions here, and some not so bad guesses.
First, swords were made of steel and therefore had the limitations of steel. So no, they would not cut through thick hardnened metal, or thick tree trunks, etc.
Second most modern collectors have not a single clue on how these weapons were meant to be used and handled (this is specially the case with western swords). Because of this you get a lot of people complaining about stage swords (usually heavier than true replicas for more sturdiness) denting and developing deep notches which make them look like bread knifes. This happens because they are used by people who do not know how they were meant to be used (actors, re-enactors, etc).
That being said swords were expected to fail and require repair eventually. How often and extensive the repair depended on a number of factors such as who used it, how often it was used, the quality of the sword, and the type of sword.
Western blades were of great quality specially in the handful of areas in europe that focused on making metal weapons and armor. So prized where these areas that often they were fought over, and sometimes master craftsmen from these parts were paid by other countries to emmigrate and start their own production lines.
People tend to think that medieval weapon smithing was some simple-minded old guy with a hammer, but the process was actually quite modern in it’s approach with large guilds of experts and whole towns dedicated to forging arms and armor.
The forging process and the blade geometry and intended use of the weapon played one important part in how well the sword would hold up. European weapons, for example, where uniformly heat treated. This resulted in a sword that would be quite strong and resilient. When it did fail, however, it probably would have broken. The Japanese Katana, on the other hand, was tempered differently allowing for a soft back and a very hard edge on the blade. The problem with this setup is that the sword will take a set (bend and then stay bent) easily, spoecially when compared to most European blades. (as an aside, Katana blades were NOT folded thousands of times, and this method was also not unique to Japan).
If you were to study some of the Japanese requisition forms for repair of weapons you’d likely estimate a sword that would need repair once every couple of encounters and would probably need repair after a handful of engagements.
This is why true masterful blades were so prized, and why we have so few specimens left (most swords were used, and thus evetually wasted).
(continued)
I’d expect most European blades to have been just a bit more resiliant than Japanese Katanas.
As for cutting, that depends on the sword.
The rapier of the renaissance was a thrusting weapon, the longsword of the high-middle ages was a two-handed cutting sword, as was the Katana.
How often did swords break? Insufficient data for a meaningful answer.
There is a story about a Crusader who was a guest at the home of some Padishah or other, right? At one point, the Padishah demonstrates the fine keenness of Damascus steel by tossing pillows into the air; his bodyguards cheerfully bisect them – sometimes twice – before they hit the ground.
The Crusader came from someplace where armor was more commonly worn, though, and he then demonstrated the raw durability of Toledo steel by drawing his broadsword and hacking through an iron bar. How long this took depends on who’s telling the story, but it apparently took no more than ten strokes.
The story neglects to tell us the thickness or quality of the iron in question.
No, I can’t cite the story, and it’s probably crap anyway – even with modern steel, Conan himself couldn’t count on being able to hack through plate armor, or likely even chainmail – but the story does illustrate that different swords were used different ways, and against differing opponents.
Samurai swords (and Paynim scimitars, and cavalry sabers, and other curved cutlery) were, as a rule, not intended for use against armored opponents, and they weren’t really intended for fencing, either; this is why foot soldiers (and often cavalry, as well) carried a shield. Try fencing for any length of time with a big blade (curved OR straight), and you will wear your arm out in short order, and both you and your opponent will notch and weaken your blades, badly. The idea was to deftly cut or strike at some unarmored or lightly armored portion of the opponent.
Broadswords, longswords, Claymores, and other large, heavy swords were also not intended for use against heavily armored opponents… but they sometimes were. They were somewhat more effective, because even though I can’t chop through your breastplate with a broadsword, if you just stand there and let me beat you stupid with the thing, you’re going to suffer, armor or no armor. Try it with a quilt, some trash can lids, and someone armed with a ball bat for a while and you’ll see what I mean. You don’t have to cut someone in order to do them harm; simply whacking them about the head and body with a large hunk of blunt iron will do fine, especially if you’re on horseback and they ain’t. Admittedly, you’d want to be careful about your use of the edge and point – no point ruining a good sword, and your next victim might actually be lightly armored enough to risk hacking at him – but they were usable either way.
