"Real" weapons?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by carlos

(snip) Otherwise, fencing would be wholly arbitrary could just be trying to lasso the opponent with a nylon thread, or whack him on the head with a foam hammer.

...or playing tag with radio antennas--oh, wait...

[Markstorm]

As far as language goes, I'll offer: (Chinese)
Foil: Hua Jian (fancy/flowery sword)
Epee: Zhong Jian (heavy sword)
Sabre: Pei Jian (Accompanying Sword? I'm not sure about this one)

Anyways, on the subject of realism, what about kendo? Is modern sabre more realistic as a martial art or Kendo? The most obvious choice is Kendo since the moves look much more lethal, but from what I've seen, Kendokas also make very heavy actions designed to cleave their opponents. Which simply beg for stop cuts...

Opinions?

[Von_Moss]

It is a simple question of attributing to each weapon its practice counterpart.
Foil->Smallsword (A triangular-section 18th century sword, evolved from the rapier, and carried by gentlemen for duels and self-defense, as well as an article of male fashion)
Epee->Epée de Combat (Litteraly Combat sword, this time exclusively a dueling weapon, 19th century and beginning of the 20th)
Sabre->Duelling sabre, and the latest military sabres (Patton, Puerto Seguro...) This does not apply to the true military sabre, whose heft requires the use of moulinets and stronger tactics.

These practice tools apply to the weapons mentioned above, just as a bokken would simulate a katana or a waster would simulate a bastard sword. Now, are they weapons? Well, they are mock-weapons. They merely simulate combat.

[KD5MDK]

Not being used with the intent to cause harm, they are not weapons.

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by Von_Moss

It is a simple question of attributing to each weapon its practice counterpart.
Sabre->Duelling sabre, and the latest military sabres (Patton, Puerto Seguro...) This does not apply to the true military sabre, whose heft requires the use of moulinets and stronger tactics.

These practice tools apply to the weapons mentioned above, just as a bokken would simulate a katana or a waster would simulate a bastard sword. Now, are they weapons? Well, they are mock-weapons. They merely simulate combat.

A Patton sabre has NOTHING to do with modern or classical fencing. A Patton sabre is basically a rapier-like implement, designed to be used exclusively for point attacks--it also is a big, heavy son of gun (I have one hanging on a wall in my house).

Most military sabres of the late 19th C, early 20th C were of similar design (straight blade, intended to be used essentialy as a short lance). Fencing sabres are derived from duelling sabres, which were developed by the mid 1800s, and are notably lighter, shorter and smaller than military sabres. Duelling sabre requires considerably (if I was being unkind, I'd say entirely) different technique from military sabre.

MR

[Teme]

Originally Posted by sabreur

Fencing sabres are derived from duelling sabres, which were developed by the mid 1800s, and are notably lighter, shorter and smaller than military sabres.

Not trying to start an argument, or anything, but is there a source for this (other than Italian )? I've seen everywhere, but then I've also read 'By the Sword', and seen this site and have copies of a Finnish saber manual from 1928 (following Barbasetti and 'German' school) for officer cadets.
The thing that bothers me is that Polish and Hungarian were using fingers and wrist already at the beginning of 19th century (long before the duelling saber) but no footwork to speak of (regardless, the pics on the link seem rather 'modern' to me). And the manual states that sport saber weights vary between 500 and 950 grams (1.1 to 2.1 lb), and the blade is slightly curved (I had such a weapons in my posession for years). Now, 2.1 lb is not 'notably' lighter than 2.2 - 2.4 lb cavalry saber, IMHO. So, could it be possible that there were several parallel developments instead of everything eminating from Santelli's Salle from Budapest?

By the way, the Finnish manual doesn't mention anything about ROW...

[sabreur]

Originally Posted by Teme

Not trying to start an argument, or anything, but is there a source for this (other than Italian )? I've seen everywhere, but then I've also read 'By the Sword', and seen this site and have copies of a Finnish saber manual from 1928 (following Barbasetti and 'German' school) for officer cadets.
The thing that bothers me is that Polish and Hungarian were using fingers and wrist already at the beginning of 19th century (long before the duelling saber) but no footwork to speak of (regardless, the pics on the link seem rather 'modern' to me). And the manual states that sport saber weights vary between 500 and 950 grams (1.1 to 2.1 lb), and the blade is slightly curved (I had such a weapons in my posession for years). Now, 2.1 lb is not 'notably' lighter than 2.2 - 2.4 lb cavalry saber, IMHO. So, could it be possible that there were several parallel developments instead of everything eminating from Santelli's Salle from Budapest?

By the way, the Finnish manual doesn't mention anything about ROW...

There are lunges pictured on the Polish site--they tend to be pretty short. I agree with you that some of the actions look very modern--the discussion about whether the sabre should be manipulated from the elbow or the wrist certainly predates Santelli--in fact, the "Radaellian" school was a throw-back--the Italian military originally adopted a Northern Italian form that was based on actions from the wrist, but the Neopolitans screamed and succeeded in having their homeboy Radaelli's method (which calls for cuts to come from the elbow) to be adopted instead. I think you have to be careful about thinking about broadsword/foot sabre vis a vis cavalry sabre--sometimes the same weapon, or very similar weapons, would be used both on foot and horseback, but I would think (don't know) that the WAY they would be used would be quite different....

