Swordplay

[Dimeola]

Just wondering.....because you see some fancy swordplay in Gladiator and hollywood in general. But is any of that real to history? Were soldiers of the ancient time trained in the finer points? Did they practice for single combat? Or was it just your basic slog it out as a unit stuff?

Related....how involved did strategy and tactics get? have read that quite a bit of ancient combat was a shoving match. How much control did a commander have?
Thx,
Dimeolas

[AvramL]

Ancient warfare was largely a slugging match with huge numbers of casualties usually only being suffered by the side that started to rout first. Given the dense formations and the natural human tendency to bunch, men didn't have much room to do anything but push once the crush began. Ofcourse many men would have fallen and either been trampled in the press or knocked down their surrounding comrades in the process (ever been in a mosh pit at a rock concert?), the opposition could then exploit these gaps and spaces.
I've never seen an accurate representation of ancient warfare (or warfare of just about any period to be honest) in film, they are all far far too fluid, artsy and clean (look at the mass grave from Towton to get an idea of the kind of repeated trauma inflicted on a human body in a melee).
as far as command and control in a battle is concerned it was pretty limited. The biggest job for a commander in a fight was to both encourage the troops fighting and to display good judgement in terms of when and exactly where to commit reserves (these is only true for the more organized armies of the day as opposed to hosts) All this means that it could be said that a battle was often won before the armies even met i.e. through maneouver, position, force composition, morale, etc.

Roman legionaries were trained in more individual combat and swordplay if for no other reason than to give them confidence in their own abilities. This was still usefull though, as for a brief period as the enemy collapsed these skills would be used, and if they were involved in more loose ordered skirmishing etc. (though this was usually the domain of the auxillaries). That's not to say though that there weren't sword skills that could be used in a normal battle situation, they were just different and not at all aesthetic (if that's the right word).

[Colovion]

I guess that bunching and pushing deal is considerably apparent when you think about why the Phalanx was so effective from the front - if you have 3-8 Rows of spears coming at you, you're in trouble

[andrewt]

I know somebody who studies Japanese swordsplay. It's mostly who gets to swing at the other guy accurately first. There's quite a bit of manuevering beforehand, though.

There's an archaeological find on Japanese battlefields that found a lot of soldiers died while having their own sword stuck on their heads and helmets. Apparently, they tried to block their opponents' sword with their own but the momentum of their opponents' sword made their own sword hit their head, killing them. Simple physics shows why this will be the case.

I don't think you can really block a sword with another sword effectively. That's what a shield is for.

[Sinner]

You certainly can effectively block a sword with your own sword, however there are good reasons to avoid doing so unless absolutely necessary, especially if a shield is available.

Blocking with a sword vs sword runs the risk of damaging or even breaking the blade, especially in edge vs edge strikes. With swords being expensive and difficult to make in comparison to a shield, it's more cost effective to use a shield to defend. Another point is that if you're using your sword to defend, you aren't attacking with it, and you generally don't defeat your opponent unless you attack. A shield's greater coverage also makes it for more effective in defense compared to a sword, able to protect against missile attacks and potentially even stop multiple simultaneous attacks.

Archeological finds like those you mentioned don't really offer evidence against the effectiveness of swords in defense, since they don't tell us anything about the instances when the defence was successful. For example, if for every soldier killed trying to block with his sword, 10 survived - obviously leaving no archeological trace behind - could that be called ineffective?

[Tamur]

There's an archaeological find on Japanese battlefields that found a lot of soldiers died while having their own sword stuck on their heads and helmets. Apparently, they tried to block their opponents' sword with their own but the momentum of their opponents' sword made their own sword hit their head, killing them. Simple physics shows why this will be the case.

This is so true. I have the happy opportunity to duel my son (with wooden blades!) almost daily, and this happens to either him or myself at least two or three time each session. Blocking a hefty swing takes some serious wrist strength.

As for the finer points vs. the basics, one thing to remember is that for most armies before the Roman professional (post-Marian) army, swordfighting or spear work was on the same level as being able to use a plow or mend broken fencing. They simply didn't have the time to become VERY good at battle techniques.

Nobility, of course, were different since they had slaves to do everything. Some hired mercenaries, others (like Achilles) became stunningly good at the art of war.

[Spartiate]

Roman Legionary motto:If it's standing cut it down,if it's down stamp it flat.

They were trained to go for the neck and groin as any other area left an opponent with enough strenght to fight back even while dying.When a mortally injured enemy was on the ground they stamped on his head or neck with their iron shod sandals and continued on over them to engage the next opponent with the Legionaries behind following suit.
Efficient and nasty buggers the Romans.