Fencing swords – the foil, epee, and fencing sabre – were intended for use against NONarmored opponents, whose sole defense was likely to be a fencing weapon of some sort, and perhaps a main-gauche – a short dagger used for parrying and the occasional dirty trick. Of these, usually, only the sabre was used for cutting or slashing, and even then, usually only the few inches closest to the tip were actually sharpened. Most of these were stabbing weapons, hence the importance of keeping your opponent’s sword tip pointed elsewhere; watch any two modern fencers, and you’ll see that ninety percent of their efforts are engaged in those two things (pointing THEIR tips at each other, while making sure the OPPONENT’S tip is pointed elsewhere), hence all the blocks and slaps and clashing blades.
So… did they break? Sure. As previously mentioned, forging iron and steel are not easy, and highly dependent on a variety of factors, many of which were not well understood until the advent of modern metallurgy. So… how often?
FENCING SWORDS: fairly often, actually. Combine crappy metal with very thin, light construction, and then arrange for you and your opponent to be whacking your blades together a lot, and yes, you’re going to snap the blade from time to time. Even modern fencing swords break on occasion; not THAT often, but often enough that it happens in tournaments.
CURVED SWORDS: Far less often than fencing swords. Any Paynim worth his camel knew better than to try hacking away at some fool in chainmail with a scimitar; better to use something heavier, like a spear, unless it’s close quarters fighting, in which case you’re better off using hit-and-run tactics until he collapses of heat exhaustion from trying to wear all that dippy armor under an Arabian sun…
HEAVY SWORDS: Occasionally, but not THAT often. They’d break or bend on occasion, but generally they’d simply notch a bit or go blunt, and require sharpening (and, occasionally, reforging). Keep in mind that some types of broadsword and other heavy European-style cutlery weren’t even flat in cross section; snapping one of these bad boys off could take some work…
Very true. Technique has a lot to do with how long the blade survives. I have seen (but not done) tameshigiri, using a katana to slice rolls of tatami mat in one clean motion. If done correctly, the katana will slice through a very thick roll. If done incorrectly, the blade will bend, snap, or otherwise be severly damaged. In combat, the katana is also used for blocking the opponent’s blade, but you would never use the cutting edge for this. It’s not like the blade-to-blade clashes they show in the movies.
The katana is used to slice, which is a somewhat different motion than a chop. In some cases this might look like a chop, but in others it would look more like a thrust (either going in or pulling out). In either case, it’s a motion designed to use the entire 40" blade to full effect. When you say “chop”, it implies moving the blade perpendicular to its lengthwise axis and using only a small part of the blade to cut the target. With a katana, the goal is to move the blade parallel to its length and slice with the entire length. Katana were used against armored opponents (though less-armored than a fully plated medieval knight), but the targets were the joints in the armor. You wouldn’t just hack away at an opponent, especially an armored one, with a katana.
And modern historical, anthropological and martial arts study agrees with you here.
This is half true. Curved swords were cutting swords, and the cut and slice were nto very effective against metal armor at all. But fencing is the use of any sword. Therefore someone who uses a sword is a fencer, regardless of the type of sword he is using.
Again, this is a bit of a misconception. How large and heavy do you think cutting blades typically got? A two-handed longsword from the high middle ages would weigh from 2.5 to 4 pounds typically. I’ve held excellent replicas and wielded them for extended periods of time, it requires a certain level of fitness, but that’s all.
Another misconception. Knights and other elite soldiers who wore armor did not smack each other with swords. Believe me, it wouldn’t do much specially not against plate armor. With a longsword, a knight would have immeadiately switched to the half-sword (this is when one hand is placed on the blade, the other on the hilt) and attempted to thrust the point into vulnerable areas such as the crotch, the visor, the joints, etc.
So yes, the sword was not the tool of choice to combat heavy armor, but as armor improved, swords came to evolve as well (the longsword of the early middle ages was much more a cutting weapon than the ones found at later times).
