| Author |
Message |
|
Joe Fults
|
 Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 1:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
Bill
I too must strongly disagree. I would say that it is impossible to argue that SCA fighting is a martial art. SCA fighting is good at what it is, a sport. Hard hitting indeed, but still a game. And that's ok! To understand why SCA fighting is not a martial art please read the following article:
How to tell if your Fencing is a Martial Art or a Combat Sport
http://www.thearma.org/essays/MartialArtorCombatSport.htm
All the best,
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW |
Your doctrine. Hardly the only one in martial arts and almost certainly not accepted as authoritative outside your group. It is very useful for neatly dividing things into "us" and "them" though so that one can understand your frame of reference.
Some layman's definitions on martial arts might help.
Encyclopedia Britannica:
Any of several arts of combat and self-defense that are widely practiced as sport.
Wikipedia:
Martial arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. While they may be studied for various reasons, martial arts share a single objective: to defeat one or more people physically and to defend oneself or others from physical threat....
Answers.com:
Martial arts cover a broad range of activities that involve fighting techniques, physical exercises, and methods of mental discipline, among other skills...The martial arts were originally concerned with preparing men for battle. They no longer have a military role, but still retain an aggressive element...Martial arts also lie at the root of competitive sports...
...Outside today's military, martial arts are still cultivated for physical and even spiritual improvement. Martial competitions have become sporting events, where one puts one's body and sometimes even one's life on the line, though there have been many attempts to transform sports such as boxing, wrestling, judo, and karate into safer events where points, rather than lasting bodily damage, determine the winner...
Columbia Encyclopedia:
Various forms of self-defense, usually weaponless...In modern times they have come into wide use for self-protection, as competitive sports, and for exercise.
Arguing against SCA being martial because it is a sport seems dogmatic at best. Arguing that its not a historical western martial art is another matter that I can understand. Frankly, at the risk of offending WMA people that I respect, arguing against SCA being martial because its a sport is rather brash.
Note: I'm not a martial artist. I don't have a dog in any of this. Nevertheless the irony of it all is succinct.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
Last edited by Joe Fults on Fri 29 Aug, 2008 1:53 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
  |
 |
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just hope that all of this impassioned debate is the run-up to an enormous inter-discipline tournament that will build friendships and enlighten everyone.
All of this quasi-politeness through clenched teeth is fine, but ultimately only the Vassilis Tsafatinos can really say that he's put his money where his mouth is. BTW I've watched those bouts four or five times now, there's a lot of good stuff in there.
There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them. ~ Emile Chartier
|
|
 |
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: | I just hope that all of this impassioned debate is the run-up to an enormous inter-discipline tournament that will build friendships and enlighten everyone.
All of this quasi-politeness through clenched teeth is fine, but ultimately only the Vassilis Tsafatinos can really say that he's put his money where his mouth is. BTW I've watched those bouts four or five times now, there's a lot of good stuff in there. |
Thank you Gavin. That made my day 
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
  |
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | Is the SCA a martial art? What is a martial art?
Let's agree that a martial art is a fighting art intended to be used in earnest, either in war, duels or self defence, or an art that prepares you for such fighting.
|
Let's not, because in general parlance (there are plenty of definitions that align with each other), its pretty clear that a martial art does not have to be intended for earnest use. Once that construct goes out the window so go a whole lot of the differences. At least from the outside looking in.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Marc Pengryffyn wrote: | | In my opinion, and obviously the opinion of several others on this thread, martial effectiveness can be found outside the manuals as well as within them. |
Here's what my point about "killing blokes" was supposed to illustrate...
How do you know? How do you know that what you come up with outside the manuals is martially effective? You cannot test it without killing or grievously wounding someone.
How do HEMA people know? It's simple. If in our testing we can get a technique to work, and get it to work the same way that is described in manuals, then we know it's effective. More to the point, we know we've gotten the general gist of a technique that was historically used with great effectiveness. And there is a ton of evidence that the arts of Liechtenauer, for example, were used with great effectiveness in both judicial combat and the battlefield.