[andrewt]

You certainly can effectively block a sword with your own sword, however there are good reasons to avoid doing so unless absolutely necessary, especially if a shield is available.

Blocking with a sword vs sword runs the risk of damaging or even breaking the blade, especially in edge vs edge strikes. With swords being expensive and difficult to make in comparison to a shield, it's more cost effective to use a shield to defend. Another point is that if you're using your sword to defend, you aren't attacking with it, and you generally don't defeat your opponent unless you attack. A shield's greater coverage also makes it for more effective in defense compared to a sword, able to protect against missile attacks and potentially even stop multiple simultaneous attacks.

Archeological finds like those you mentioned don't really offer evidence against the effectiveness of swords in defense, since they don't tell us anything about the instances when the defence was successful. For example, if for every soldier killed trying to block with his sword, 10 survived - obviously leaving no archeological trace behind - could that be called ineffective?

When I meant blocking, I meant just putting your sword in the way of the other guy's sword to impede its progress.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong since it's been a long time since I took any physics. If a guy swings a sword at you, he has momentum. If you just put your sword in front of him to block, his momentum will carry over to your sword, pushing it back to you. You need to either swing your sword at him with equal momentum to cancel his momentum or swing your sword with enough momentum that he won't push your sword far enough for you to get hit with your own sword.

If you just put your sword in front of you, your wrists need to offer enough momentum to offset your opponents' momentum. Since momentum is mass x velocity, your wrists have to be really strong as the mass of the other guy's arms and shoulders might be included in his momentum (and this is where my physics gets really foggy).

[Tamur]

I don't know about the physics on a mathematical level, but on a practical level you can offset the mass of the other guy's arm/hand by using your wrist to 1) keep your sword in one place, and 2) generate some quick momentum of your own by twisting your wrist to the side your oppoenent is attacking from. So no only do you get a better chance of blocking the blow, but if you angle it right you get a chance of using the momentum of your opponent's blade to knock it down and sideways, giving you the chance to poke him in the exposed neck or ribcage.

This is probably really boring stuff for people who've never done it, but executing a swift knockdown-and-riposte like that is quite a thrilling experience!

[ShellShock]

It must make a difference as to where on your blade you parry your opponent's blow. The nearer the tip of your blade the opposing blow falls, the more difficult it will be for you to keep your wrist straight. Conversely, if the blow lands near your hilt, then it will be much easier for you to keep your wrist locked. But this probably has the danger that the blow chops your hand off instead.

Now, where did I put that onager?

[Sinner]

To successfully perform a passive block as suggested would require strength, but it isn't impossible. An experienced swordsman will also yield to a degree, extending the time taken to halt the momentum of the attack thus taking some of the sting out of the blow, reducing the chance of a broken blade or causing the sword to slip.

It was generally prefered to block with the lower part of the sword, which is often thicker & thus stronger, reducing the chance of a blade snapping, plus also avoiding damage to the egde of the blade closer to the point, ie. the part most likely to be used to strike an offensive blow.

[TexRoadkill]

I was reading an article on bladed weapon combat and it talked about the evolution of BWC. It said that it's inherent in men to want to slash at an enemy instead of thrusting. Thrusting is much more deadly and it was a technique the Romans decided to work on with their men (not sure when that started). Once they got their men trained to thrust instead of slash they became much more deadly against the undisciplined barbarians.

[Colovion]

Then again you could simply just thrust straight at the opponent and kill him before his sword falls. Some forms of Kung Fu concentrate almost entirely on this aspect: when someone swings a big hook coming at your jaw an easy way to stop it is to either dodge, parry (which is difficult when a lot of force is involved or the opponent is stronger than you) or do a fast strike at the opponent straight on. I would think that the same is true for swordplay given that you can judge the speed of your opponents sword enough that you know you will be able to get a lethal enough thrust into your enemy that their momentum stops. Physics would dictate that a swung blade that has it's axis halted would produce the blade to swing faster through pivoting but with less force behind it or would fall clean out of the opponents hand.

THen again I've never seriously had any sword fights. Tamur - did you make your swords? Me and a friend were discussing the kind of wood to use for swords and what the best way would be to produce them would be. Any suggestions or did you buy them?

[Tamur]

But this probably has the danger that the blow chops your hand off instead.

Ha! Yes... I just had my thumb broken (fracture) last week when a particularly bad parry brought my thumb smack into my son's blade. Yowch.

Parrying near the tip of the blade is near impossible. Mid-blade is best --- if you try to catch and parry near the hilt you're getting too close to your opponent and the fight will end pretty quickly, one way or the other

[Tamur]

did you make your swords? Me and a friend were discussing the kind of wood to use for swords and what the best way would be to produce them would be. Any suggestions or did you buy them?