More specifically they were not meant to be used in a combat situation period. The foil and epee and fencing sabre are not weapons, they are sport tools.
Modern sport fencing has very little to do with renaissance rapier combat which is what I think you were referring to above.
Mm… must respectfully disagree. Parrying with one’s weapon isn’t fencing, and you’d want to take care not to parry with the edge, if you could, considering your opponent is trying to kill you. Fighting styles with edged weaponry vary greatly, depending on the weapon, the opposition, and the culture – ask any Marine, or watch some documentaries on the History Channel. The Scottish Claymore, for example – a two-hander extending some six feet from quillons to tip – required an insane amount of training, practice, and some highly specialized moves, but to call that “fencing” would be akin to comparing ballet and tap dancing, two wildly different styles of the same basic art.
I’m familiar with quite a few, actually… and waving a tool around that weighs three or four pounds for an hour or more can be quite fatiguing, particularly if it’s the only thing keeping some other fool from killing you. True, it does require a certain level of fitness. It also requires a certain amount of pacing yourself. It also depends on what ELSE you might be packing around – a knight in full armor, or a foot soldier in chainmail is certainly going to wear out his arm faster than some chap in leathers with a short sword.
Mm… again, I must disagree, to some extent. True, a smart combatant isn’t going to risk his expensive hunk of cutlery by trying to hack through someone else’s plate armor, no. But considering that the other person in question is screaming like a banshee and charging at your face, trying to maneuver the point in through an armpit, crotch opening, or viewslit may be a bit much to hope for. I can think of several instances described in history where one-on-one matches were ended when someone took one swat upside the head too many, despite the fact that helmets were in use; a large and brawny opponent might well benefit from the use of this tactic, as trying to outmaneuver a smaller, quicker opponent isn’t likely to work.
It’s also worth pointing out that generally, “elite armored combatants” fought on horseback, not on foot. Sure, if you and I are charging at each other at full gallop, and neither of us has a lance or extended pokey-stick of some sort, I’m sure that if you get your swordpoint into my armpit, I’m toast… *if you succeed. *
I, on the other hand, am going to be much more interested in letting you have it upside the head with the flat of my blade; even if I don’t hurt or stun you, I might be able to unhorse you… in which case YOU’RE toast, regardless of what my weapon might be. And, I suspect, your head is a bigger and easier target than my armpits.
I hope, anyway.
True, dat. The epee, in particular, from what I understand, was specifically developed as a light, sharp, pointy thing to jam into the armpit opening of someone wearing heavy armor (and chainmail to protect the armpits and crotch). A big sword would be stopped by the chainmail; an epee could slide right through. Why waste time on an edge on such a thing? The epee’s designers did not. Mostly, they focused on rigidity and strength (in case the links in the chainmail were smaller than you expected).
The modern “sport tools” evolved from weapons that saw wide use in the middle ages as actual combat cutlery. The modern fencing foil isn’t much more than a toy (although if you try using one without a mask, you’re begging for trouble), but you can seriously hurt someone with a modern epee or fencing saber, particularly if you sharpen 'em up first. As to the idea that modern sport fencing is not related to rapier combat… I must respectfully, again, disagree. True, the rules of modern sport fencing have little to do with the rules of combat (chivalrous or otherwise), but the moves and form of the modern sport can trace a direct line of ancestry to the actual act of rich young guys attempting to murder each other (or give each other cool dueling scars, in the case of young German university students – yes, they sometimes actually fought just to get the scars).
Admittedly, we might regard this form of combat as somewhat effete – basically, it was restricted to the nobility, and the rich, for the most part, as they were largely the ones who could afford the weaponry, the lessons, and the time to practice – but it was often the chosen method for settling disputes and affairs of honor before guns and/or lawyers came into wide use…
First, glad to be having this discussion with you 
Now to some rebuttals and clarifications:
From the Wikepedia Entry: “Fencing encompasses any system of sword-based offense and defense but is most commonly used to denote styles of European origin.”
