Best combat sword?

"William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfh8bm$3ca$4@sparta.btinternet.com
> "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote in message
> news:eASSa.1001$sI.51831@nasal.pacific.net.au...
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> In rec.sport.fencing on Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC)
>>> William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Against a fully plate armoured opponent you really needed a
>>>> big two-handed can opener, usually called a 'Bill'.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you mis-spelt "pollaxe"
>>>
>> Zebee, I _know_ you mis-spelt "pole-axe".
>
> Oh no he didn't.
>
> It's from the Scots 'poll' meaning 'head'.
>
> He's wrong, but he spelled it right...

Right or wrong, he's still a she.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 19:27:31 GMT, dixit Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net>:

>While I nodded nearly napping on the couch last night, I half watched
>a show on History or Discovery (or maybe Fox) on the development of
>the European sword. The producer had fencers practice and fight
>(blunted adges or wood) with swords starting with the Roman gladius
>and ending with the fifteenth century broadsword.

>He made the assertion that this latter was the best combat sword ever
>made.

Utter tripe. I'd agree with the old wit, Reinhardt. To paraphrase: the
rapier represents the best of the western world, a properly balanced
katana, for the orient, perhaps. Neither are much good for the other's
task. Both are intrinsically hopeless against plate mail (see Zebee's
elucidation).

I must say movements derived from budo are beautiful...

>Ken

How apposite your name...

--
wreckferret ICQ#163264
UK-based Epéeist/Sabreur Make spammers pay... use CruelMail!

"Ken" asked:

> While I nodded nearly napping on the couch last night, I half watched
> a show on History or Discovery (or maybe Fox) on the development of
> the European sword. The producer had fencers practice and fight
> (blunted adges or wood) with swords starting with the Roman gladius
> and ending with the fifteenth century broadsword.
>
> He made the assertion that this latter was the best combat sword ever
> made.
>
> Is this generally conceded?

A few basic principles:

1. A lighter sword is superior for wearing into court or around the city,
when one wishes to be armed, but usually doesn't plan to fight.

2. Slashing is necessary on horse. If you stab an opponent, the sword will
still be in him until you pull it back. This is embarassing if you've
ridden by.

3. Slashing is near-useless against armor. Thrusting is only marginally
better. Pound him.

4. A longer weapon is advantageous in a line of fighters. It is
disadvantageous in close quarters.

5. There is no one thing that can be said about a cutlass, because there is
no one weapon called a cutlass. (Ditto rapier, epee, saber, etc.)

There's more, but it all leads to the same, totally unsurprising answer:

There is no one best combat sword, because there is no one combat scenario.

Jay Rudin

Ken wrote:

>While I nodded nearly napping on the couch last night, I half watched
>a show on History or Discovery (or maybe Fox) on the development of
>the European sword. The producer had fencers practice and fight
>(blunted adges or wood) with swords starting with the Roman gladius
>and ending with the fifteenth century broadsword.
>
>He made the assertion that this latter was the best combat sword ever
>made.
>
>
I'd have to use the old statement that the best weapon to use is the
best weapon you are able to use. I've been using a foil / epee for so
long now, I'd forget as to what the edge of the blade is for. The
non-combat skills (distance and timing) would have more to do with the
usefulness of the weapon than the mechanics of the weapons itself, IMHO.
As an example, in the movie "Rob Roy" (yes, it's a movie, but it
illustrates the point) there's a scene where Rob Roy and The Fop are in
combat / dueling. The Fop was effective with his distance, timing and
general thrusting with the (?) rapier. Once Rob Roy controlled the
distance and timing by grabbing The Fop's blade, it took one hefty swing
to cleave The Fop and end the duel. The weapon wasn't the deciding
factor, it was the advantage Rob Roy took in changing the conditions of
the duel.

<donning flame suit>

-Joseph

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbi35pe.ja4.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:54:18 +0000 (UTC)
> William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It sounds a bit the story about the watchmen to the City of London
measuring
> > rapier blades and breaking off over long ones in Queen Elizabeth's days.
> > It's a good story, and first appears, as far as I'm aware, in
'Fuller's
> > Worthies' in about 1662, some sixty odd years after the supposed
event...
> >
>
> http://www.zipworld.com.au/~zebee/length.htm is an article (not by me)
> that has quotes from actual proclamations declaring some lengths illegal.
>
> Whether any where actually broken is another question, but laws were
> passed.