Nothing fancy, but the trick is to get and use a single block of wood for the entire sword. At first I tried a simple dowel attached via a small steel rod and glue to a grip/handguard, but wood joins are just too weak to handle the punishment.

The very simplest, longest-lasting, and great fun for NOTHING is to just get a reasonably-sized 100 cm (about 3 feet) long dowel. These last forever, can be easily carved into a nice blade shape, and are very inexpensive. You can find them in any craft store.

Second is using a larger piece of wood, like a 4 cm x 10 cm x 100 cm slab, and carving one. I did this once -- it took me three months at a few minutes a day, and lasted for something like three weeks. Dreadful waste it was, looked very nice while it lasted though!

Let me know if I can help out with more detail. It really is great fun.

[DemonArchangel]

Well, a melee was a big fat crush, if you were a "barbarian" with a longsword, you couldn't swing it right, but the gladius was short enough to be used effectively in scrum situation.

[octavian]

mmm, wooden swords my best friend has quite a collection of wooden swords that he has made (as well as some steel ones that he bought). his wooden swords are some of the best i have ever seen (and that is saying a lot). he usually can make one sword in under 6 hours of work as well, he is an extremely good modelling artist artist, so from 5 feet away, his swords (no joke) look real. he usually uses red oak for the wood, and keeps the blades at least 3/8 of an inch thick at their thickest point (right beside the fuller). i will see if A) i can get him to email me some of his digital pics of his swords B) get him to tell me exactly how he does the manufacturing of them.

[Dimeola]

I read that the `use` of the macedonian Phalanx was to ``pin`` the enemy main body until the cavalry executed the killing blow.
D

[Dimeola]

I believe the objective to be not meeting force with force but to deflect the blow? I was thinking more of the Roman era.....if you did block a sword directly on what chances that the blade would shatter or break?
D

[Dimeola]

How broken would the melee become. Upon meeting would the two units remain cohesive? Or stay in formation....perhaps dependent on training. Still have my old training bokken....I believe its oak....its very tough and sturdy. The point is sharp and could easily remove an eye or be driven into a man`s belly.
D

[TonkaToys]

In Fencing you regularly need to block and riposte with your blade... anything else is illegal!

Sabre is the closest of the Fencing weapons to what we are talking about (slashing) and the trick with parrying there is to have the blocking blade at a diagonal angle from the plane of the attack... that way the momentum of the attacking blade is transferred into a sliding motion along the blocking blade.

Depending on the type of attack, and your desired counter attack or riposte, you can have your blade point slightly towards the attacker - in which case their blade ends up on your guard allowing you greater leverage to push it in a direction you want or to restrict its freedom of movement.
Or... you can have your blade pointing slightly away from your attacker so that their blade slides past you, leaving you inside their guard.

Of course it doesn't always work like that, especially if you've got a good opponent.

[English assassin]

Then again you could simply just thrust straight at the opponent and kill him before his sword falls

You could: this is why foil fencing, for instance, makes it a rule that if your opponent begins an attack, the attack MUST fail (eg be blocked or miss) before you can score on the counter. Of course that's good for sport but the fact that the rule is necessary shows that being the first to strike would normally be by far the best in combat.

Also in foil (never done sabre but would like to) you must parry with the bottom half of the blade nearest the grip. You simply can't parry with the tip, the leverage against you is too great. Of course in foil the blade you are parrying has next to nil momentum being so light.

The point about thrusting is absolutely right. Its much quicker than a swing, and I suspect more deadly, since you are heading directly for vital organs. Your en garde position is safer too, since your point is aimed directly at the target area at all times. If he is fast, even an unarmed man stands some chance against a man armed with a slashing weapon, as there is a moment when he must draw it back to strike, and you can step in. I remember practicing this in Ju Jitsu against opponents with "truncheons" and all I would say is that, after practice, its reasonably easy to do reliably in the dojo when your opponent is a friend with a plastic bottle ! In principle it would be just as easy against a barbarian with a broadsword but I'm glad I never put that to the test...

[Ludens]

The point about thrusting is absolutely right. Its much quicker than a swing, and I suspect more deadly, since you are heading directly for vital organs. Your en garde position is safer too, since your point is aimed directly at the target area at all times.

I guess it also depends on whether your enemy is armoured. If he is, will a thrust do much damage? A swing has more momentum and will probably better for breaking bones through armour, even if the armour is not penetrated.

[The Wizard]

Generally there is very little left of the knowledge of, for instance, the martial art that the medieval knight employed to fight. We can imagine, we can reasonably approach the way they fought, but it will always remain speculation.