Of course there are many different interpretations and of course we are far from a perfect picture, but we are doing the best we can by the only logical means available to us....the study of the manuals and the attempt to do what they describe in the way they describe under the pressures of free play and other testing methods.
| Quote: | | Equal dedication and effort can be, and has been applied to martial practice outside the scope of the manuals. Many of us seem to agree that the term martial art need not be confined to HEMA. Some HEMA practitioners may disagree with that, that's their right. But they do themselves and their art a disservice by using a superior tone and resorting to ridicule in arguing the case. |
There are many martial arts that are not HEMA. However, if you claim to be studying European swordplay with historical weapons (longsword, sword and buckler, etc.), then you're either studying HEMA or you're not. It's really that simple. There is nothing superior in any of it. It just is.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Fults wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: | Is the SCA a martial art? What is a martial art?
Let's agree that a martial art is a fighting art intended to be used in earnest, either in war, duels or self defence, or an art that prepares you for such fighting.
|
Let's not, because in general parlance (there are plenty of definitions that align with each other), its pretty clear that a martial art does not have to be intended for earnest use. Once that construct goes out the window so go a whole lot of the differences. At least from the outside looking in. |
Fine, then come up with a new term that describes training for earnest combat and I'll edit my post to reflect that change, if I still can. I trust you understand how I use that word, as I have clearly defined my understanding of it.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is going no where, so I think I'll bow out. I've said what I have to say, no point in repeating anymore. There is no convincing anyone, what I posted, I posted for the benefit of those who are new and may not yet understand the differences between the various sword related pursuits.
Thank you all for your time and the polite way in which you expressed your opinions. If I have offended anyone, I apologize, it was not my intention.
Oh, and for those that don't know, I am Vassilis' longsword instructor. He has been with us for a little less than a year and is a very good student. He and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things (ok, most things! ) but we're happy to have him in NYHFA.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | However, if you claim to be studying European swordplay with historical weapons (longsword, sword and buckler, etc.), then you're either studying HEMA or you're not. It's really that simple. There is nothing superior in any of it. It just is. |
| Quote: | | Likewise people who would like HWMA enthusiast to try some of our techniques get little more than a smirk and a “go away, we’re busy with legitimate studies” type of response. |
My earlier point exactly; thank you for the sample response.
Honestly Michael, from a purely logical standpoint your opinion cannot be proven and is therefore supposition.
Here is your logic:
X (Fechtbuch) worked in the context of A (Medieval War) and we have record of it working.
Y did not exist in the context of X (SCA)
X no longer exists, and A no longer exists
Y came after X and A, but is necessarily ineffective and inferior.
If X and Y have never coexisted in the context of A, you cannot logically prove that either is more effective. Ever.
All that you CAN prove is that X is superior to Y as of now, but only by testing them together. Which is what started the topic, and from what I saw Y did just fine. You could say that the test sample was too small, but there is only one way to broaden the sample...
There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them. ~ Emile Chartier
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | we're happy to have him in NYHFA. |
I am very happy to be there. I have learned a lot about the German system of fighting (longsword, dagger, wrestling) and have much more to learn.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Fine, then come up with a new term that describes training for earnest combat and I'll edit my post to reflect that change, if I still can. I trust you understand how I use that word, as I have clearly defined my understanding of it. |
I understand your use of the term and I understand that you are not using the generally accepted definition of a very general term (martial art). Online definitions (at least) are pretty consistent and inclusive of sport.
That is the problem.
You intend "martial art(s)" to mean one thing (which is exclusionary) but other people understand it to mean something else (which is not equally exclusionary).
Historical Martial Art, Historical European Swordmanship (from your site) or Histrorical European Martial Art all seem to be terms defined by groups with historical western focus and "intent" in their doctrine. At least it appears to be the case for those with an Internet presence. Just add the adjective you prefer to martial art. This debate can still carry along with the "us" and "them" distinction intact as HMA, HES, HEMA are all equally distinct and exclusionary of modern sport.