Wonderful article, however the proclamation is obviously part of the
'sumptuary law' of the period which seem to have been ignored by everyone.
I notice it's alongside the laws defining the amount of cloth you can have
in hose, and is about contemporary with portraits showing probably the most
extravagant clothes ever worn by men.

My other problem is practicality, how on earth is a watchman going to break
a sword (in between arresting servants for wearing red and anyone wearing
yellow who wasn't Jewish...)

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three

Zebee Johnstone <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote


>
> I've seen a number from the Crimea where the sword was wrenched from the
> hand. At least one from the Charge, and several others.
>
> Zebee


In which source, if I might ask?

Were these the aftermath of thrusts, cuts, or what?

I don't doubt that swords occasionally hung up---it's why the prudent
man did not attach sword to wrist with a cord loop---or that they
might from time to time be wrenched from a trooper's hand; but that
the thrust was more likely to end in such a result than the cut just
seems counterintuitive to me.

In rec.sport.fencing on Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:38:27 +0000 (UTC)
William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Amy & Joseph Kormann" <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote in message
> news:bfsk0j$q9c$1@news.monmouth.com...
>
>> I could never understand people who use very long blades. I've always
>> thought the weight and bulk caused a disadvantage when you could just
>> move around and hit with a smaller, lighter, faster weapon. People in
>> SCA who I've fought with and they've used 'the ole 40!' generally lost
>> to my 34-length epee. They extend, I off-hand parry, double step in and
>> gut-em.
>

> Rapiers of the period are a bit heavy to parry with I'm afraid.

really?

Average around 2.2lb. My 2.2lb rapier can not only be parried with, but
I can do a one-two!

And those who taught single rapier certainly parried with them.

Sure, not as fast as an epee, and if you *have* another weapon, then
using it is sensible, but I really object to the idea that you can't
parry with them.

Zebee

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:10:58 -0500, "Jay and Diane Rudin"
<rudin@ev1.net> wrote:

> > Interesting. A yard and an eighth (36.5 inches) is pretty close to
> > 90cm, the maximum legal length of the modern foil blade.
>
> Unfortunately, a yard and an eighth is 40.5 inches, or about 102.87 cm.

OK, I got that wrong. I've no idea where the other 4 inches went in
my calculations.

-Mark-

ortonmc+rsf@erols.com (Mark C. Orton) wrote in
news:3f29d7df.1395276@news.verizon.net:

> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:10:58 -0500, "Jay and Diane Rudin"
> <rudin@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>> > Interesting. A yard and an eighth (36.5 inches) is pretty close to
>> > 90cm, the maximum legal length of the modern foil blade.
>>
>> Unfortunately, a yard and an eighth is 40.5 inches, or about 102.87 cm.
>
> OK, I got that wrong. I've no idea where the other 4 inches went in
> my calculations.

Depending on which four inches are in question, that could be a fatal
error...

In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 31 Jul 2003 19:59:25 +0000 (UTC)
William Black <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> England at the time was an emergent power with certainly the highest sea
> going combat technology of the day, there were links to many of the great
> European courts and Philip of Spain himself proposed marriage to Elizabeth.

However, if you look at sword dates and lengths and styles, it seems
that the English were behind the times. THey used shortish swords while
everyone else was using long rapiers, and then long rapiers when
everyone else was shortening them down.

I think they were innately conservative.

Dunno if this means they didn't have good fencing instruction..

Zebee

Depends on wich is wich,
the rapier was developped from two point of view if I may esplain this way.
First, you are right, was developped in spain or italy wich both argue and I
cannot say anything about it were the direct descendant of the broadsword
the blade of the rapier was large at the forte and finished in a point at
the foible of the blade. And second you are right too the tuck is not a
rapier at all i were taking shortcuts. What i mean is that it may ressemble
to a giant smallsword or courtsword. But if you look closely at the early
16th you may see that the blade is narrower and it is longer than the early
rapier wich is directly from the arming sword. You may say that it is
somewhere beteew the tuck and the late rapiers. Then liked i say it used to
be a lot of dueller with repointed rapiers wich ended in being lighter and
lighter. But for the best weapon aganist a plate armor, maybe not the best
it all depend of the one using it, a net could be deadly if used properly.
But the tuck is the far more specialized weapon against plate. And i were
just putting myself in the mind of the swordsmith that tried to do better
and better sword saying that the rapier may had some modification that came
from the tuck no one knows. But it may be written somewhere. For sure the
rapier was shorter in its first apperance than a little bit later and that
came from the narrower blade. These are my conclusions, i may be wrong but
not to far from what bladesmith were thinking. And if I would chose a weapon
to fight against plate or anything it would for sure be a rapier it may not
be the better sword but its point may find weak spot and the absolute reason
i would use it is .... this is the weapon i am the best with . The better
sword is the sword that suits you !

