Baldric vs. swordbelt -- for saber

I have a Cold Steel 1917 saber. The scabbard had a belt fitting.
See: http://www.coldsteel.com/19serswor.html

I find this arrangement impractical. There is too much weight on the
belt and the sword swings around. Is this something only for
dress/cavalry? How was this used for a cutlass aboard ship?

Can someone please comment on the relative merits of this arrangment
vs. the baldrics and swordbelts shown, e.g., at:
http://www.theinnerbailey.com/baldrics.htm

In particular, the Roman Style Baldric looks to be the most practical
and comfortable for a sword of this [not too great] length for general
carrying when on foot.


Ken
(to reply via email
remove "zz" from address)

"Ken" <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote in message
news:8q1ci05g2p1e8r13h0bjeflb125d667tro@4ax.com...
> I have a Cold Steel 1917 saber. The scabbard had a belt fitting.
> See: http://www.coldsteel.com/19serswor.html
>
> I find this arrangement impractical. There is too much weight on the
> belt and the sword swings around. Is this something only for
> dress/cavalry? How was this used for a cutlass aboard ship?

By 1917 nobody was using edged weapons on ships for anything but looking
good. I doubt anyone wanted a weapon with a blackened hilt to wear to look
good. Are you sure that this is an authentic weapon?

And yes, I do know that the last combat use of edged weapons on a ship was
in WWII, but the two times it happened were considered, at the time, more
than a little odd.

The Cutlass was not normally issued with a scabard, but was issued for
specific engagements to boarding parties who took them with them alreadu in
their hands.

> Can someone please comment on the relative merits of this arrangment
> vs. the baldrics and swordbelts shown, e.g., at:
> http://www.theinnerbailey.com/baldrics.htm

Medieval gentlemen did not wear an 'over the shoulder' baldrick, they wore
the sword belt around the waist. One of Oakeshott's books 'The Sword in the
Age of Chivalry' I think, has several drawings of sword belts and goes into
some detail about their construction and how they were worn.

> In particular, the Roman Style Baldric looks to be the most practical
> and comfortable for a sword of this [not too great] length for general
> carrying when on foot.

As a general rule if you wear a longish sword on foot you should arrange to
carry it at a shallow angle, and learn how not to hit people with it as you
walk.

Why do you want to walk around with it anyway?

Do you live in a very rough area?

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

But you are right I may be wrong of course but the most important process in
fencing when you reach a certain point is, do what works best for you. So I
suggest he try, maybe he is gonna find the same conclusion I have.



"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
news:slrncip7d4.dqb.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:47:35 -0400
> Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Even then, I keep my two cents on the true edge up for a rapier, try
this
> > exercise. I hope I can explain myself well enough that you will
understand
>
>
> Think very carefully. YOu are not a duellist, you don't walk the
> streets wearing a sword.
>
> The people who *did* don't do what you say.
>
> Who is more likely to be wrong, the armchair theorist or the experienced
> fighter?
>
> Zebee

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:47:35 -0400
>
> Think very carefully. YOu are not a duellist, you don't walk the
> streets wearing a sword.
>
> The people who *did* don't do what you say.
>
> Who is more likely to be wrong, the armchair theorist or the experienced
> fighter?
>
> Zebee

I think Zebee spiked her own reply. Duelists from all that I've
read didn't practice whipping their swords out like gun slingers.
Well, okay maybe in the back alleys it was sometimes necessary. But
Proper duels were gentlemanly events with everything handled according
to code duello with seconds to oversee the accords. Much like an Olympic
sport fencing match today - which of course is derived from
those same rules.

Which reminds me. Wish me well lads and lassies. Next week on to Krems
and the veterans world championships. Slugging back Austrian wine/beer
and sparring with yesterday's finest.

It's a hard life. But I was obviously born to live it.

J.