This is the definition I’m familiar with and have always heard used to refer to ANY style of combat involving swords. Japanese Kenjutso practioners ARE fencers and when they spar with their boken they ARE fencing.
Parrying with one’s weapon is done in all fencing arts I have practiced/watched. Parrying with the edge is a bit of a tricky subject. What do you mean exatcly? Edge on edge parries like you see in movies? Definately should not happen, swords were not used that way. Deflecting a blow with your edge on the opponents flat? Sure.
I think you’re just used to the term “fencing” meaning modern sport fencing. But as I mentioned the word actually encompasses ALL sword styles. It is a general term. And I would think that all swords required an extensive period of training. Knights would practice from a very young age and it would take many years to be even a decent swordsman.
Maybe, it’s all baout conservation of energy. The guy in leathers would be a fool to try and close against the guy in armor, and if he did, he’d be burning through energy trying to get in and out of his opponent’s range, while the guy in armor can pretty much sit and wait for an opportunity to present itself.
Regardless, the weights of swords meant for killing people are comparable for the most part. A rapier might weight 2.5 to 3.5 pounds, and so could a two-handed longsword, anyone trained in proper technique, footwork, etc should be able to fight for hours (not that a fight would last that long 99% of the time anyhow).
Regardless this is exactly what the masters of medieval and renaissance combat have to say on this point. Against armor the point is what you want to use, the edge serves only as a leverage tool to pin/push/leverage your opponent when grappling. It’s certainly possible to strike a vulnerable area and bruise or even brake bone, but you’re best bet against heavy chain and/or plate is thrusting a specialized sword through vulnerable spots. Half-swording tecniques required to do this are taught by all fencing masters that deal with armored combat.
Well not always. Men at arms are essentially knights on foot. In a tournament and in judicial duels foot combat is also prevalent. The treatises we have from medieval and renaissance masters deal extensively with combat on foot, which would mean that it must have been a situation swordsmen often found themselves in.
No. The epee wasn’t around when heavy armor was in use. The epee did not come to be until the 1800’s and was the sport version of the dueling sword and earlier small sword.
An epee is a sport tool, not a weapon, and was never used against armor. I think you’re mixing terms. Here’s a short breakdown of the weapons I have spoken about:
Arming sword - A one-handed, double edged, sword used during the middle ages. It’s the typical sword you see in movies.
Longsword - Usually a two-handed sword (depending on the varyign length, the place and time-period also called a hand-and-a-half sword). Used during the high middle ages as the Knight’s most common side arm.
Cut & thrust sword - A short cutting sword used during the renaissance period.
Rapier - A renaissance sword consisting of a rigid, long, narrow blade meant for thrusting.
Small sword - A classical period “dueling” weapon, consisting of an (usually) edgeless, thin blade meant for thrusting.
The modern sport has a LITTLE to do with classical fencing (covering the dying age of sword duels) and that’s as much credit as I will give it. It has nothing to do with Renaissance or medieval martial arts, period.
Likewise. 
Mmm… you do make a good point, and you do cite it. I would certainly agree that sparring with boken, Japanese style, is certainly fencing, although it isn’t the same sort of fencing you see in Errol Flynn movies.
I would not agree that two heavily armored Middle Ages combatants with broadswords and shields are “fencing.” Perhaps it’s just me, but I like my definitions a little tighter than that. Still, if Wikipedia allows it, I guess I gotta concede on that one.
What I prolly shooda said here is “knowing how to parry a blow doesn’t make you a fencer, any more than knowing a couple of dance steps makes you a dancer.” Otherwise, it kind of sounds like we agree, here.
I also tend to think of “fencing” meaning any kind of swordplay involving speed, footwork, and a fair amount of body motion – Middle Ages and Renaissance combat, as well as the modern sport. Sure, you could argue that all these factors applied to armored noblemen on the battlefield, on horse or off… but I do not think of that as “fencing.” Still, again, if Wikipedia says so… (I took fencing in college. Learned quite a bit about it, and swords in general; the teach was a history buff. I may well be a bit of an elitist, in all honesty).
