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

[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

[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?

[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?

[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

[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]

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.

[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...
_