Agleos Arkeneight

Okay all sorry for my shortcuts !
Read my last message it may sound better.
And silver were in advance on his time saying that thrusting weapon should
be lighter.

Agleos Arkeneight

In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:16:17 -0400
Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> Okay all sorry for my shortcuts !
> Read my last message it may sound better.
> And silver were in advance on his time saying that thrusting weapon should
> be lighter.
>

He did say the rapier was too long or too heavy, but that wasn't about
thrusting, it was about parrying.

He did say "offend or defend", but it's 4 or more mentions of defence
to one of offence. Silver is very much a cut and cross man, the rapier
was not good for his kind of fight, but not because he thought it was
too heavy to thrust with....

Zebee

Bryan J. Maloney wrote:

>Of course, balanced is not balanced if the balance is the wrong balance.
>A best balance for a cut is not a best balance for a thrust.
>
>
The weapons he tested were all rapier (pertinent to this discussion),
which had to have thrust and cut capabilities. When I've fenced rapier
in SCA (yes, it isn't *real* but it's a facsimile), the cut was used as
a secondary attack if you over-shot the initial attack or as the result
of a deliberate feint-draw attack. So I still think the balance point is
valid.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:24:50 -0400
Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
>>Of course, balanced is not balanced if the balance is the wrong balance.
>>A best balance for a cut is not a best balance for a thrust.
>>
>>
> The weapons he tested were all rapier (pertinent to this discussion),
> which had to have thrust and cut capabilities. When I've fenced rapier
> in SCA (yes, it isn't *real* but it's a facsimile), the cut was used as
> a secondary attack if you over-shot the initial attack or as the result
> of a deliberate feint-draw attack. So I still think the balance point is
> valid.


Ummm.. SCA cuts work like that. SCA cuts are an SCA artifact, and have
almost no basis in reality.

A proper cut can be used if the thrust misses, but as far as I know
it's considered an attack on its own, and the whole way of throwing it
is quite different to the SCA drawcut.

Play with a backsword simulator, a properly balanced and weighted one,
and do proper cuts, then try the same thing with an SCA
thrusting-balanced sword. Very different feel.

I suspect that the "rapier" balance is going to depend on what it was
for, the old problem of nomenclature. I think the 22% is a bit too tip
heavy for the predominantly thrusting SCA style, but works well for a
cut and thrust style.

Zebee

--
Zebee Johnstone (zebee@zip.com.au), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

>In rec.sport.fencing on Fri, 01 Aug 2003 20:24:50 -0400
>Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:
>
>
>>When I've fenced rapier
>>in SCA (yes, it isn't *real* but it's a facsimile), the cut was used as
>>a secondary attack if you over-shot the initial attack or as the result
>>of a deliberate feint-draw attack. So I still think the balance point is
>>valid.
>>
>>
>Ummm.. SCA cuts work like that. SCA cuts are an SCA artifact, and have
>almost no basis in reality.
>
And I tip my hat in that direction too. I know enough about fencing to
tell that I don't know enough fencing. Especially 16-17th Century. The
people who I've meet in SCA all seem overly passionete about it and I
can only go on what they know. Of course, I really doubt they've meet a
proper fencer from that era, so in my mind, it's just a big guess on
everyone's part.

>Play with a backsword simulator, a properly balanced and weighted one,
>and do proper cuts, then try the same thing with an SCA
>thrusting-balanced sword. Very different feel.
>

Interesting. I'll give it a try if you tell me how. Will a sabre do?

>I suspect that the "rapier" balance is going to depend on what it was
>for, the old problem of nomenclature. I think the 22% is a bit too tip
>heavy for the predominantly thrusting SCA style, but works well for a
>cut and thrust style.
>

I found that my sabre is at approx 17%. I find that to be very nice and
'balanced'. Maybe Delia can tell us what her favorite sabre is balanced
at? I'm just curious and she's a much better sabre fencer than myself.

>Zebee
>
>
>


--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote in
news:bgg7v1$dup$1@news.monmouth.com:

> Zebee Johnstone wrote:

>>Play with a backsword simulator, a properly balanced and weighted one,
>>and do proper cuts, then try the same thing with an SCA
>>thrusting-balanced sword. Very different feel.
>>
>
> Interesting. I'll give it a try if you tell me how. Will a sabre do?