The guy in leathers may not have had a choice. The guy in armor may well have decided to come for HIM, leaving Leathers the choice of fleeing, or trying to fight, assuming that option was open. I would also argue that armor or no armor, our antagonist would be an idiot to just sit there and wait for Leathers to make a mistake or wear himself out; when you’re dealing with sharp pointy things, any fight that lasts more than a few seconds has gone on much too long.
I would be amazed if a rapier weighed three pounds. Perhaps something with a big basket hilt, chased in gold. Practical modern fencing weapons, even epees and sabers, weigh MUCH less.
As to the weights of swords being comparable… I must, again, disagree. I’ve handled quite a few, modern, modern replicas, and originals, and they have ranged from “wow, light as a feather,” to “jaysus, who used THIS thing, Hercules?” I’ve theorized that certain persons back then – members of the nobility, mostly – were either in fantastic shape, or seldom actually used the weapons in question, using them instead for show and display, and subscribing to the well-known “mine’s bigger” theory. Still, perhaps I am wrong.
True. However, this may not be feasible at any given moment; sometimes, one must defend, and wait for an opening. If an opening is not presented, sometimes one must make one; hence the “shield rush” or “shield slam,” or any number of buffeting or provoking techniques… as well as the thrusting of a specialized point through a weak point in the armor, like I mentioned for the epee. I’m beginning to wonder if we don’t actually AGREE here, and are simply approaching the same point from two different angles, so to speak.
Um… yes, but not quite. Men at arms were not knights; knights were members of the nobility, and as such, were almost invariably horsed. Men at arms, on the other hand, ranged from “retainers of some noble” to “free men out for some plunder.” Favored retainers of a lord might well possess armor, but chainmail or perhaps partial plate was the best they could hope for; full plate was expensive enough that few kings would dress their common guards in the stuff. Most men-at-arms types wore studded leather, or perhaps ring mail or splint mail, if they were rich enough and willing to invest in the protection… and could be assured they wouldn’t have to march in the stuff. Keep in mind that men-at-arms seldom had horses, and were expected to get to the battlefield under their own power. Would YOU want to march anywhere in full chainmail? Assuming no one was going to try to kill you until you arrived, that is.
Nobles would often fight afoot at tournaments, sure, and usually in full armor. However, at tournament, they were not generally trying to KILL each other under such circumstances; the point was to prove yourself the better man, win some token, look cool, and earn some bragging rights. Perhaps you would want to humiliate a rival. True, fatalities happened; put a buncha arrogant jerks in armor with swords and horses all together, and things will happen… but, as previously mentioned, they generally weren’t trying to be lethal.
In actual warfare, however, you’d be insane to not want to be on a horse, if you had one. Sure, you’d want to know how to defend yourself on foot, if you were unhorsed, but otherwise… “my kingdom for a horse!”
You’re thinking of the modern epee. The epee is descended from a very similar weapon – basically a straight, stiff, edgeless pointy sword with a specialized point, intended to be forced through chainmail or crevices in heavy armor. This is one of the things I learned in fencing classes. I would no doubt sound much more authoritative if I could remember what the &%$# thing was called, though. The main difference between this weapon and the epee is that the epee was longer, and intended for dueling; the original was somewhat shorter, for easier use in close quarters.
I left out your discussion of the various types of swords, as you are essentially correct, here, to my knowledge, and I didn’t wanna do the little QUOTE tags around each one. You did, however, leave out a staggering number of other swords, each of which had its own technique and style of use – the Roman gladius, for example, a short sword intended largely for stabbing, but which had an edge for chopping, as well. Considering the rather rigid tactics used by the Legions, I wouldn’t call the use of the gladius “fencing,” but, again, if Wikipedia says so…
Mm… depends on what you mean, here. The modern sport is a sport, with rigidly defined rules; a touch under the wrong circumstances is not a touch, and therefore not a point. Renaissance fencing, on the other hand, was basically a way to kill people and settle differences, and all was fair in love and war. Nevertheless, a great many of the moves used in the modern sport are directly descended from things that worked – and worked well – in the standard techniques of use of any analogous light bladed weapon. The beat, the bind, corps-a-corps, and many other moves come straight to us from medieval Europe. True, the modern sport doesn’t allow for the use of the main-gauche… or, for that matter, kicking your opponent in the nads and then running him through… but I’m not sure I’d say they aren’t related, based on that. Perhaps I misunderstand you.
