Best combat sword?

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 24 Jul 2003 00:49:39 -0700
William Marshal <trebuchet30303@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I think I'd have to be dubious about this one. A cut can stick in bone
> or between ribs as easily as a thrust, if not more so. And if piercing
> in this manner were so disadvantageous in a cavalry weapon I don't

The problem as I understand it is that you are going past the target,
and a straight thrust as advocated by say Patton was worse than the
slash.

A cut coming down and past with a curved blade is, I think, unlikely to
stick.

> think that the lance would have been the primary arm for so many
> centuries. And concerning the sword specifically, many later

The lance is used differently. It's not a sword and not used like one.


> 19th-century armies adopted a straight-bladed sabre and trained
> troopers to 'give point' rather than to slash. So I don't believe the
> edge-vs.-point issue is quite so, er, clear cut, pardon the pun...

Late 19thC armies used guns a hell of a lot more than steel, and I
believe that most of the "give point" bods were theorists - Patton
again, who had done a lot of strip fencing and had done no practical
fighting from horseback. Cavalry were scouts and pistol/carbine users
by that stage.

Burton, I think, says stuff about how it was clear that people who wrote
the drill manuals had little clue...


Zebee

In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:49:25 GMT
Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:59:46 -0400, Amy & Joseph Kormann
><ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:
>>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
>
> I have heard it said that most rapiers do/did not even have sharpened
> edges. This would make it unsuitable for combat where an opponent
> might just grab the blade. Or had a small shield.

That's a very controversial question. I believe that most swords
1500-1650 were sharp on edge and at least 1/3 of the back edge.

The manuals talk about reverse cuts, you won't be doing that with a
blunt edge!

>
> In any event, today we have very supple stainless steel gloves (as are
> used by oyster shuckers). This would make blade grabbing an
> effective defense, especially if coated with rubber or silicone pads
> (like are on fish gloves). Perhaps poking blades for combat (if they
> were ever used) have been obsoleted by technology? A spear or pike
> has the same characteristic.

Blades were grabbed and parried with leather gloves, see Saviolo.

Zebee

"Amy & Joseph Kormann" <ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote in message
news:bfnb0s$1sg$1@news.monmouth.com...
> Ken wrote:
> 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.

The duel in 'Rob Roy' was specifically designed to demonstrate the points
made in Silver's 'Paradox of Defence'.

As such it is carefully choreographed to make a point that is almost
certainly in error.

While traditionalists like Silver may have decried the rise of the rapier,
and its successor the small-sword, there is no doubt that it was the most
deadly of the edged sidearm for the duel.

A similar duel is re-enacted at The Royal Armouries in Leeds on a regular
basis, but it has more to do with Silver's status as folk hero than
anything to do with fighting.

Silver himself makes the point that a rapier thrust often kills, if
sometimes after a time, but a back-sword cut generally only wounds

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

>Silver himself makes the point that a rapier thrust often kills, if sometimes
after a time, but a back-sword cut generally only wounds<<

Sadly, he doesn't. In fact he says he has seen men perforated in seven or eight
places by a rapier who went on to kill their opponents... whereas a
cut-and-thrust sword could take off a hand or a limb and thus finish the fight
quite rapidly.

> Silver's status as folk hero than anything to do with fighting.<

Silver has no status as a folk hero... in fact, for the past 200 years he has
mainly served as a whipping boy for anyone enamoured with modern swordplay and
the (erroneous) assumption that the Rapier practice of Saviolo & Bonnetti have
anything in common with modern thrust fencing.

>there is no doubt that it was the most deadly of the edged sidearm for the
duel<<

Silver never decried the smallsword, since there were none around when he
wrote. And he would have wholeheartedly agreed that the rapier is the "most
deadly of the edged sidearms" for the duel with rapiers. Albeit not for
anything else.

Chris

"J. Christoph Amberger" <zoergiebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030724142623.24275.00000373@mb-m16.aol.com...

> > Silver's status as folk hero than anything to do with fighting.<
>
> Silver has no status as a folk hero... in fact, for the past 200 years he
has
> mainly served as a whipping boy for anyone enamoured with modern swordplay
and
> the (erroneous) assumption that the Rapier practice of Saviolo & Bonnetti
have
> anything in common with modern thrust fencing.

Quite possibly, but amongst historic fencers in the UK he is something of a
cult.

Erm... Will you sign my copy of your book sir?

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

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:49:25 GMT, Ken <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:59:46 -0400, Amy & Joseph Kormann
><ajkormann@monmouth.com> wrote:
>>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
>
>I have heard it said that most rapiers do/did not even have sharpened
>edges. This would make it unsuitable for combat where an opponent
>might just grab the blade. Or had a small shield.

I got back from a month-long trip to England last week. One of the
things I did was look at as many rapiers as I could (as well as swords
in general.) The ones I saw had very distinct edges, and were quite
sharp. I think the notion that "rapiers had no edges" is nonsense.


>In any event, today we have very supple stainless steel gloves (as are
>used by oyster shuckers). This would make blade grabbing an
>effective defense, especially if coated with rubber or silicone pads
>(like are on fish gloves).

Gloves like that existed in the 1500s as well. There's one on display
at the Royal Armory at Leeds, and a very nice one in the museum of the
Art Institute of Chicago. They were were intended for blade-grabbing
as well as general hand protection. There are, however, two problems:
1. If it's a formal duel, the rules say that both fighters would be
armed and armored identically, so if Joe Pointjock has a mail glove,
his opponent will, too, thus neither fighter will have a significant
advantage.
2. At least in England, wearing a glove of that sort was illegal--it
was considered an indication that the wearer was out looking for
trouble, not innocently minding his own business.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

I came up here for a party, and what happens? Nothing! Not even
ice cream. The gods looked down and laughed. This would be a better
world for children if the parents had to eat the spinach.

-Groucho Marx, "Animal Crackers"

Hmph. All I have to say about the cavalry cut-vs-thrust debate is that most of
the Napoleonic cavalry experts - men like deBrack, with twenty years of
practical experience - favored thrusting.

V/R:
Mike McDaniel

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



> A cut coming down and past with a curved blade is, I think, unlikely to
> stick.

Butchers and slaughterhouse workers would probably tend to disagree, I
think. "Green" bone is quite apt to grip a cleaving blade; joints are
another problem area, where a cutting blade can jam up.


> The lance is used differently. It's not a sword and not used like one.


To be sure. But the similarities between a long straight lance thrust
into a target from a charging horse and a long straight sword thrust
into a target from a charging horse seem to me to be unmistakeable.
And we are not necessarily talking only about the late-cavalry lance,
or the heavy
late-middle-ages lance---the early medieval lance, as depicted in the
Bayeux Tapestry, etc, is used very like a sword, being sometimes
couched but as often jabbed or thrust with either one or both hands.


> Late 19thC armies used guns a hell of a lot more than steel, and I
> believe that most of the "give point" bods were theorists - Patton
> again, who had done a lot of strip fencing and had done no practical
> fighting from horseback. Cavalry were scouts and pistol/carbine users
> by that stage.

Nevertheless, straight-bladed sabres saw a lot of combat use in India
and other places---the British issued them well before Patton's
"innovation". Yet I have been unable to find any great number of "my
sword got stuck" anecdotes from the period....




> Burton, I think, says stuff about how it was clear that people who wrote
> the drill manuals had little clue...


I suspect that this judgement was not specific to the design of the
weapons, however...