# It's not the size that counts, but what you do with it: Medieval Weapons **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 12, 2001, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-size-that-counts-but-what-you-do-with-it-medieval-weapons/92887 "2001-11-12T06:09:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Gaspode](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/aeb1de/32.png) [@Gaspode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaspode)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-size-that-counts-but-what-you-do-with-it-medieval-weapons/92887/21 "2001-11-13T02:40:00Z")
Maeglin, [I think I hear someone calling your name.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=98555) šŸ˜‰ ---
**Author:** ![Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@Speaker\_for\_the\_Dead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Speaker_for_the_Dead)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-size-that-counts-but-what-you-do-with-it-medieval-weapons/92887/22 "2001-11-13T03:10:47Z")
Well, I was expecting Western (aka European) weapons, but if you want to bring Eastern weapons in, feel free. However, this is a question about someone (for example), a 28 year old healthy male in average shape being able to pick up a weapon and fend off/kill an opponent, not master the weapon and kill a back ally cloaked assassin šŸ™‚ ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-size-that-counts-but-what-you-do-with-it-medieval-weapons/92887/23 "2001-11-13T03:59:45Z")
> [@](#): > > So what isnā€™t true? With proper technique, which I assume requires training to achieve, you can swing one of these things. At 6.5 lbs I donā€™t know too many women who could swing one in combat. We appear to be in agreement here, despite what you may think. Ok, to clarify. There is a great deal of variety in the category ā€œtwo handed sword.ā€ They range from _blossfechten_ weapons that can be manipulated with more than a little subtlety to monstrosities that are good for cutting the heads off pikes. A small woman with five minutes of training can swing a dueling two handed sword properly. I would have some difficulty staying in a drawn out fight using a Landsknecht piece. > [@](#): > > But nobody mentioned an opponent armed with a knife. Going knife to sword or knife to staff requires far more training than going staff to sword or sword to sword. Youā€™ll notice that I specifically said that if we assume equality of arms and armour Iā€™ll go with the knife. And nobody assumed an opponent armed with a sword or staff, or was we in the west say, grand baton. šŸ˜‰ Attacking a wielder of a sword with a knife is considerably difficult. I think here we agree. But that was not your original claim. You said: > [@](#): > > Knives are probably the single hardest weapon to learn effectively if by effectively you mean being able to injure an opponent without getting creamed yourself. Which in my experience with _navaja seviliana_, is manifestly untrue. There is nothing inherently more difficult about using a knife. Hell, knives are extremely useful in close quarters against individuals with cutting weapons. > [@](#): > > Which is not that easy to do if your oponent has a staff. Two words. _mezzo tempo_ > [@](#): > > Not even close in my experience. I think this is part of your western training showing through. Try maintaining control over my knife in combat, as opposed to reacting to whatever I choose to do, and Iā€™ll hit you with a body part or knock your legs out. We also practice unarmed locks, grapples, and strikes. They have been a vital part of the western armed tradition since the earliest extant treatises. The Italian master Fiore dei Liberi wrote an influential manual on unarmed combat. Many of his techniques from the 15th century are shockingly similar to modern eastern martial arts. Recall then when a defender seeks to control his opponentā€™s blade, he is presenting a _threat_. If you choose to react by attacking with an empty hand, you risk suffering a serious wound with the blade. If I lock your wrist, go ahead, punch me. Because Iā€™ll be damned if I am going to seize your weapon if I am not striking and the same time. > [@](#): > > And if you believe that a reverse grip tanto style doesnā€™t then you are sadly mistaken. Donā€™t be so defensive. Swordplay evolved in the east, just as in the west, because individuals who considered the issues of combat rationally were able to systematize what techniques worked and what techniques didnā€™t. I know eastern swordsmanship works. That is not really the issue. > [@](#): > > This is where we differ. Anyone can pick up a sword and swing it and if it connects it will do reasonable damage. That is a pretty big ā€œifā€. Those who just pick up a sword with no training, in my experience, have a serious tendency to be damned careful. They fight from out of distance, not having the kind of practice with distance that swordplay requires. I can watch two novices fight with heavy weapons for an hour without seeing any blows landed with commitment. Occasionally one will get lucky, sure, but even with weapons they know will cause no permanent injury they still lack the fortitude