It may not be the same TYPE of fencing, but it’s still fencing, that was my point. Certainly the styles vary depending on the weapon type, the period, and the culture, although if you look closely, related weapons tended to have similar systems devloped for them. This is probably because the old masters recognized what worked and what didn’t, and naturally, similar weapons would tend to work and not work in a similar way.
I would argue that the term is perfectly fitting in the case you cited. What is fencing if not a test of skill between two opponents with swords? Medieval swordsmen would have used a complete system of fencing: footwork, technique, style, etc.
Definately agree here.
I agree here.
True, and that’s exactly what I would have expected to happen: the guy in light armor would run and live to fight another day. Not that the guy in plate wouldn’t necessarily be able to catch him. You can still run very fast while wearing 50 pounds of properly made, properly fitting harness!
That is because modern fencing implements are not swords, or rather, they are not FUNCTIONAL weapons meant to kill. They are feather weight toys (or tools, I don’t want to be too harsh on the modern sport which IS a lot of fun and requires tremendous discipline).
Rapiers did indeed weigh from ~2.5 to 3.5 pounds, here are some historically accurate, quality replicas for you to look over. Notice their length (much longer than modern foils) and their weight.
http://albion-swords.com/swords/deltin/sword-dt2177.htm
http://albion-swords.com/swords/deltin/sword-dt5171.htm
There certainly were many swords meant for purely ceremonial purposes, but we now have a lot of info on functional weapons, and that is what I’m basing my weights on. The end result is that you’ll find that most swords weighed under 4 pounds, and only the “True” greatswords of the renaissance usually over 6 feet in length would weigh more than 5 pounds, and usually not more than 8.
I think you’re right on that last point, I think we are agreeing.
Yes they were not always knights, what I meant rather is that they were almost always part of the warrior elite, wether mercenaries, retainers or free men, and were usually properly outfitted for combat. Essentially they were heavy calvary on foot
Actually modern soldiers march carrying heavier loads that are not even evenly distributed on their bodies. We have evidencer that indeed knights and elite units marched with most if not all their armor on. An average world war II soldier had it much worse.
They did, for the most part. As I said a modern soldier has it worse. I’d rather be caught wearing the armor than not in ambush, that’s for sure.
Sure, I agree. But you left out judicial combat, skirmishes, and duels, apparently a common thing back then.
You might be thinking of the estoc, but it is dubious that the two weapons are much related at all. Historians place the epee as the modern descendant of the classical small sword, which in turn evolved from the rapier, but the rapier and epee are very much removed, and even the rapier was a weapon not meant to be used against armor, it was the first true civilian weapon of self-defense.
Then you’re not thinking of the estoc which was essentially a long pointy needle with a crossguard and handle.
Right, I only mentioned the handful I thought were more relevant to the discussion.
I have a problem with “Straight from medieval Europe”. No, not really all that straight. The differences are profound and show clearly that the purpose of modern fencing is to score points and not to kill your opponent. Watching renaissance and medieval martial arts one gets the immediate impression that the opposite is true, it’s all about killing your opponent as quickly and efficiently as possible. The bind is very different, even in renaissance rapier technique, double time is there, but most eveyrthing else is different.
Take footwork as an example. Modern sport footwork has you walking on a virtual tightrope moving firward and back. Renaissance rapier combat involves much side stepping, and the feet are kept shoulder distance apart in order to keep well balanced.
The very purpose of sport fencing also changes it’s core application. You are supposed to socre a point BEFORE your opponent. There is no concern about you being hit, as long as it happens AFTER your hit. This would get you killed in a rapier fight where tecnique and footwork combine to make certain you are in control of yuor opponents blade, and only you walk away from the fight.