The further you go back into time, the less there is known about the martial arts employed by Europeans, and generally you can say that anything before the time fencing became a sport is speculation.

Martial arts in the Far East were preserved because they were usually continually practiced by a group, an 'order', if you will, unlike the martial arts and swordplay of European peoples, which were far more personal and not practicioned under the direction of a larger organisation, something the peoples of the Far East achieved far earlier than we here did. The swordplay of a samurai, for instance, is preserved in the martial art we know as ken-do.



~Wiz

[DemonArchangel]

www.thehaca.com

[Tamur]

Hey, nice link there! Lots of fun reading, and a very active group it appears.

[DemonArchangel]

i've (VERY carefully) tested live thrusting blades against cutting blades before. If the point of a thrusting blade can be avoided, then, the thrusting swordsman is screwed.

[English assassin]

guess it also depends on whether your enemy is armoured. If he is, will a thrust do much damage? A swing has more momentum and will probably better for breaking bones through armour, even if the armour is not penetrated.

Don't know I never tried that . (BTW whoever said that fencing is probably not much guide to how knights or Romans fought is of course spot on. its just a sport. But you can maybe make some comments from it).

In principle, I believe a thrust is MORE effective against an armoured opponent, because it opposes a smaller surface (the point) against a smaller area, and so the pressure should be greater. (The other factors are velocity and mass. For the sake of argument a swinging blade might move faster, though it would be worth measuring. Mass is on the side of the thrust though, as it will have much of your body weight behind it, whereas the swing has only arm, maybe shoulder). Also you have more chance to target a weak area (IMHO), and against chain, it would obviiusly be very much superior to a slash.

However I would think your chance of breaking the blade would be very high precisely because of the forces you are asking it to transmit, unless it was of very high, possibly unattainably high, quality. Hence presumably one reason for the polearm, where the metal blade is kept short and most of the length a good reliable wooden pole

i've (VERY carefully) tested live thrusting blades against cutting blades before. If the point of a thrusting blade can be avoided, then, the thrusting swordsman is screwed.

I imagine so, though its a big if, and in foil and epee that is why you have beat attacks, disengages and so on. What I think this does show is that in "real" conditions rather than on the piste or in the dojo factors such as distance, space and balance become so important that its quite hard to say one approach is better than another. Face to face, one on one, I personally would choose an epee like weapon every time . In a confused melee with friends and enemies on all sides at all distances a sabre like weapon may well be more effective. After all they were in military use up until the end of the sword era so that has to tell us something.

[DemonArchangel]

Don't know I never tried that . (BTW whoever said that fencing is probably not much guide to how knights or Romans fought is of course spot on. its just a sport. But you can maybe make some comments from it).

In principle, I believe a thrust is MORE effective against an armoured opponent, because it opposes a smaller surface (the point) against a smaller area, and so the pressure should be greater. (The other factors are velocity and mass. For the sake of argument a swinging blade might move faster, though it would be worth measuring. Mass is on the side of the thrust though, as it will have much of your body weight behind it, whereas the swing has only arm, maybe shoulder). Also you have more chance to target a weak area (IMHO), and against chain, it would obviiusly be very much superior to a slash.

However I would think your chance of breaking the blade would be very high precisely because of the forces you are asking it to transmit, unless it was of very high, possibly unattainably high, quality. Hence presumably one reason for the polearm, where the metal blade is kept short and most of the length a good reliable wooden pole



I imagine so, though its a big if, and in foil and epee that is why you have beat attacks, disengages and so on. What I think this does show is that in "real" conditions rather than on the piste or in the dojo factors such as distance, space and balance become so important that its quite hard to say one approach is better than another. Face to face, one on one, I personally would choose an epee like weapon every time . In a confused melee with friends and enemies on all sides at all distances a sabre like weapon may well be more effective. After all they were in military use up until the end of the sword era so that has to tell us something.

For swings, you swing with your entire body, shoulder, toros and legs are all involved, it's for more speed and power. a weak swing can easily be slapped aside. In a duel, it's all about skill, not about what weapon, a real rapier is nothing like an epee anyway. Besides, in a personal duel, what if i grab the blade of your epee?

[Mouzafphaerre]

-
I'm not well informed about the rest but Ottoman warriors were trained for a massive swordplay style that won them many days, mounted and on feet alike.

During his days of stage acting, my father had learnt it from probably the last person to know but forgot part of it. Neverhteless, he taught me what he had in mind;

It's a combination of three swings, supported by three steps, that move radially in order to save energy and make use of the counter movement forced by the inertia. Hard to describe on writing now...
_