necessary to close into striking distance. This is only exacerbated when the weapons are real. > [@](#): > > This is where the OPā€™s ddefinition of effective use needs to be clarified. To me effective use is an ability to disbable an opponent and have some chance of surviving. A sword blow can do this through pure luck, a knife blow is far less likely to immediately incapacitate, and hence render retaliation difficult or impossible, through a lucky blow. As such the knife requires more training to become effective with. A knife can land a satisfying blow on luck alone as well. In the heat of melee, with both sides having closed, someone easily could end up with a point in the gut. An inch and a half of penetration to the vitals either by a sword or by a knife is a fatal wound unless immediate and skilled medical attention is exhibited. A three foot long sword requires tremendous point control to place a thrust without being hit in return. The knife has no such drawbacks, and is in fact much easier to place accurately. Ultimately, I do not think that one weapon is any more difficult than the other in conditions conducive to both of them. Obviously a different kind of contest would privilege one over the other. > [@](#): > > Kendo can hardly be considered to be only forms (being hit on the skull with a wooden sword is definitelly not formwork). I do not know what kind of kendo you study, but the kendo I have observed possesses many of the stylized and gamelike aspects of sport fencing that have rendered it all but useless in real combat. I know that there are combative schools of kenjitsu, or something like that, but I know little about them. A friend of mine studies aikido swordsmanship, and we have a great time comparing technique. > [@](#): > > The grapple and sweep techniques of a shortstaff or the spin and hook techniques of a tonfa are far more dificult and require far more precise timing and control than any sword technique Iā€™ve seen. While I am not as familiar with these techniques as you are, I suspect that you may be very interested in many aspects of western swordsmanship. The timing and angulation of Spanish rapier and the effenciency and finesse of French smallsword come to mind. > [@](#): > > Fenced meaning by your rules, or by theirs? I can equally say that Iā€™ve fought fencers with far more experience than me and been equally unimpressed when fighting using no rules. Yeah, my rules. Hit and donā€™t get hit in return. _Sport_ fencing is absolutely useless in martial situations, which people from my school of classical and historical fencing occasionally point out to sport fencers. Remove the conventions of right of way, the strip, and give them real weapons rather than strips of copper wire, and they do not tend to perform well. Modern fencing is fine and well, but it must be recognized as a sport, not as a martial art. > [@](#): > > Iā€™ll stand by my statement. Polearms are far harder to get through a guard with than any other wepaon Iā€™ve used. \ All right then. Not much more to be said on the subject. > [@](#): > > Thereā€™s the thing though Maeglin. Locks, grabs, sweeps etc. are all fairly advanced techniques compared to the ā€˜hit any exposed body part really hardā€™ that works for axes or swords. You canā€™t say ā€˜sweep any exposed body partā€™. Such attacks need to be well targetted to be effective and that requires training. With MA experience most weapons are fairly easy to pick up, but that requires previous training. But ā€œhit any exposed body partā€ only works very well if the person isnā€™t moving and doesnā€™t have a weapon. šŸ™‚ I think I elaborated sufficiently on this above. Regarding Mike Tyson, I thought he was shorter than that. I stand corrected. And yeah, he could probably pummel you to the ground something awful. > [@](#): > > I agree, and the reverse is also true. The Kendo boys have had more than one experienced fencer who just canā€™t cut it at Kendo tournaments. For the past two years, students in my school have won the [Bakbakan](http://www.bakbakan.com/) full contact sword and dagger competition. This coming year they will feature a longsword division, which I eagerly look forward to competing in. Regards, MR ---
**Author:** ![Gaspode](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/aeb1de/32.png) [@Gaspode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaspode)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-size-that-counts-but-what-you-do-with-it-medieval-weapons/92887/24 "2001-11-13T06:29:01Z")
Iā€™m starting to think our entire dispute is over how we define effective. To me itā€™s just disabling your opponent with a fair chance of getting away with it. You seem to be assuming that a practitioner isnā€™t efficient with a weapon until they can exert good control, time their stikes based ont heir opponent and have developed the hand-eye co-ordination, stamina etc that makes for a good fighter. To me good is well beyond the ā€˜pick up and know how to useā€™ of the OP. > [@](#): > > Ok, to clarify. There is a great deal of variety in the category ā€œtwo handed sword.