Favorite Weapon (try to convince other fencers your weapon is the best)

[Inquartata]

Meh, tell that to the Romans, the Persians, the Turks...

[40Saberthieves]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Meh, tell that to the Romans, the Persians, the Turks...

And the chinese.

[Grey]

The romans didn't made their troops expendable... They were well equiped with shields etc. Besides, they had flanking, artillery and all that...

[Inquartata]

The classical Roman legion was arrayed in three ranks. The front rank was composed of the newest, least experienced, greenest troops. The veterans, the tried and steadfast soldiers who were the most reliable, were in the third rank. The second was made up of soldiers in between in terms of experience.

Why expose your best troops to the brunt of the enemy missile assault or cavalry charge? Save them for the tough battles, where they may be needed the most, or the last stages, when it may come down to determination. Sacrifice your least valuable asset before your most valuable one...

[OffTarget]

Case in point (in terms of principle, not Romans) is the battle of Thermopylae.

Against the entrenched Spartans, Xerxes first sent lightly armed spearmen (who were thrashed) and gradually upped the experience and weight. It was not until the last day the Immortals went in. Albeit they sneaked around back.

[dunastor]

Yes, the Athanatoi...

The good old days...

[CvilleFencer]

Of course the 300 or so elite Spartans supported by a few thousand Spartan trained slaves and conscripts against a few hundred thousand Persian troops goes to show how well a top notch fighting force can do against overwhelming numbers. Granted they had terrain and morale on their side...

[Inquartata]

And longer spears.

[blackbeltmark]

I think the choice is obvious:

Sabre
(Note the dragging, hairy knuckles and hunched posture)

Epee
(Note the upright stance, and the chiseled muscles)

Forgive me, my MSPAINT skills aren't the greatest.

[gulebukser]

Nice pics.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Meh, tell that to the Romans, the Persians, the Turks...

No army since the time of Napoleon would behave as they did, if they wanted to survive for long. Napoleon preferred to send his strongest and best force against the weakest part of the enemy's line, thus dividing the enemy into smaller pieces to be more easily destroyed. We still do pretty much the same thing, with adaptations for modern weapons/transport/communications.

To any modern warrior, what Inq proposed is indeed a less than optimal strategy.

[Negrini Man]

Foil, because I'm good at it and enjoy it most. Who really chooses a weapon based on whether it is the most realistic? Fencing is a SPORT (we wear protection) derived from tradition (don't wear protection). I think there is both truth and beauty to all three weapons, I just personally haven't discovered it yet with the other two weapons, doesn't mean it doesnt exist....

[Markstorm]

Originally Posted by Negrini_Man

Foil, because I'm good at it and enjoy it most. Who really chooses a weapon based on whether it is the most realistic? Fencing is a SPORT (we wear protection) derived from tradition (don't wear protection).

I haven't chosen my weapon yet, because I decided to learn foil first to have a solid foundation. However, I think I'll probably choose sabre because to me, that's the only weapon that represents combat. Cutting and thrusting, with the target area only encompassing lethal or severely handicapping areas. To me, this symbolizes a swordfight more so than the other two weapons.

The fact that we wear protection is not an argument whatsoever that fencing must be pure sport. We wear protection in order to avoid injury, not to change the whole nature of the sword. I don't want to start a debate of classical vs sport, but I will say that your argument is one of the worst defenses ever made for sport fencing.

To conclude, I think sabre is the most interesting weapon. However, I've only fenced for around 9 months so I am speaking from limited experience. Foil, however is to me the worst weapon. Artificial right of way (which wouldn't be bad if refs dont give ROW to fencers moving forward without extension), pathetic flick attack, and limited target area make it the least fun to fence.

[40Saberthieves]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

No army since the time of Napoleon would behave as they did, if they wanted to survive for long. Napoleon preferred to send his strongest and best force against the weakest part of the enemy's line, thus dividing the enemy into smaller pieces to be more easily destroyed. We still do pretty much the same thing, with adaptations for modern weapons/transport/communications.

To any modern warrior, what Inq proposed is indeed a less than optimal strategy.

Korean war.

[Bard]

i believe foil is the best if it is done right. Competition fencers are truly turning fencing into a sport with flicks and no distance and so on. Not that its not a sport the fact is that instead of building upon and imitating real world circumstances they are thinking of the blade as not being sharp. If it was sharp i dont think you would be getting in my face and taking tiny chunks out of my shoulders. And so if we treat the blade as if it were sharp sabre and foil would be the most realistic for fighting and epee for dueling. Sadly, this is almost a lost cause as the younger generations are indoctrinated into believing that this is how fencing always was and will be. In truth when you put yourself in the mindset of having a deadly weapon in your hand and a second not far from you trying to kill you, than you can truly see beautiful fencing as it should be done. In defense of right of way, if you stab me but die in the process thats not much of a victory is it. thnkyou for taking the time to read my rant.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

To any modern warrior, what Inq proposed is indeed a less than optimal strategy.

We're considering people "armed" with foils, epees and sabres, and you're talking about "modern warriors"?!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Markstorm

I think sabre is the most interesting weapon. However, I've only fenced for around 9 months so I am speaking from limited experience. Foil, however is to me the worst weapon.

Then take up sabre immediately. There is no reason to ingrain foil habits and timing which you will then have to unlearn later. The whole "foil provides a foundation" theory is fatally flawed. The basics of footwork, distance, timing and bladework can be learned just as easily with a sabre in your hand. Do what you enjoy, life is too short to waste on things you hate...

[Markstorm]

I will consider that, inquartata. However, I have to wait till my foil lessons end. Anyways, Maestro Evangelista told me by email that I should take foil, then epee, and finally sabre. 1 year of foil at least. Are you saying that he is wrong?

[Inquartata]

If you intend to do the sort of "classical" fencing of which he is one of the foremost fervent proponents, perhaps not. If you intend to compete in the modern sport, then yes, sadly, he is wrong.

Consider this: I cannot think of any top sabre fencer who followed his advice. The majority of the best either did a little foil or else none at all...and of those who did foil first, I would hazard that most did so because of traditionalistic insistence upon it rather than because it has any measurable utility.

[Templar147]

well, being that my club has more female saberists than male saberists, I would have to disagree with your artistic rendition of saber fencers. I think that you need to add nerd glasses and a pocket protector to the epee fencer.

so what if an epeeist can run you through? A Saberist can take your head!