[Bill Grandy]

As a practitioner of more than one style of historical western sword fighting, I very much keep historical fencing manuscripts in mind when choosing a sword for myself. But I have begun noticing that many people seem to over rely on these manuscripts to say what is a "perfect" sword, despite the wide variety of historical examples.

As an example, I sometimes see longsword practitioners say that the ideal sword has a long grip with a scent stopper pommel, a la Talhoffer. This happens to be my own preference, in fact. The problem, though, is quite often practitioners say that this is the ideal sword, not just a personal preference, when we know that swords with short two handed grips existed, along with many, many examples of pommels. In making such proclamations, I think we do ourselves a disservice by fogging our understanding of the past. I think we need to keep a few things in mind before drawing conclusions.

First, we only have a few extant fencing treatises when compared to the large amount of masters that must have existed. Just because Silver has a measurement of a perfect length doesn't mean that it applies universally, unless if you specifically study Silver. Starting with the historical source is fantastic, and what we all should be doing, but we just need to keep it in context with other historical sources.

People have different preferences. Even in the few manuscripts we have, there are plenty of examples of differences in gripping methods and ideal lengths. Girard Thibault advocates a method of holding the rapier with the thumb on the opposite side of where Capo Ferro advocates it. Both authors certainly have a different method of measuring the ideal length of a sword when compared to Silver.

We just don't know why people chose the designs they did in many cases. Just because a design doesn't seem ideal to us as modern practitioners, who don't actually use these swords as if our lives depend on it (and I don't care how hard core your WMA training is: unless if you've developed a time machine and have fought on a 14th century battlefield, you and I will never truly know). Case in point: the short grips on Viking swords have often falsely been attributed to people having had smaller hands.

Basically, I was just musing over this idea because I see it pop up every once in a while. I think for the most part people understand these points, just that I think many modern practitioners often become a little narrow focused in their studies and in their [understandable] enthusiasm sometimes proclaim things that are much more influenced by only a small portion of the historical evidence.

Just thinking "outloud".

[Sean Flynt]

It seems likely that those teachers/authors who argued so forcefully for one weapon, length, style, etc., did so because there were so many different weapons, lengths, styles, etc., in common use. People use what works for them.

[Matthew Kelty]

>People use what works for them.

I think this best summarizes it. While I agree with this post in general, I will say that the one nice thing about Silver is that his methods for determining the correct size are really based on "your" size, and that the scale of the weapon will vary depending on your stature. This seems quite sensible, and was me philosophy long before I'd ever read his works.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Greetings all,

The problem is even worse than Bill describes.

When people talk about "swords like in Talhoffer", what the devil are they talking about? Do they mean that Talhoffer uniformly shows long hilted swords with scent stopper pommels?

Really, they *mean*: "like the swords appearing in the first 50 pages of the 1467 Talhoffer codex", because when you look in other Talhoffer manuscripts, you see lots of variation. The 1459 Thott 290 codex shows both long and shorter hilted longswords. The same is true in the 1443 and the c. 1450 Leutold von Konigsegg codices. Sometimes they're scent stopper pommels, other times more spikey affairs optimized for the duel.

However, the more extravagant, and unfortunately widely accepted, idea is that "you want a shorter longsword with a shorter hilt for Fiore, a longer deal for the Liechtenauer tradition." First of all, the Fiore works don't show consistently shorter hilted swords. If you look closely at these variances, you'll come to the conclusion that the artist simply "drew a sword". Secondly, Liechtenauer and related German materials don't consistently show longer hilts either: look at the Vier Leger pictures from the von Danzig mss. and you'll see that their practice swords don't have particularly long hilts.

I'll admit that this has started to get on my nerves a bit, as even sword manufacturers seem to name weapons they design with this erroneous sensibilities in mind.

In short, it isn't this simple folks - the historic masters allowed for, and depicted, a variety of longsword variations. I can demonstrate every Liechtenauer technique with an arming sword (with one hand on the pommel), so you can't blame stuff on not having the precisely 'correct' sword for the job. The next time you hear someone saying "I want a longer hilt for the German stuff", ask them why.

All the best,

Christian

[Matthew Kelty]

Wow! I had no idea there are people so fixated on replicating *EXACTLY* what they see in the books...

I know for myself what various methods I like to use, and look for the sword that best complements my technique, not finding *the* sword to use for *this* particular technique.

I'm wondering if the ultimate height of this absurd notion would be that every Man-at-Arms had a Squire acting as a caddy with a bag of swords over his shoulder:

Soldier: "Hmmm, I'm thinking a Talhoffer murder Stroke is in order. Give me the 3 Iron."

Squire: "I don't know sir, he seems kind of flighty. Might I recommend the Marozzo High-Long Tail, and perhaps the 6 Wood?"

Again, I am amazed at the rigidity of that mindset.

Hell, here I sit, staring at a Post-It for the dream weapon in my mind, and I know (at least from the phone call I had with them) that it ain't going to happen.