ā€ They range from _blossfechten_ weapons that can be manipulated with more than a little subtlety to monstrosities that are good for cutting the heads off pikes. > > A small woman with five minutes of training can swing a dueling two handed sword properly. > > I would have some difficulty staying in a drawn out fight using a Landsknecht piece. No disputing that, thatā€™s why I was referring to the weapons where "training includes developing the muscles needed to use the weapon ". > [@](#): > > Hell, knives are extremely useful in close quarters against individuals with cutting weapons. Agreed, but you and I are wel trained. Befoe I was trained I found the sword far easier to use, as would most people. > [@](#): > > Two words. _mezzo tempo_ Two words: Say what? Iā€™m assuming youā€™re referring to the fact that a trained fighter can get inside the effective range of any weapon. No disputing that, but it does requires training. It takes far less training to be able to strike a someone using a staff with a sword than it does with a 5 inch blade, and training is what this is all about. I know how useful knives are but in the hands of a novice theyā€™re far less effective than something like a falchion. > [@](#): > > If I lock your wrist, go ahead, punch me. Because Iā€™ll be damned if I am going to seize your weapon if I am not striking and the same time. Which proves my original point: Theyā€™re short so you have to move in very close giving little room for error. If youā€™ve locked up my weapon arm and are attacking with yours then Iā€™m in way to close, a situaion unlikely to occur if Iā€™m using a sword. But we now come perilously close to talking a fight. We both know dozens of techniques and counter for those techniques and counters for those counters. Itā€™s impossible to say that a fight will go any way, only that knives are so short they place you in range of an opponents attacks and because they do this they require extra training in to use effectively. > [@](#): > > An inch and a half of penetration to the vitals either by a sword or by a knife is a fatal wound unless immediate and skilled medical attention is exhibited. A three foot long sword requires tremendous point control to place a thrust without being hit in return. The knife has no such drawbacks, and is in fact much easier to place accurately. Again, no dispute, thatā€™s why I said ā€œa knife blow is far less likely to immediately incapacitateā€, not that it couldnā€™t. However what knives canā€™t do in untrained or slightly trained hands is break bones and knock people out. Even edge wounds with knives to the limbs wouldnā€™t be incapacitataing unless an artery or major tendon was struck. Edge stikes with a sword will often cause sufficient blunt trauma to incapacitate (as Iā€™m sure youā€™ve found out in training). > [@](#): > > Ultimately, I do not think that one weapon is any more difficult than the other in conditions conducive to both of them. Obviously a different kind of contest would privilege one over the other. This hasnā€™t been my experience except in cases where we have two skilled practitioners facing off. Take a semi skilled person with a wakazashi and a semi-skilled person with a kinife and Iā€™ll put my money on the wakazashi every time. Take a skilled person with a knife and a skilled person wiht a wakazashi and the advantage is lessoned considerably as youā€™ve said. > [@](#): > > I do not know what kind of kendo you study, but the kendo I have observed possesses many of the stylized and gamelike aspects of sport fencing that have rendered it all but useless in real combat. Iā€™d almost agree with that. My point was that kendo is just forms. Itā€™s essentially a training drill designed to teach targetting, timing, familiarity with the weapons and courage, all essential for good fighters. Combined with sparring it produces effective fighters. > [@](#): > > While I am not as familiar with these techniques as you are, I suspect that you may be very interested in many aspects of western swordsmanship. The timing and angulation of Spanish rapier and the effenciency and finesse of French smallsword come to mind. Iā€™ll bow to experience. My point was that mastery and effectiveness are not the same things. Just because it takes years to master a weapon doesnā€™t mean you canā€™t become effective in a matter of weeks. It takes years to master fencing, does that mean that anyone starting fencing tommorow wonā€™t be effective in a fight for years? I hope not. > [@](#): > > Yeah, my rules. Hit and donā€™t get hit in return. _Sport_ fencing is absolutely useless in martial situations, which people from my school of classical and historical fencing occasionally point out to sport fencers. Remove the conventions of right of way, the strip, and give them real weapons rather than strips of copper wire, and they do not tend to perform well. Modern fencing is fine and well, but it must be recognized as a sport, not as a martial art. Wonā€™t argue with any of that. I donā€™t think Iā€™ve ever seen real fencing then, but it sounds suspiciously close to what I learn. (Is throwing your weapon in the opponents face allowed? Donā€™t laugh, Iā€™ve seen it work though I wouldnā€™t make a habit of it.) > [@](#): > > But ā€œhit any exposed body partā€ only works very