| Author |
Message |
|
Anders Backlund
|
 Posted: Tue 08 Jan, 2008 8:58 am Post subject: "Fencing sabre" style swords? |
 |
|
In movies and other media, I occasionally see people using swords that mostly seem to resemble fencing sabres. They'll have the characteristic large bell guards that sweep down in a knuckle bow, and slender blades for thrusting, like a smallsword or light rapier.
I'm just curious, are there any real life examples of weapons like these? I don't think I've ever seen a historical example.[/i]
|
|
  |
 |
|
Marton Pap
Location: Hungary Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 47
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jan, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Seeing as the fencing sabre was originally a practice version of a duelling sabre, yes, there definately was a real variation. The actual modern fencing hilt, however, is designed for the sport usage, even if the general shape is based on the real thing. If you're referring to some of the old Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone movies using them, they sometimes just used a modern fencing hilt because it was "good enough" for their level of authenticity. (which of course is to say, they didn't have high standards for authenticity)
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
 |
|
|
Anders Backlund
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jan, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Something like that, yes. Thank you. 
That's a cavalry sword, though? It looks very light for a military weapon. 
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | Seeing as the fencing sabre was originally a practice version of a duelling sabre, yes, there definately was a real variation. The actual modern fencing hilt, however, is designed for the sport usage, even if the general shape is based on the real thing. If you're referring to some of the old Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone movies using them, they sometimes just used a modern fencing hilt because it was "good enough" for their level of authenticity. (which of course is to say, they didn't have high standards for authenticity) |
I've seen them in more modern productions as well, actually. Don Juan de Marco had them, and Anthony De Longis used one in the Jet Li movie Fearless. Though it's true they were more common in the classics. [/i]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Hopkins
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jan, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
The sword Delongis used in "Fearless" was a US Model 1913 Cavalry Sword, aka the "Patton saber" (so named because it was designed by Patton when he was a lieutenant in the Army). Here is some more discussion of the sword used in that movie: "Fearless" Sword.
Pic of a repro of the M1913:
The narrow thrusting blade with bowl-like guard became popular for cavalry swords during the twilight years of the sword as a battlefield weapon.
Here are some Spanish cavalry troopers' swords.
Best,
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Backlund
|
| Posted: Tue 08 Jan, 2008 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Jonathan, that's some awesome info. Very interesting! Thanks for the help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anders Backlund wrote: | | That's a cavalry sword, though? It looks very light for a military weapon. |
Well, that's because it was intended as a thrusting sword--the proponents of the thrust won out in the argument between cutting and thrusting swords that took up much of the 19th century and spilled over into the early 20th century. Many of the world's cavalry outfits switched to such light thrusting swords as a result of this debate. Try looking at this page for the techniques involved:
http://www.pattonhq.com/saber.html
Of course, in spite of the thrust-oriented instructor's wishes, the cavalrymen who actually got to use this sword (primarily Australian and/or New Zealand(?) Light Horse units) in World War I seemed to have wielded them as cut-and-thrust weapons instead.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Anders Backlund wrote: | | That's a cavalry sword, though? It looks very light for a military weapon. |
Well, that's because it was intended as a thrusting sword--the proponents of the thrust won out in the argument between cutting and thrusting swords that took up much of the 19th century and spilled over into the early 20th century. Many of the world's cavalry outfits switched to such light thrusting swords as a result of this debate. Try looking at this page for the techniques involved:
http://www.pattonhq.com/saber.html
Of course, in spite of the thrust-oriented instructor's wishes, the cavalrymen who actually got to use this sword (primarily Australian and/or New Zealand(?) Light Horse units) in World War I seemed to have wielded them as cut-and-thrust weapons instead. |
Maybe I should look it up in my old OLD 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica as I vaguely remember looking up under
" SWORDS " and reading a long debate about point versus edge the main arguments being that the point was more lethal and the rebuttal that the point deeply in the target ( opposing horseman ) would be hard to withdraw leading to the loss of the swords and/or injury to the sword arm if one held on. The cut or slash with a curved sabre avoiding these problems.
Then the argument over lethality versus stopping power of edge versus point seemed to be unending. 
I don't think the argument was ever really settled but the thrust school of thought seems to have dominated at the point where it became obsolete to charge on horseback with a sword. 
Oh, and then one could argue the lance versus the sword as a better thrusting weapon: Reach etc ......
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah. It was quite a circular debate, and often degenerated into things that might seem like silly bickering by our standard. But it's entertaining to read nonetheless. I myself wouldn't trust any sword that can't do well in both the cut and the thrust! 
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Jan, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Yeah. It was quite a circular debate, and often degenerated into things that might seem like silly bickering by our standard. But it's entertaining to read nonetheless. I myself wouldn't trust any sword that can't do well in both the cut and the thrust! |
Yes very much like a Topic thread when it goes sour on some website Forums ( Not very often here, fortunately ).
I wouldn't be surprised if the " period " masters had similar arguments among different fencing schools of though: I think the surviving traditions are only a thin remnant of a much more extensive number of fighting styles that may not always have agreed with each other.
If we are lucky, what has survived and is being studied now. are fundamental basics that were universal and the arguments would have been more with peripheral details.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Backlund
|
| Posted: Sat 12 Jan, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Yeah. It was quite a circular debate, and often degenerated into things that might seem like silly bickering by our standard. |
Don't take this wrong, but I find it hilariously ironic to read a statement like that on an internet message board.
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
I wouldn't be surprised if the " period " masters had similar arguments among different fencing schools of though: I think the surviving traditions are only a thin remnant of a much more extensive number of fighting styles that may not always have agreed with each other. |
Fighting over who has the best way of fighting?
The sword is an ode to the strife of mankind.
"This doesn't look easy... but I bet it is!"
-Homer Simpson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic
