Sword fighting timing references

[JDzik]

Help!

I'm in a discussion on another newsgroup about the pacing of deadly combats.
I've got plenty of experience understanding the flow of a fencing bout, but
none when using real steel and going for real blood.

Can anyone point me to descriptions of actual duels that tell whether there
tend to be pauses in such, as you'd see in a fencing bout or a movie duel?
Does a real duel tend to last in minutes or seconds? What's the pacing between
clashes and periods to maneuver?

And how does that change on a battlefield as opposed to a duel?

Thanks,
Joe

[William Black]

"JDzik" <jdzik@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040415091430.18788.00000277@mb-m23.aol.com...
> Help!
>
> I'm in a discussion on another newsgroup about the pacing of deadly
combats.
> I've got plenty of experience understanding the flow of a fencing bout,
but
> none when using real steel and going for real blood.
>
> Can anyone point me to descriptions of actual duels that tell whether
there
> tend to be pauses in such, as you'd see in a fencing bout or a movie duel?
> Does a real duel tend to last in minutes or seconds? What's the pacing
between
> clashes and periods to maneuver?

Try 'The Secret History of the Sword' by J Christoph Amberger (who posts
here now and again.) It's got accounts of most of the well recorded
historiacl duels.

> And how does that change on a battlefield as opposed to a duel?

Nobody uses a sword on a battlefield unless something has gone wrong.

It is usually considered a 'secondary weapon'.

The single exception is a Spanish experiment against pikemen, with 'sword
and buckler men'. It doesn't seem to have been a great success...

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

[Trim Plus Expert]

Ive read an intersting story about Aldo Nadi Duel in 1924,
you can read it at
http://nadi.calpoly.edu/~fencing/Doc...ical/nadi.html

hope you find it interesting.

Agleos



"JDzik" <jdzik@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:20040415091430.18788.00000277@mb-m23.aol.com...
> Help!
>
> I'm in a discussion on another newsgroup about the pacing of deadly
combats.
> I've got plenty of experience understanding the flow of a fencing bout,
but
> none when using real steel and going for real blood.
>
> Can anyone point me to descriptions of actual duels that tell whether
there
> tend to be pauses in such, as you'd see in a fencing bout or a movie duel?
> Does a real duel tend to last in minutes or seconds? What's the pacing
between
> clashes and periods to maneuver?
>
> And how does that change on a battlefield as opposed to a duel?
>
> Thanks,
> Joe

[David Neevel]

William Black wrote:

>Try 'The Secret History of the Sword' by J Christoph Amberger (who posts
>here now and again.) It's got accounts of most of the well recorded
>historiacl duels.
>
>
I second this recommendation. Christopher also has a very nice summary
of differenct types of combative encounters which would be quite relevant.

>>And how does that change on a battlefield as opposed to a duel?
>>
>>
>
>Nobody uses a sword on a battlefield unless something has gone wrong.
>
>It is usually considered a 'secondary weapon'.
>
>The single exception is a Spanish experiment against pikemen, with 'sword
>and buckler men'. It doesn't seem to have been a great success...
>
>
>
There's one other noteworthy exception that comes immediately to mind:
the Romans' gladius hispaniensis.
This was, however, a specific type of sword especially well suited to
Roman formation tactics, and was also just one element of a legion's
overall "weapons system". But it was inarguably sucessful in its role.


-Dave

[Rufus T. Firefly]

>>The single exception is a Spanish experiment against pikemen, with 'sword
>>and buckler men'. It doesn't seem to have been a great success...

=====
I might politely disagree with this. Here are two quotes on the battle of
Barletta, fought in 1502 between French and Spanish troops, one by Machiavelli,
who was contemporary to the times, and one by the well-known historian Charles
Oman, whose "The Art of War in the Sixteenth Century" is considered a classic
(at least by myself!):

Machiavelli says the Spanish troops “made so good a use of their swords, that
not one of the enemy would have been left alive, if a body of French cavalry
had not fortunately come up to rescue them.�

And, speaking of the same battle, Oman wrote, “This fight was typical of
many more in which during the first quarter of the sixteenth century the sword
and buckler were proved to be more than master of the pike.�

My understanding of the Spanish sword and buckler men is that, for a while at
least, they were the terrors of the battlefields of Western Europe.

B.C. Milligan

[Mark Thompson]

> I'm in a discussion on another newsgroup about the pacing of deadly
> combats. I've got plenty of experience understanding the flow of a
> fencing bout, but none when using real steel and going for real blood.

And you think we have!?!

> Can anyone point me to descriptions of actual duels that tell whether
> there tend to be pauses in such, as you'd see in a fencing bout or a
> movie duel?

> Does a real duel tend to last in minutes or seconds?

How long is a piece of string? I've been fencing for twenty minutes to
get one point before (admittedly against a friend who I fenced all the
time). On the other hand I've hit and been hit in the first few seconds.
The same is true of duels. I remember reading an account of a duel
between two French (?) fencing masters. It ended after many hours
because one got a blister on his little finger. However, I suspect they
were either idiots, showoffs, or publicity-seeking-idiot-show-offs.

I also have vague recollections of a duel between two 11th century (ish)
professional duellers. This took pretty much all day, and ended only
after one of them was unable to continue because of a broken arm. There
would have been very long pauses in this duel as they stopped to catch
their breath etc. IIRC the account mentions that they broke for lunch.#

Can't remember where I saw/heard these tho. Sorry.

As a rule, pistol duels tend not to last as long as duels with swords.

> What's the pacing between clashes and periods to maneuver?

In my experience it would depend on how tired/fit the two combatants
were/the weapons/space available/etc etc.[1]

> And how does that change on a battlefield as opposed to a duel?

Not sure that rapiers were used much on the battlefield. They're a bit
long. Also, fighting in a formation is entirely different to fighting in
a duel. In the case of two combatants out of formation & on their own,
all the delicate parrying, riposting and footwork becomes farly redundent
when your opponent simply rushes you (try it in practice - brute force
and aggression is surprisingly effective against all but the best
fencers. Couple it with a bit of armour and something big and heavy and
you're onto a winner).


[1] Note the important 'In My Experience'.[2]

[2] Now guess how much experience I have :-)

[William Black]

"David Neevel" <neevel@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:107uglbpjv80u9a@corp.supernews.com...

> There's one other noteworthy exception that comes immediately to mind:
> the Romans' gladius hispaniensis.
> This was, however, a specific type of sword especially well suited to
> Roman formation tactics, and was also just one element of a legion's
> overall "weapons system". But it was inarguably sucessful in its role.

I think you'll find that the Romans basic weapon was the pilum (both heavy
and light) used to break the charge of their enemies.

The sword was for finishing off, if anyone actually charged home (which is
another debate for another day)

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

[William Black]

"Rufus T. Firefly" <remise@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040416111709.11269.00000503@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >>The single exception is a Spanish experiment against pikemen, with
'sword
> >>and buckler men'. It doesn't seem to have been a great success...
>

> My understanding of the Spanish sword and buckler men is that, for a while
at
> least, they were the terrors of the battlefields of Western Europe.

For a very short time, until their opponents worked out how to get their
musket armed troops into usable formations.

They exist in one of those funny transition periods where people were
changing from bows and bills and plate armour to pike and musket and 'back
and breast'.

It's like gliders being effective as a means of attacking somewhere. They
exist from when they get big enough to carry more than six soldiers to when
helicopters come along, about fifteen years...

However I imagine that four hundred years from now sport glider pilots will
be banging on about how their hobby is based on a military system...

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

[Trim Plus Expert]

The pilum was a throwing weapon for the first assault, then corp a corp was
with sword & shield. Spear is to break a first line however is weak when
troops are in direct contact. Alexander the Great used this strategy on
ennemy troops never being to much in contact and using long spears and this
is why he was so effective.




"William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:c5p5g9$jel$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "David Neevel" <neevel@execpc.com> wrote in message
> news:107uglbpjv80u9a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > There's one other noteworthy exception that comes immediately to mind:
> > the Romans' gladius hispaniensis.
> > This was, however, a specific type of sword especially well suited to
> > Roman formation tactics, and was also just one element of a legion's
> > overall "weapons system". But it was inarguably sucessful in its role.
>
> I think you'll find that the Romans basic weapon was the pilum (both heavy
> and light) used to break the charge of their enemies.
>
> The sword was for finishing off, if anyone actually charged home (which
is
> another debate for another day)
>
> --
> William Black
> ------------------
> Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
> is no basis for a system of government
>
>

[William Black]

"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote in message
news:dFXfc.35103$vF3.1994674@news20.bellglobal.com ...
> The pilum was a throwing weapon for the first assault, then corp a corp
was
> with sword & shield. Spear is to break a first line however is weak when
> troops are in direct contact. Alexander the Great used this strategy on
> ennemy troops never being to much in contact and using long spears and
this
> is why he was so effective.

When the Greeks fought the Romans the thrown pila (is that the plural?)
broke the line of the pike phalanx. The sword is too short to fight against
an unbroken line.

Romans carried three pila in two weights, one heavy and two light

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

[William Marshal]

"William Black" <black_william@hotmail.com> wrote


> I think you'll find that the Romans basic weapon was the pilum (both heavy
> and light) used to break the charge of their enemies.
>
> The sword was for finishing off, if anyone actually charged home (which is
> another debate for another day)

Yes, but I don't think that meets your initial condition: that "Nobody
uses a sword on a battlefield unless something has gone wrong." The
throwing of pila as a planned and ordinary tactic does not, I think,
mean that the sword is thereafter drawn only as an ad hoc secondary
weapon because the first has miscarried somehow. It's an integral
element of the overall battle plan.