I think the possible weights, versus actual weights, of duelling sabres is probably much like the possible, versus actual weights of fencing sabres--a fencing sabre CAN weigh up to 500 grams, but generally, they come in at around 250 grams. The 19th C fencing sabres that I have weigh a couple of ounces less than a pound--so something in the 400-450 gram area.

But you're right--a lot of this is mythology, rather than historical fact--I'd love to see a full history of how sabre developed. At the same time, I don't think that anyone disputes that modern sabre fencing basically came out of Hungary, and what came out of Hungary basically began in Italo Santelli's salle.

MR

[JackSparrow]

Originally Posted by sabreur

I think you have to be careful about thinking about broadsword/foot sabre vis a vis cavalry sabre--sometimes the same weapon, or very similar weapons, would be used both on foot and horseback, but I would think (don't know) that the WAY they would be used would be quite different....

You're right. It's a myth that the modern sports Sabre was derived from the cavalry weapon. I found this article by Christoph Amberger. To put it in context, Amberger is saying that when most people are asked why you don't hit below the waist in Sabre they say that as it was derived from a Cavalry weapon you would only hit their legs and horseflesh which wouldn't make sense. This is an incorrect explaination because...

"Take the 1796 standard-issue sabre of the Light Cavalry, for example. This weapon can rightfully be called the most characteristic cavalry weapon of the 18th and 19th centuries. It weighs 2lbs, has a massive curved blade, an iron stirrup guard and a short thick leather-covered handle with no thimb groove. The short grip doesn't allow for any of the fancy finger play of the smallsword and the modern sports weapon. The weapons main purpose was to cut from above with wrist, elbow and shoulder action, and to oppose the enemy's attack with the sheer weight of the blade. Due to the raised point, the typical cavalry sabre is nearly exclusively a cutting sword, not suitable for the thrust. Although the fencing masters of the 18th and 19th centuries tended to lump sabre and cut-and-thrust swords together under the species broadsword, Domenico Angelo already differentiates between the curved sabre and the broadsword as far back as 1763.

From a practical point of view, the curved cavalry sabre is more closely related to the medieval falcion or even the machete than to the light Italian sabre. The Italian duelling sciabola di terreno was derived from the straight-bladed cut-and-thrust sword and the Armeerapier in the second half of the 19th century, not for the purpose of military combat of self-defence, but for the artificial environment of the regulated ritualised duel."

[Victor]

Historical weapons discussions? How 'this' weapon was used in 'that' way? ...

Nothing but a distraction. And totally unusable in your next competitive bout. Totally.

"Dude. I'm so bummed for you. I can't believe the ref didn't see your opponent slashing at your horse during that second pass on the field. I mean, sheesh, that's not like historically accurate or anything, is it? ...?

[JackSparrow]

God you're right. See what Von_Moss has done to me.

[VERITAS]

Originally Posted by Markstorm

As far as language goes, I'll offer: (Chinese)
Foil: Hua Jian (fancy/flowery sword)
Epee: Zhong Jian (heavy sword)
Sabre: Pei Jian (Accompanying Sword? I'm not sure about this one)

Anyways, on the subject of realism, what about kendo? Is modern sabre more realistic as a martial art or Kendo? The most obvious choice is Kendo since the moves look much more lethal, but from what I've seen, Kendokas also make very heavy actions designed to cleave their opponents. Which simply beg for stop cuts...

Opinions?

Thanks for chinese names. Very interesting.

Regarding kendo, I understand that kendokas practice with several asssumptions: they will be wearing elaborate armor, necessitating large, precise lethal cuts, mutual death is a good outcome (so counterattacks are welcome) and that a serious cut is necessary to de-commisson an opponent.
So I don't think modern sabre and kendo can be easily compared, but you have a point. If you score by contact made, modern sabre would surely prevail.

In deadly combat, I would put my money on kendokas.

Classical sabre fencing on the other hand would be equally effective in either, partly because martial techniques and tactics are taught and partly because our sabres are the right kind. Modern sport sabres are so far from any conceivable real combat sabre that the notion of martial application is pretty absurd.

And historical concerns would be absurd if they are useless in competitions. However, there is a sound principle of "natural selection" in operation in life&death encounters. Stupid ideas in practice result in death. Those who survive are developing sound ideas. So how duellists used their swords, or how soldiers use their swords is of utmost importance to serious martial fencers, or even serious competitive fencers.
Of course conventions are of merely historical importance in tracing rules and ritual back to an intelligible source. Which may be helpful in understanding modern rules.
Fencing has roots. They are fascinating history to study, and most important: man has not evolved any extra limbs, or much more maturity or intelligence. What worked then works now.
Thanks for your patience consideration of another view.

charley

[Victor]

Originally Posted by VERITAS

... historical concerns would be absurd if they are useless in competitions. However, there is a sound principle of "natural selection" in operation in life-and-death encounters. Stupid ideas in practice result in death. Those who survive are developing sound ideas. So how duellists used their swords, or how soldiers use their swords is of utmost importance to serious martial fencers, or even serious competitive fencers. ...

Fencing has roots. They are fascinating history to study.

The difference between combat weapons and our competition blades is very simple -- and even inherent in the phrases you wrote above: A competitor's goals are not a matter of life and death; an athlete fencer's actions are intended to win a point, nothing more or less.

So as delightful as it might be to take a walk down memory lane and dip our toes in the waters of history, we would be wise to keep those references separate from our sport training efforts.