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:24:27 -0700
Jonathan Jefferies <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote:
>
> I think Zebee spiked her own reply. Duelists from all that I've
> read didn't practice whipping their swords out like gun slingers.
> Well, okay maybe in the back alleys it was sometimes necessary. But
> Proper duels were gentlemanly events with everything handled according
> to code duello with seconds to oversee the accords. Much like an Olympic
> sport fencing match today - which of course is derived from
> those same rules.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

It's quite clear from Agrippa, DiGrassi, and Silver - 3 people at
different times and in different countries - that people who wore swords
expected to fight with them and draw like gunslingers at times.

Proper duels are a different thing, but Trim Plus isnt talking about
those.

And those didn't always have cartels and seconds either, read both
Brantome and Bryson for the variations on duelling.

Zebee

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:47:35 -0400, an orbital mind-control laser
caused "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> to write:

>I meant relative to your body.
>
>> I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying here. Are you talking
>> about the angle the sword is at relative to your body (i.e. the point
>> of the sword is angled out 35 or 50 degrees behind you) or the angle
>> the sword edge is at (edge down would be zero degrees, edge up would
>> be 180 and you're talking about the edge being angled off to the side
>> at 35 or 50 degrees.)
>>
>
>Even then, I keep my two cents on the true edge up for a rapier, try this
>exercise. I hope I can explain myself well enough that you will understand
>my limited english and can try it. I am pretty sure you will adopt it as
>your next method for drawing your rapier. First lets say this statement to
>be true, and any fencer will agree with me I am pretty sure. Moving only the
>forearm is faster than moving the entire arm, moving the hand if faster the
>moving the forearm and moving fingers is faster than moving a hand. Ok then
>study this motion well. You keep face to your opponent left hand on your
>sheat and right hand alligned with your body. Then fold your right arm so
>that the upperarm doesn't move and you fold it so that your forearm go into
>your sword direction. When you are doing this turn a little bit your right
>hand as well blade counterclockwise so that they are perfectly matched to
>fit. Grab your sword then draw you should be almost exactly in the prime
>guard position. Do it two more times so that you understand what you move
>and that you get a feel for it. Now try back your ancient drawing method,
>youll see that your entire arm is moving while you go to grab your sword. I
>trust my word the more you keep it small the faster it is.

Okay, I tried it, and it doesn't work. The problem is not the speed of
the draw; the problem is getting a good grip on the hilt *before* I
draw. I'm using a Darkwood Armory ring hilt
(http://darkwoodarmory.com/swordhilts17.shtml and scroll down to
"Ring hilt (AVBN #68)") with a 42-inch blade; in my normal grip I have
the first two fingers over the quillons.

Trying to draw the blade from a sheath in the way you describe, with
the true edge up at 180 degrees, means that I can't get my hand into
the guard properly--only my fingers will fit. Drawing the sword in
that fashion means that either I have to shift my grip once it's drawn
or else I'm holding the blade improperly--and very awkwardly--while
trying to fight. I have to turn the blade to *at least* 90 degrees to
get my fingers over the quillons, and turning it down to 20 or 30
degrees is most comfortable.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

Did you not ask why against one man they send a hundred swords?
Because they know this one man for a friend of mine!

-Cyrano in "Cyrano de Bergerac" by Edmond Rostand

"Jonathan Jefferies" <jonathanjefferies@alamedanet.net> wrote in
message news:412d28bf$0$10703$2c56edd9@news.cablerocket.co m
>
> Which reminds me. Wish me well lads and lassies. Next week on to Krems
> and the veterans world championships. Slugging back Austrian wine/beer
> and sparring with yesterday's finest.
>
> It's a hard life. But I was obviously born to live it.

Go, Jonathan! Down one for me. (Beer or opponent -- whichever).

--

Dirk Goldgar

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

"Trim Plus Expert" wrote:

> My honest tought is that if they learned much the draw we would find more
> explanation on its process.

Goodness -- how much more do you want? Agrippa describes how to draw, and
what the first stance is. Di Grassi describes the high ward as the first,
because by lowering the point you can ward the entire body. (You cannot do
that with your method.) Capo Ferro describes the first guard similarly.
Paintings of the late sixteenth century are detailed, accurate, and
authentic. The artifacts that survive can be clearly identified, and serve
to show us the care with which the painters copied details.