Related, yes, to classical fencing and the ‘gentlemanly’ duel of the 18th century, but not to renaissance or medieval martial arts. About the only thing they have in common is some terminology and little else.
Well, yeah, but let’s face it, all other things being equal, Leathers is going to outrun Plate Mail any day of the week. He is also very likely to be able to outmaneuver him… which may well embolden him to try and hold off Plate Mail with his shield long enough to try and poke him through his armor. Naturally, Plate Mail isn’t going to want to let him get a chance… and will have been trained in ways of avoiding this (I can think of a few that were mentioned in class, actually – keeping Leathers on the defense is generally considered the best strategy, although there were others)
Mm… true. They are not intended to kill. Nevertheless, using a modern epee or fencing saber, only slightly modified (and in ways that even a moron could manage), they could be made into highly effective weapons, as far as swordplay goes. I don’t know as I’d want to try a fencing saber in a real Medieval fencing match – blade is narrower and lighter – but the epee could be fairly nasty, depending on what your opponent’s packing. It’s reinforced, wouldn’t break easily, and with a sharpened tip, well… I can list off a dozen stories of my personal experience in which injuries were suffered during “sport fencing”… by accident, and by design. On one memorable occasion, a bad sportsman managed to draw blood through his opponent’s protective covering by repeatedly whacking him on the hipbone with his epee’s edge during a match. Guy was limping when he got back to his bench.
…and this was with an unmodified epee. Ghod knows what kind of evil you could work if you sharpened the tip, or put an edge on a fencing saber. They ARE steel, after all, and modern steel of a very good grade.
…which brings us back to the original issue: how often did the actual weapons break under actual field circumstances? Be interesting to see how a modern epee, made with modern metallurgy, would hold up against a rapier, assuming the skills of the combatants were up to it.
Mm… could dispute that. We have considerable information on the weapons we’ve found. We have less on the weapons which saw the most use on the battlefield. Most examples of actual combat weapons haven’t held up well under the weight of centuries and where they were found or stored. I might well agree that most swords actually used on the battle field weighed under five pounds; most functional weapons that I’ve handled certainly have. I have also found that there is a considerable difference, when waving the thing around for any length of time, between “two pounds” and “four pounds.” Then again, my life wasn’t depending on my ability to keep waving it around, nor was I (or am I) in any kind of shape befitting a medieval soldier.
Nearly everything I’ve heard indicates that unless they were expecting an ambush or were moving through hostile territory, or they were not at all far from the actual engagement zone, they took their stuff the hell off and left it on the horse, or with the grooms, or on the supply train. My personal experience with the stuff backs this up; I dare anyone marching through a field to take a convenient and comfortable crap while wearing even partial field plate … and not need to shine some stuff up afterwards, if you acquire my drift. Elite troops? Sure. RIDING A HORSE in full armor’s a totally different beast… but even then, he’s in for an uncomfortable time, and even he’s gonna have to go potty at some point… but the idea of some poor clown marching more than a few miles in full field plate defies sanity. Chainmail was in many ways worse; nearly all the weight of the stuff was squarely on the wearer’s shoulders.
Admittedly, I’m no history professor, but if I wasn’t expecting trouble on a multi-day march, I’d have my men leave the stuff on the supply train and have them arrive as fresh and rested as possible… and THEN suit up and get ready to fight. And I sure can’t see some dunderhead like Richard III riding in full field plate for any significant amount of time…
True, forgot about judicial combat. Am not aware that all that many duels were fought wearing a whole lot of armor, though.
This makes NO sense. The rapier (in terms of the style of use and uses to which it was put) was much more similar to the foil (although the rapier was nothing like the modern foil; wider blade, for one thing, as well as a bit of cutting edge along one edge near the tip). The epee, on the other hand, is a straight, reinforced weapon which is NOT flat in cross section, and not at all very flexible; it is a poking weapon, intended for thrusting.