well if the person isnā€™t moving and doesnā€™t have a weapon. šŸ™‚ I think I elaborated sufficiently on this above. Granted, but the fact remains that sweeps donā€™t just ā€˜not work very wellā€™ for untrained fighters. They donā€™t work at all. Therefore any weapon that you can use effectively without utilising these techniques is going to be easier to become effective with. > [@](#): > > And yeah, he could probably pummel you to the ground something awful. A bit like being hit with a sledgehammer while sitting an a trash can I suspect. > [@](#): > > This coming year they will feature a longsword division, which I eagerly look forward to competing in. Good luck. Hope you kick arse. A couple of questions. How long do you think it would take to train a compleet novice, male, late teens, early twenties, no previous MA experience, to use any given single handed sword effectively. Do you ever use shields, which seemed to play a big role in actual combat? Iā€™ve used tonfa which can be utilised in a similar way, but I wonder how much difference a shield actually makes to technique. ---
**Author:** ![mmmiiikkkeee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/edb3f5/32.png) [@mmmiiikkkeee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mmmiiikkkeee)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-size-that-counts-but-what-you-do-with-it-medieval-weapons/92887/25 "2001-11-13T06:31:53Z")
Forgive my ignorance (this is a real question) - but how does a full-contact sword/knife competition work? Would that not equal filling up the local hospitals with stab and slice wounds or killing people? - or do they use fake weapons and serious body armor? I hope the initial picture in my head is wrongā€¦ sounds like something that would be outlawed in the US. Do fill in. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-size-that-counts-but-what-you-do-with-it-medieval-weapons/92887/26 "2001-11-13T13:10:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TwistofFate \* > \*\*Could I suggest a foil or a Sabre? > > When I was learning fencing, I was told of the history of the weapons. The italians used Foils that were 3 times (approx) the lenght of the ones used in competition today, so they could stand back and go through chainmail from a safe distance. > > Fencing is a difficult art, and a sword as long as the one one described souns like a difficult weapon to control. > > Iā€™m sure there are more diffiult weapons, but would this rank up there? \*\* Hmmmā€¦Iā€™m not an expert at all, but I donā€™t think foils and chainmails have been in use at the same timeā€¦ ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-size-that-counts-but-what-you-do-with-it-medieval-weapons/92887/27 "2001-11-13T14:13:56Z")
well, chainmail was for the want of a better word šŸ˜‰ ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-size-that-counts-but-what-you-do-with-it-medieval-weapons/92887/28 "2001-11-13T15:19:00Z")
Just a data point on knives and effectiveness: How many times have you heard/read about a victim recieving multiple stab wounds and still managing to fight-off/flee their assailant? It seems to me that the average person tends to ā€œice-pickā€ with a knife, and frequently fails to deliver an effectivly disabling blow in one or two strikes, and that they subsitute physical assault and multiple strikes in place of effective placement. Hell, the Zodiac Killer stabbed two bound victims with a bayonet, one six times (survived), and the other ten times (took two days to die). ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-size-that-counts-but-what-you-do-with-it-medieval-weapons/92887/29 "2001-11-13T15:43:34Z")
You are definitely right, **Gaspode** , we are discussing this at cross-purposes with each other. I will try to clarify my argument into a handful of propositions in order to see where the differences lie. Effectiveness is the ability to cause the maximum amount of damage at the least risk to oneself. Agreed, a large, heavy sword is inherently capable of doing greater bodily harm than a knife. However, the large sword presents considerable disadvantages to the novice practitioner: its weight, timing, distance, and point control stand out most in my mind. While a sword may be _prima facie_ more effective due to its physical characteristics, I think that its attendant characteristics and the confused nature of real combat _minimize_ said effectiveness, rendering it equal, or even less equal to a good knifeā€™s effectiveness. > [@](#): > > No disputing that, thatā€™s why I was referring to the weapons where "training includes developing the muscles needed to use the weapon ". Technically, all weapons require a certain degree of muscle training, but I donā€™t think I particularly have to split this hair. šŸ˜‰ > [@](#): > > Agreed, but you and I are wel trained. Befoe I was trained I found the sword far easier to use, as would most people. This must be a matter of personal opinion then. They might find the sword more satisfying on first heft or might think the sword gives them an illusion of greater security. But I suspect there was a reason why we learned kung fu dagger early on, and straight sword only after several years of