I have to ask --
How many books from the period have you read describing how to fence and how
to draw?
How many paintings of the period have you studied carefully for details?
How many times have you drawn a sword with a knucklebow out of a sheath?
How many times have you unsheathed a sword after the fight has started?

(I must admit that I've done the last very few times. But I have seen Chris
Zakes do it hundreds of times.)

You seem to claim that there is little evidence, but you have not yet
demonstrated how much you have actually examined the evidence. The written
evidence all states that the true edge is down in the sheath. The painted
evidence shows that the true edge is down in the sheath. Everyone I know
who has actually drawn a sword with knucklebow keeps the true edge down in
the sheath. I can't even grip the sword correctlyt in the sheath if the
true sword isn't down. (If the knucklebow is up, then my knuckles should be
up and my wrist should be below the hilt. I can't do it.)

Against this body of evidence, you offer.. what?

Jay Rudin

(P.S. This is the part where you acknowledge that the evidence is against
you, learn something new, back down gracefully, and appear courteous,
gracious, and intelligent.)

"Jay and Diane Rudin" <rudin@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10isao4ion0mo8e@corp.supernews.com...
> "Trim Plus Expert" wrote:
>
> > My honest tought is that if they learned much the draw we would find
more
> > explanation on its process.
>
> Goodness -- how much more do you want? Agrippa describes how to draw, and
> what the first stance is. Di Grassi describes the high ward as the first,
> because by lowering the point you can ward the entire body. (You cannot
do
> that with your method.) Capo Ferro describes the first guard similarly.
> Paintings of the late sixteenth century are detailed, accurate, and
> authentic. The artifacts that survive can be clearly identified, and
serve
> to show us the care with which the painters copied details.

You can add Fabrice to that lot as well.

The 'first guard' seems to have been the first thing people learned, seems
to have been designed for street fighting and seems to have been effective
over a reasonably long period as everybody says it works...

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

I must admit you have more knowledge than I have in historical fencing,
however to be honest I pratice my drawing (with the two methods) about 2
hours per weak for about a year now, believe me it's a lot of drawing. I
don't know why you can't take the high ward using my method ... anyway. But
it's true I didn't had many access to good documentation about historical
fencing. For the most part were Di Grassi where I haven't found much about
drawing, maybe I havn't paid enough attention, and I find the high ward much
similar to the prime, of course the prime fail to protect the head but
protect the entire body when switching to second, I forgot, I use a swept
hilt rapier when drawing, with a normal belt not the 3 branche one. I have a
3 branche one and I admit drawing with the knuckle bow down when using it. I
may be wrong but I don't know why it's faster for me, the method I use I
mean, maybe cause of the specific muscle group Ive developped faster than
with the other method. Under the pressure of a fight I am not sure, in a
practice fight I use my method and it's working pretty good. However to be
honest .... but you already know it, Ive never been in a fight to the death.
Maybe your right and I should bow down in respect, however I still havn't
learned something new from you, you only proved me the evidences that I am
wrong. Maybe I am, for sure I am always gratefull when learning something
however I don't want to keep any evidences true of a theory to be the
perfect way to do something. But the same is for mine.