If you are correct (which you may well be; like I said, I’m no expert), there must have been a hell of a lot of evolution going on there. The estoc was also not flat in cross section, but was more rounded (which made it more reliable to beat or whip an opponent, if you couldn’t poke him)… which also meant it couldn’t take an edge. The epee could, although its practitioners generally eschewed this (in polite society, anyway). Otherwise, they were used similarly, although from what I understand, the estoc was somewhat longer, and not so much for close-quarters use.
Oh.
Well, yeah.
That’s why I made the joke about “a kick in the nads.” Modern fencing comes to us straight from guys who fought “gentlemanly duels” to first blood, generally, and agreed to give each other cool-looking dueling scars while studying at Heidelberg. This was “sportsmanlike,” as opposed to angry sweaty martial artists with sharp objects trying to murder each other as quickly and efficiently as possible and not much caring how cool they look to anyone watching.
Duh.
Just once, generally speaking.
A quick question to Kinthalis and Wang-Ka: Have either of you tried fighting in full 15th Century plate armour, visor down? If so, how did you find it? I’ve worn the full works holding the standard sword/warhammer, and am pretty fit and nimble, but know no fighting techniques or matial arts whatsoever. I genuinely struggled to conceive how anyone could actually fight, even given infinite practise.
In short: in a one-on-one with no distractions, I think either of you in a loincloth could kill me with a screwdriver.
The field of view and speed and accuracy of attack are so drastically impaired that one false swing on my part and you will have (bravely, I’ll admit) jumped on me like an Alien egg-implanter, shoving your screwdriver into my visor holes or mailed joints with gay abandon.
Full plate, IMO, works “statistically”. On a battlefield you worry about projectiles, other fully-armoured knights or a chaotic crowd of lightly armoured infantry. You do not find brave, skilled near-naked men with screwdrivers.
Your thoughts?
I thought carbon makes steel stronger?
This topic is unfortunately timely. On Monday night, my smallsword blade broke in practice. It was an old friend.
With that in mind, I have a few remarks. I wish I had come to this discussion earlier. Kinthalis has the right of it in most respects, and I won’t bother quibbling on some technical details.
An extremely useful FAQ is located here. As it happens, I am a student at the linked school.
I have been a student of classical and historical fencing for about five years under a traditional master. I began with the classical French foil, and have since studied Italian sabre, Italian rapier, and French smallsword.
For those who do not think that medieval martial arts qualify as fencing, I would enjoin you to take a look at the I.33 Fechtbuch and the Talhoffer Fechtbuch. Both are blossfechten manuals. Even a cursory review and interpretation should reveal that combat with medieval weapons was highly systematized. Enormous practical experience was distilled into a sound theory, which in turn gave rise to consistent pedagogy.
Though I have not, there are several students at my school who do enjoy this sort of thing. The weight is well distributed by a system of straps and buckles. The most critical hindrance is visibility. In armor it is especially important to remain relaxed and use your technique rather than flailing about, since you do not really have the benefit of your eyes. You must instead fight by feel. This is not easy, but there are some people at the Academy of European Medieval Martial Arts who do it very well. Their play is surprisingly graceful and skilled.
Wang-Ka, you may be interested in an article I wrote on the subject located here. Armor was in fact used heavily in judicial combat, particularly when the combatants were aristocratic.
There is a lot more to cherry-pick here, but I think I’d rather see where the discussion goes and blend in there.
The epee evolved from the colichemarde. (1700s)
Having worn it myself, I’d have to say that, while it certainly beats a mail coat, it was not that well distributed: the leg armour was independently strapped, yes, but the vast majority of the enormous weight of the breast/back plates, helmet, arm vambraces and shoulder paulrons were still on the shoulders and upper back. And no matter how well greased the joints are, arm movement is vastly restricted: those students you know must indeed be practised in doing a lot with little movement.
And yes, one is literally nearly blind: I found that one must continually waggle one’s head a little to get a kind of “through the railings” effect - staying still provided a field of view so tiny that the man in the loincloth need only drop nimbly to the floor and I would lose him completely!