[William Marshal]

Mark Thompson <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com> wrote

>
> [1] Note the important 'In My Experience'.[2]
>
> [2] Now guess how much experience I have :-)

However much it may be I think you are essentially correct. The
variables in any duel are going to have to be pretty numerous and
their interactions variable, and it's impossible to generalize about
their outcomes. Some were over before they began. Others went on for
decades, ie the one between DuPont and Fourrier immortalized in "The
Duellists". ( Even if one considers that as a series of duels rather
than a single running one the two men were so evenly matched with the
sword that each lasted some time, if the accounts are to be believed.
)

Anyway, to Joe: Other books to consider are two both entitled "The
Duel", one by Baldick and the other by Billacois; "The Sword and the
Centuries" by Cpt. Alfred Hutton, which contains a good cross section
of anecdotes from the age of duelling; "Extraordinary Popular
Delusions and the Madness of Crowds", by Charles Mackay, which has a
chapter of anecdotes also; and if you can find it the original source
for the bulk of the known stories, the works of Pierre de Brantôme,
Seigneur de Bourdeille....

[Michael Christensen]

> Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
> is no basis for a system of government

Huh? - that's perhaps the oddest .sig I've stumbled across this year - could
you, if possible, elaborate it a bit :-)

Best regards
Michael

[Irina Rempt]

On Monday 19 April 2004 12:50 Michael Christensen
(answer@to_newsgroup_please.com) wrote:

>> Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
>> is no basis for a system of government
>
> Huh? - that's perhaps the oddest .sig I've stumbled across this year -
> could you, if possible, elaborate it a bit :-)

Think of King Arthur. There was this lady in a lake who gave him
Excalibur.

Irina

--
Irina Rempt - Fencing Mother http://www.valdyas.org/irina/
Latest pictures: http://www.valdyas.org/~irina/2004-04-terapel/
Blog: http://www.valdyas.org/foundobjects/index.cgi

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:50:44 +0200
Michael Christensen <answer@to_newsgroup_please.com> wrote:
>> Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
>> is no basis for a system of government
>
> Huh? - that's perhaps the oddest .sig I've stumbled across this year - could
> you, if possible, elaborate it a bit :-)
>

Power derives from a mandate from the people, not some farcical aquatic
ceremony!

Alas that the classics are so soon forgotten!

They are both quotes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail where a member
of a peasant's anarcho-socialist commune is explaining to King Arthur that even
though they can tell he's a king (cos he hasn't got **** all over him),
it doesn't matter.

If you haven't seen it, you should!

Zebee

[JDzik]

>If you haven't seen it, you should!

Absolutely! Arthur vs the Black Knight is one of the great cinematic sword
fights.

Joe

[Chris Aher]

"its only a flesh wound!"

My personal favorite is "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father.
Prepare to die."

Regards,
Chris

"JDzik" <jdzik@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040419094307.05550.00000124@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >If you haven't seen it, you should!
>
> Absolutely! Arthur vs the Black Knight is one of the great cinematic
sword
> fights.
>
> Joe

[Harold Buck]

In article <c60po6$6l1ms$1@ID-75854.news.uni-berlin.de>,
"Chris Aher" <caher@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "its only a flesh wound!"
>
> My personal favorite is "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father.
> Prepare to die."


The best exchange in that movie (The Princess Bride):

[Fencing]
Inigo Montoya: You are wonderful.
Man in Black: Thank you; I've worked hard to become so.
Inigo Montoya: I admit it, you are better than I am.
Man in Black: Then why are you smiling?
Inigo Montoya: Because I know something you don't know.
Man in Black: And what is that?
Inigo Montoya: I... am not left-handed.
[Moves his sword to his right hand and gains an advantage]
Man in Black: You are amazing.
Inigo Montoya: I ought to be, after 20 years.
Man in Black: Oh, there's something I ought to tell you.
Inigo Montoya: Tell me.
Man in Black: I'm not left-handed either.
[Moves his sword to his right hand and regains his advantage]


--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

[JDzik]

Harold Buck writes:

>The best exchange in that movie (The Princess Bride):

Yeah, agreed.

There's a lefty in my club who always beats me. I've got this fear that one of
these days I'll finally get the upper hand, and he'll turn to me and say, "I am
not left-handed!"

Joe

[Simon Summerfield]

> >> Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
> >> is no basis for a system of government
> >
>
> Power derives from a mandate from the people, not some farcical aquatic
> ceremony!
>

You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some
watery tart threw a sword at you!