Quoth the Post-It:

"Sempach Blade
Count Quillon
Brescia Pommel

888-806-4356
Ask for Mike"

Apparently Albions won't do mix and match. I know they take their work seriously, and match everything for a reason, but I'm a little irked that I can't get the look and function I'm after, and wear the success or failure as my own.

I'd never hold them responsible for me being a dumbass and wandering off the beaten path. I'd happily piece it together myself, and work out whatever kinks rise along the way, but they seem to not want to have to be liable for sending off loose parts with their name on them. Oh well, I guess I'll buy another Atar and go tinkering...

[Bill Grandy]

Christian really hit the nail on the head. Quite frankly, a sword is a sword is a sword. There are things about each type of sword that are more optimal for certain things than others, but when it comes down to it, a man who trained under Master Liechtenauer could fight with a branch if need be. Come to think of it, that was Musashi's trick...

Heck, if I only knew rapier and picked up a longsword, I would be able to manage against someone who trained in nothing. True, it wouldn't be the most ideal tool, but the core principles could still be applied.

[Sean Flynt]

Lest anyone think that ours is strictly a modern view:

I have fitted my self to the times, in speaking only of single Rapier and single Sword, being that the Dagger, Gauntlet, Buckler are not in use, and because that the Rapier and the Sword are the grounds of the less noble weapons. The Rapier of the Quarter Staff, of the long Pike, of the Halbard: the Sword, of the two handed Sword, and of the Falchion, so that a man who can play at single Rapier and BackSword well and judiciously, may with great ease learn to handle the rest of the weapons. –Pallas Armata, 1639

[Martin Wallgren]

I agree that people can be a little narrow in the thinking. As when they think that the major thing defining a sword is the hilt, pommel and cross. as a practitioner my experience is that the blade is what matter the most, as to the handling and use of a sword. In the named Talhoffer 1467 I have only seen blades of the types that Oakeshott defined as XVa and/or XVIIIb. The only thing is the difference in left hand moveability between the scentstopper and the discpommel.

Martin

[Steve Fabert]

[Kel Rekuta]

["Christian Henry Tobler"]Greetings all,

The problem is even worse than Bill describes.

And will soon become entrenched....

I'll admit that this has started to get on my nerves a bit, as even sword manufacturers seem to name weapons they design with this erroneous sensibilities in mind.

Demand creates supply. Vendors label products to appeal to their target market. People study one tradition or another, find an acceptable tool and soon it becomes the tool for the job. Too bad they miss the point that the tool is less important than the skills to use it. And as you say, swords are just tools. Any of them can do the job, in the right hands.

In short, it isn't this simple folks - the historic masters allowed for, and depicted, a variety of longsword variations. I can demonstrate every Liechtenauer technique with an arming sword (with one hand on the pommel), so you can't blame stuff on not having the precisely 'correct' sword for the job. The next time you hear someone saying "I want a longer hilt for the German stuff", ask them why.


Because someone they study under and respect has one?

All the best,

Christian


Excellent comments Christian. I agree with them entirely.

[Patrick Kelly]

[Justin White-Lowther]

[Joachim Nilsson]

[Justin White-Lowther]

[James Nordstrom]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi James,

Sure...but how is that requirement 'German'? Italian medieval fighting makes use of thrusts and levering the weapon too.

My beef is with the contention that you need a different weapon for the two styles - a notion unsupported by either the masters' words or any consistent illlustrative evidence, but rather modern, Internet folklore.

All the best,

Christian

[Justin White-Lowther]

[Mike West]

Is it possible that much of what is seen in the manuals is artist's interpretation? Perhaps the author intended to produce something as much art, as scientific.
Perhaps it was more ego, than anything else. A sword master or instructor published a book to impress his fellows. Does anyone ever suspect that any manual/master they are studying is a bunch of crock, or at least not as competant as moderns give him credit for?
Are moderns so hungry for knowledge of the past that they're willing to accept anything as legit, as long as it survived the centuries?

[Matthew Kelty]

Are moderns so hungry for knowledge of the past that they're willing to accept anything as legit, as long as it survived the centuries?

I think you've hit the nail on the head. People nowadays tend to take anything they read on the Internet as fact, and I don't think we're very different than our predecessors. Many books were published in the era simply to give the Author a sense of accomplishment, and in many cases, simply to refute a peer's opinion.

In a different thread, (the one on Polearms), someone cited Swetnam's statements that he witnessed a man cut the head off a pike staff with a sword and dagger, and I in turn drug Swetnam through the mud. A lot of Swetnam's theories are valid, and he has some very clever feints that I've seen work, but he is not above criticism in all regards, and I spelled out some of his, in my opinion, sheer follies with what works on paper as opposed to what works in practice.

You should always scrutinize your sources, and make sure they stick up in their application, and just because someone says it is so, does not neccesarily make it so.

BTW, being that we have the illustrious Mr. Tobler hanging out on this thread, I'd be curious what *his* opinion was regarding some of the "masters" we all read voraciously, as I'm sure he's developed a few opinions along the way in his writings...

My personal favorite is DiGrassi. He's simple, straightforward, and has a few fundamental principals that tend to hold fast in all manner of fights. Not the most flashy, but fundamentally sound and practical.

[James Nordstrom]