That depends on what you mean by "sabre". Fencing sabre? Not at all. An
old wristbreaker that your great-great-great-great-grandaddy carried at
Manassas? Much better.

No.

The best combat sword ever made was the lightsaber. No educated
person disputes this:
- Proof against handguns ( even blasters )
- Valid on both armoured and unarmoured opponents
- Edged and pointed weapon ( in ALL directions )
- Lightest fastest blade ever ( despite poor represenation in contemporary films )
- Very portable/concealable - no tripping over scabbards.

Unfortunately it required significant skill to use safely and fell out of use long, long ago in a galaxy ...

AJ

"Ken" <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote in message news:idqlhv812jdm012avfhiv3lohl55nu6nga@4ax.com...
> While I nodded nearly napping on the couch last night, I half watched
> a show on History or Discovery (or maybe Fox) on the development of
> the European sword. The producer had fencers practice and fight
> (blunted adges or wood) with swords starting with the Roman gladius
> and ending with the fifteenth century broadsword.
>
> He made the assertion that this latter was the best combat sword ever
> made.
>
> Is this generally conceded?
>
> Maybe it is the best against an armored (full plate) opponent?
>
> One with a shield?
>
> Maybe it is not the best?
>
> Are long military sabers better against unarmored opponents?
>
> Why did pirates generally use a short saber with a back edge? Unlike
> members of military units, they could choose any weapon they wanted.
>
> If handguns were not an option, and modern steels were available, What
> blade would provide the best defense and offense?
>
> It is my understanding that many of the post-musket military swords of
> various nations were more for show or status than actual use.
>
>
> Ken
> (to reply via email
> remove "zz" from address)

In rec.sport.fencing on Sat, 02 Aug 2003 07:41:07 -0400
Amy & Joseph Kormann <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:
> And I tip my hat in that direction too. I know enough about fencing to
> tell that I don't know enough fencing. Especially 16-17th Century. The
> people who I've meet in SCA all seem overly passionete about it and I
> can only go on what they know. Of course, I really doubt they've meet a
> proper fencer from that era, so in my mind, it's just a big guess on
> everyone's part.

An educated guess. We have people like DiGeassi talking about how to
make a good cut. We have weapons from the era. We have living
tradition in the Italian school abut using heavy swords (after all, De
Bazancourt talks about Italians using rapier and dagger in the 1840s and
my fencing master was shown how to handle a rapier by his fencing
master.)

So while it won't be 100% certain without a time machi9ne, we have a
very good basis for an educated opinion.


>
>>Play with a backsword simulator, a properly balanced and weighted one,
>>and do proper cuts, then try the same thing with an SCA
>>thrusting-balanced sword. Very different feel.
>>
>
> Interesting. I'll give it a try if you tell me how. Will a sabre do?
>

Depends on the sabre. A straight or nearly so blade from the early
1800s up to say the American Civil War? Probably. A modern sport
sabre? No...

Hanwei make a good backsword replica that's half the price of a Del Tin
and about 2/3 the quality, making it a good value weapn. If there's a
Western Martial Arts mob near you, you might be able to borrow one to
try. THe Del Tin Practice and Bated rapiers aren't balanced the same
way.

Good cuttng weapons are relatively knew in the historical community I
think. THe educated re-creation movment is new, people have been
swinging sowrds about for years, but really studying the manuals and
re-creating the weapons is only about 5-10 years old. And there's a
lot of bullshtit about So finding someone who has a reasonable
understanding *and* a reasonable weapon isn't all that easy. My
personal prejudice is that you'll have better luck with a classically
trained fencer reasonaing backwards to using a historical weapon than
you will with a medieval hobbyist picking up a sword and swinging it
about to see what he comes up with. (not that all classical types have
clue or all hobbyists don't of course, but you are more likely to find a
trained understanding in the classicist.)

Zebee

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbirak9.fs1.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...

> THe educated re-creation movment is new, people have been
> swinging sowrds about for years, but really studying the manuals and
> re-creating the weapons is only about 5-10 years old.

In the UK it's slightly different.

While the medieval people, as you say, have only just discovered period
manuals the Viking/dark ages people developed fighting styles that are
remarkably similar to the ones described in medieval manuals for cutting
weapons.

Of course most combat in the UK is battle re-enactment and so the sword is
rarely used, but that's a different argument for a different camp-fire....

--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three