"Jay and Diane Rudin" <rudin@ev1.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:10isao4ion0mo8e@corp.supernews.com...
> "Trim Plus Expert" wrote:
>
> > My honest tought is that if they learned much the draw we would find
more
> > explanation on its process.
>
> Goodness -- how much more do you want? Agrippa describes how to draw, and
> what the first stance is. Di Grassi describes the high ward as the first,
> because by lowering the point you can ward the entire body. (You cannot
do
> that with your method.) Capo Ferro describes the first guard similarly.
> Paintings of the late sixteenth century are detailed, accurate, and
> authentic. The artifacts that survive can be clearly identified, and
serve
> to show us the care with which the painters copied details.
>
> I have to ask --
> How many books from the period have you read describing how to fence and
how
> to draw?
> How many paintings of the period have you studied carefully for details?
> How many times have you drawn a sword with a knucklebow out of a sheath?
> How many times have you unsheathed a sword after the fight has started?
>
> (I must admit that I've done the last very few times. But I have seen
Chris
> Zakes do it hundreds of times.)
>
> You seem to claim that there is little evidence, but you have not yet
> demonstrated how much you have actually examined the evidence. The
written
> evidence all states that the true edge is down in the sheath. The painted
> evidence shows that the true edge is down in the sheath. Everyone I know
> who has actually drawn a sword with knucklebow keeps the true edge down in
> the sheath. I can't even grip the sword correctlyt in the sheath if the
> true sword isn't down. (If the knucklebow is up, then my knuckles should
be
> up and my wrist should be below the hilt. I can't do it.)
>
> Against this body of evidence, you offer.. what?
>
> Jay Rudin
>
> (P.S. This is the part where you acknowledge that the evidence is against
> you, learn something new, back down gracefully, and appear courteous,
> gracious, and intelligent.)
>
>

I must admit I am a profound idiot, I actually was using the method but my
true edge was downside now I bow down lol. However you should try the
edge up method with something that resemble a fencing saber.. you may be
surprised ;P

In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:26:31 -0400
Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> I must admit you have more knowledge than I have in historical fencing,
> however to be honest I pratice my drawing (with the two methods) about 2
> hours per weak for about a year now, believe me it's a lot of drawing. I

With what sword?

Using what grip and guard?

Is it the type and length as the people who did this with sharps when
their life was on the line?

Zebee

A swept hilt rapier, diamond cross section, 41 inch & 2.5 pounds. I grip one
finger over the quillon. The balance is at about 12 inches from the pommel.
I dunno if you mean the kind of grip, that I dont know but its made of wood
and is roughly between straith and oval.

I think it is a popular weapon for self defence when life is on the line.


"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
news:slrncisht9.krp.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:26:31 -0400
> Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> > I must admit you have more knowledge than I have in historical fencing,
> > however to be honest I pratice my drawing (with the two methods) about 2
> > hours per weak for about a year now, believe me it's a lot of drawing. I
>
> With what sword?
>
> Using what grip and guard?
>
> Is it the type and length as the people who did this with sharps when
> their life was on the line?
>
> Zebee

Trim Plus Expert writes:
> I think it is a popular weapon for self defence when life is on the line.

I doubt that. I think that those who regularly place their lives on the
line would rank it below just about any firearm you could name.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

Firearms were terribly slow to recharge in theses times and most of the time
they couldn't stop right dead a man ... so i think it might be usefull to
have other means .. like running or swordfighting. I have read some
historical records of duels in france and they often started with guns and
then went to the sword after firing at each other. Whether for accuracy or
shot power it often leaded to the sword fight.

Even nowaday a gun shot rarely kill with one blow, one of my friend have
been shot in the stomach while in Equator and he didn't even feel that he
was, he's now well but told me hed never go there again . They were 4
Canadian to be shot there and nobody died. The closest hospital was at about
20 miles.



"John Hasler" <john@dhh.gt.org> a écrit dans le message de
news:87r7pt8pbg.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org...
> Trim Plus Expert writes:
> > I think it is a popular weapon for self defence when life is on the
line.
>
> I doubt that. I think that those who regularly place their lives on the
> line would rank it below just about any firearm you could name.
> --
> John Hasler
> john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI

Trim Plus Expert writes:
> I think it is a popular weapon for self defence when life is on the line.
^^
Note the present tense.

I wrote:
> I doubt that. I think that those who regularly place their lives on the
> line would rank it below just about any firearm you could name.

Trim Plus Expert writes:
> Firearms were terribly slow to recharge in theses times and most of the
> time they couldn't stop right dead a man...

So now you are discussing some indeterminate period in the past?

> Even nowaday a gun shot rarely kill with one blow...

I guess that must be why most modern soldiers carry swords.