training. For my part, I didnā€™t make it that far. > [@](#): > > Two words: Say what? _Mezzo tempo_ is executing a fencing action in the middle of your opponentā€™s time, thereby seizing it and making it your own. It takes place between _stesso tempo_, in which your action and your opponentā€™s action occur at nearly the same time, and _duei tempi_, in which you wait for your opponent to complete his action before responding. Knives lack the reach in general to perform good _stesso tempo_ actions, like inquartata, passa de soto, and other useful stop actions. It is also insane to wait for your opponent to deliver a full action with a large weapon, as deflecting the force delivered by a staff with a knife is a risky proposition. So you wait until your opponent demonstrates that his attack is committed, and you respond mid-strike, not the second he first attacks, but a brief moment later. It is precariously difficult to explain, but much easier to demonstrate. The ancient masters struggled with explicating the difference in their texts four hundred years ago, so I suppose I shouldnā€™t feel so bad. šŸ˜‰ > [@](#): > > Theyā€™re short so you have to move in very close giving little room for error. But in order to strike with a sword, you also have to be in your opponentā€™s deadly range. Yet you believe there is more room for error within point distance from a three foot sword? If so, then this is consonant with my original contention, that knives are easier to control, and are hence more effective for an untrained practitioner. > [@](#): > > Itā€™s impossible to say that a fight will go any way, only that knives are so short they place you in range of an opponents attacks and because they do this they require extra training in to use effectively. But again, in order to come close enough to use a sword or staff, you must place yourself within your opponentā€™s distance as well, unless you have a considerable reach advantage. With a knife, you are also in range of the empty hand and feet. > [@](#): > > Again, no dispute, thatā€™s why I said ā€œa knife blow is far less likely to immediately incapacitateā€, not that it couldnā€™t. However what knives canā€™t do in untrained or slightly trained hands is break bones and knock people out. Even edge wounds with knives to the limbs wouldnā€™t be incapacitataing unless an artery or major tendon was struck. Edge stikes with a sword will often cause sufficient blunt trauma to incapacitate (as Iā€™m sure youā€™ve found out in training). No dispute here, either. The sword has a greater spectrum of grievous wounds it can give out. I just think that the exigencies of a real fight make it pretty unlikely that untrained wielders will deal out these kinds of wounds. > [@](#): > > This hasnā€™t been my experience except in cases where we have two skilled practitioners facing off. Take a semi skilled person with a wakazashi and a semi-skilled person with a kinife and Iā€™ll put my money on the wakazashi every time. Take a skilled person with a knife and a skilled person wiht a wakazashi and the advantage is lessoned considerably as youā€™ve said. Oh, I agree definitely. I was thinking about same weapon pairings. We practice rapier vs. smallsword fairly often in my salle. With semi-skilled practitioners, the rapierist usually gets the better of it due to his superior reach. But if the smallsword fencer knows a bit about timing, he can get inside rapier distance and do some lovely things. > [@](#): > > Wonā€™t argue with any of that. I donā€™t think Iā€™ve ever seen real fencing then, but it sounds suspiciously close to what I learn. (Is throwing your weapon in the opponents face allowed? Donā€™t laugh, Iā€™ve seen it work though I wouldnā€™t make a habit of it.) Well, I would not want to create a real/fake distinction in fencing, as pretty much the entire sport fencing community thinks weā€™re idiots. šŸ˜‰ We prefer not to throw our weapons for a few reasons. We recognize that there may be a time and place for it in a fight, it simply would not work in training. I know that I paid quite a bit for my weapon, so I would prefer not to do anything that might diminish its performance. We also rent out a dance studio, in which the walls are covered in eight foot mirrors. Thrown swordsā€¦mirrorsā€¦bad idea. šŸ˜‰ > [@](#): > > How long do you think it would take to train a compleet novice, male, late teens, early twenties, no previous MA experience, to use any given single handed sword effectively. There is a story my fencing teacher told the class about just this question. In the end of the 18th century in France, a young man was challenged to a duel by one of the most renowned swordsmen in France. The skilled Frenchman, in the style of the times, left his dueling card with the young manā€™s friend. The engagement was to take place in two weeks. The challenged was terrified. He had no training with a blade whatsoever. So he went to one of the best fencing masters in Paris and told him the history of his misfortunes. The fencing master said that he could teach him how to defeat the duelist and save his life, provided that he trusted him and did exactly what he said. The young man agreed. Every day, ten hours a day, and