The fact is that most soldiers who are hit in the head or body by an M16 or
AK47 round stop fighting right then.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI

If you saw the discution topic we were now speaking about what kind of
weapon were in use for self defence 17th 18th century.

>
> So now you are discussing some indeterminate period in the past?
>
> > Even nowaday a gun shot rarely kill with one blow...
>
> I guess that must be why most modern soldiers carry swords.
>

The fact is that these are non-civilian high velocity riffles, just the
impact of an M-16 bullet kills about 5cm radius organic tissue around the
point of impact du to the speed (about 850m/s) of the buillet. Even worse
the bullet of the M-16 has a special form so it start turning as soon as it
get into your body, and its waving pattern is intend not to stop in a bone
but rather turning around it doing even more damage. However regarding the
AK-47 or comonly know as the Kalash Nikov (sorry... I love that word) it
is less likely to instatly kill, true for a shot to the head but it's bullet
is very similar to the 30-06, highly perforant but it won't stay in its
target doing a whole mess inside. So of course death takes longer.

But of course in a battle you are ordered trying wounding you ennemy rather
than killing him, army forces are to help the wounded so you neutralise more
mens by wounding them. At least it was what I was told.





> The fact is that most soldiers who are hit in the head or body by an M16
or
> AK47 round stop fighting right then.
> --
> John Hasler
> john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI

"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote in message
newsRKXc.33630$DG.1651357@news20.bellglobal.com. ..
> If you saw the discution topic we were now speaking about what kind of
> weapon were in use for self defence 17th 18th century.

In the seventeenth century society changed from being a place where every
man carried an edged weapon to a place where the smallsword became a piece
of male jewellery.

In real terms people didn't go around in fear of their lives,
swords/rapiers were worn if you were doing something that may have put you
in peril. Remember, going out late drinking in some English cities can
still be a dangerous business.

What happened is that going out became a lot less dangerous, and the
weapons became a sight more lethal.

This sounds odd, but it isn't.

A rapier or a small sword is a very lethal weapon, the earlier 'back sword'
isn't. A rapier will put a hole in you, it's designed to. A back sword
will give you a very nasty slash.

You probably won't die of a nasty cut, you may have a scar, or even loose
a few fingers or the use of an arm, but you probably won't die.

A penetrating thrust to the torso will kill you most of the time if you're
in the England of 1620.

Many people will take the risk of casual violence in a streetfight, very
few will do so if the weapons are that lethal.

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

Trim Plus Expert writes:
> But of course in a battle you are ordered trying wounding you ennemy
> rather than killing him...

I wasn't.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin

Well, it's true that a lot of shooting victims survive, and that the
lethality of most modern firearms used in self defense, ie handguns,
is not anywhere near 100%. But the point of a self-defense weapon is
not to kill the aggressor. It is to make him cease his aggression.
Which modern firearms of a satisfactory caliber almost always do
fairly well. And they do it at a greater range than any sword will
permit. As several people have pointed out, their ubiquity is tacit
proof of their success.



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


> A rapier or a small sword is a very lethal weapon, the earlier 'back sword'
> isn't. A rapier will put a hole in you, it's designed to. A back sword
> will give you a very nasty slash.
>
> You probably won't die of a nasty cut, you may have a scar, or even loose
> a few fingers or the use of an arm, but you probably won't die.
>
> A penetrating thrust to the torso will kill you most of the time if you're
> in the England of 1620.


Of this I am not convinced. A reading of the duelling anecdotes of
Brantome and others reveals a startling number of fairly serious yet
still nonlethal sword-thrusts; and many more which were not
immediately so, permitting those sustaining them to keep right on
fighting. This is not a desirable thing if you are fighting someone
for your life, IMO. All very well that they die three days later or
expire of gangrene, but it doesn't much help me in the here and now.
Whereas a lost head or swordhand is likely to take the fight out of a
person quite immediately.

For those without the patience to sift through all the historical
accounts, these articles may serve instead:

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.shtml

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.shtml