for two weeks the fencing master taught the young man one technique. The young man practiced extending his arm, charging, and screaming at the top of his lungs as _soon_ as a fight began. Like I said, he practiced this for 140 hours over two weeks. The day of the duel arrived. The experienced duelist was rightfully confident. Although he heard that the young man had been training hard for two weeks, he knew well that it could never make up for a lifetimeā€™s devotion to the sword. The duel began. Off like a bullet the young man pointed, charged, and screamed. In a split second the favorite lie bleeding from a mortal wound. To repeat your question: > [@](#): > > How long do you think it would take to train a compleet novice, male, late teens, early twenties, no previous MA experience, to use any given single handed sword effectively. Apparently two weeks. But YMMV. šŸ˜ƒ > [@](#): > > Do you ever use shields, which seemed to play a big role in actual combat? Iā€™ve used tonfa which can be utilised in a similar way, but I wonder how much difference a shield actually makes to technique. Not really. Some people enjoy rapier and buckler play, but I donā€™t especially. The weapons we use are so well developed that a shield seems more to be a hindrance than a help. If I were using a heavy broadsword, then yeah, Iā€™d want a shield. But I do mid to late period rapier, in which all defensive actions are performed more efficiently by means of bladework and body avoidance. A question was asked about the tournament: > [@](#): > > Forgive my ignorance (this is a real question) - but how does a full-contact sword/knife competition work? Would that not equal filling up the local hospitals with stab and slice wounds or killing people? - or do they use fake weapons and serious body armor? We use wooden weapons and no body armor. Bakbakan fighters use their fighting helmets, and we use wire fencing masks. A lot of bruises are given and received, and there is occasionally some blood, but certainly no permanent injury. I suspect that all fighters in the longsword division will be asked to pull their strikes. Regards, MR ---
**Author:** ![Gaspode](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/aeb1de/32.png) [@Gaspode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaspode)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-size-that-counts-but-what-you-do-with-it-medieval-weapons/92887/30 "2001-11-13T22:18:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > It is precariously difficult to explain, but much easier to demonstrate. The ancient masters struggled with explicating the difference in their texts four hundred years ago, so I suppose I shouldnā€™t feel so bad. šŸ˜‰ I think I know what you mean. Yoā€™re not striking first, your not blocking the striking, your pre-empting the strike to your advanatge somewhat like using a soft-block. > [@](#): > > But in order to strike with a sword, you also have to be in your opponentā€™s deadly range. Yet you believe there is more room for error within point distance from a three foot sword? Again weā€™re talking at cross purposes. Based on the OP Iā€™m not willing to assume equally armed oppossition. Let me put it this way. You have to face someone with your weapon of chouice (Iā€™m asusming youā€™d select broadsword). You know he has had the bare minimum of training, would you rather he had a knife or a sword? The OP asked what we be the hardest wepaon to learn to use effectievly. If we assume youā€™re going to be facing a range of opponents using a range of weapons as on a medieval battlefield where swords, daggers, maces, flails and warhammers would all show up in one battle then I really think your chances of survival would be least with a dagger. > [@](#): > > I just think that the exigencies of a real fight make it pretty unlikely that untrained wielders will deal out these kinds of wounds. But an untrained knife weilder isnā€™t just unlikely to deal those wounds, he canā€™t deal them becasue itā€™s impossible for a knife to do. > [@](#): > > Oh, I agree definitely. I was thinking about same weapon pairings. We practice rapier vs. smallsword fairly often in my salle. With semi-skilled practitioners, the rapierist usually gets the better of it due to his superior reach. But if the smallsword fencer knows a bit about timing, he can get inside rapier distance and do some lovely things. See, weā€™re actually in agreement. šŸ™‚ Since semi-skilled practitioners find it easier to ā€˜killā€™ with a rapier without being killed we have to assume that itā€™s easier to become effective with a rapier under hypothetical battlefield or being-mugged-on-the-streets conditions. > [@](#): > > How long do you think it would take to train a compleet novice, male, late teens, early twenties, no previous MA experience, to use any given single handed sword effectively. > > > [@](#): > > > > Apparently two weeks. But YMMV. šŸ˜ƒ Now I know youā€™re a bastard. Iā€™m just getting over a cold and that had me laughing so hard I ended up coughing my lungs out for about 5 minutres. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-not-the-size-that-counts-but-what-you-do-with-it-medieval-weapons/92887.md?page=1)