So (to me) you can clearly exclude SCA from making a claim to HMA, HES, HEMA and such. SCA is not that historical and most people I've had experience with in the organization and don't claim to be while those terms imply a historic component. However, even if one chooses to call SCA a modern sport, being a sport and being modern does not seem to exclude anything from consideration as a martial art using standard definitions.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
Last edited by Joe Fults on Fri 29 Aug, 2008 3:28 pm; edited 6 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Fults wrote: | | Bill Grandy wrote: | | And I repeat: the word "sport" is not a bad word! |
Perhaps the important detail that makes this discussion run in loops each time it surfaces, is that its not a bad word to you. However, if it is perceived as a bad word by the other party, then it is a bad word for all intent and purpose in the debate/negotiation. |
Well, I don't know how else to say it, then. Because it shouldn't be offensive. I do modern fencing. Its a sport, plain and simple, and I don't find that offensive. Sports have long been an important element of martial training... but left by themselves, without the rest of the art, they are still sports.
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | I have a question for Bill Grandy. Since both he and I both fence rapier I think we will see more eye to eye on the following example. Let us consider Olympic Sports Fencing. Its just a sport right...? They don't train to actually kill people right? They use car antennas and rules. Now imagine swapping out that Epee for a Rapier and going to duel against an Olympic level fencer with no rules.... Would you do it? Would you dismiss their training as irrelevant and not functional with a Rapier? Would you bet your life on it?
I'm just curious. I'm not being a smart ass. As a rapier fencer I have asked myself the exact same question. My answer is no. |
No, I wouldn't dismiss their training. I can speak from personal experience that a better trained epee fencer will wipe the floor with most modern rapier fencers (as has happened to me). Honestly, a high level sport fencer will wipe the floor with most longsworders, and sword and buckler men, etc. What this means, though, is that a high level athlete with a high degree of training will be better at physical activities than someone who isn't.
But here's the thing: I don't dismiss a person's SCA training, either. Quite honestly, put head to toe, I think that the high level SCA guys would kick the crap out of most HEMA guys in a sparring session at this stage. Why? 1) HEMA is still in the ongoing process of revival, and as far as we've come, we still have a ways to go before most of the practitioners are on a level with living traditions such as Japanese martial arts; 2) high level SCA guys have spent more time in that game than most HEMA practicioners; 3) Most HEMA sparring I've seen is horrendous. This is also why I think high level sport fencers will do the same, and I've seen it time and time again. This is coming from a HEMA "purist".
Why am I being so down on HEMA? Well, I'm not, really. Its just that it is too early in its revival to be making comparisons about its effectiveness based on the low level of skill of the majority of *modern* HEMAists in the artificial world of sparring. And I'm also saying the same thing I've been saying all along: Sparring is fake. You can be really great at sparring... but that alone doesn't make it you a good martial artist.
I'm reminded of a TV show I saw where a mixed martial artist traveled around to learn various martial arts from different countries. The episode I saw was on Krav Maga. The host was apparently a reasonably high-ranking cage fighter, and he travelled to Irael to learn from the Israeli military. He was put up against a guy with a rubber knife and told to defend himself. After being slashed and stabbed repeatedly, the instructor stopped him and bluntly said, "Okay, you're a great cage fighter, but you don't know crap about fighting."
But for the record, I don't think anyone should be dissing SCA combat, either. I may consider it a sport, but I also consider modern fencing a sport (an activity that I myself participate in), and I can speak from experience that to be good at it requires dedicated training and an incredibly high level of athleticism.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | I have a question for Bill Grandy. Since both he and I both fence rapier I think we will see more eye to eye on the following example. Let us consider Olympic Sports Fencing. Its just a sport right...? They don't train to actually kill people right? They use car antennas and rules. Now imagine swapping out that Epee for a Rapier and going to duel against an Olympic level fencer with no rules.... Would you do it? Would you dismiss their training as irrelevant and not functional with a Rapier? Would you bet your life on it?
I'm just curious. I'm not being a smart ass. As a rapier fencer I have asked myself the exact same question. My answer is no. |
No, I wouldn't dismiss their training. I can speak from personal experience that a better trained epee fencer will wipe the floor with most modern rapier fencers (as has happened to me). Honestly, a high level sport fencer will wipe the floor with most longsworders, and sword and buckler men, etc. What this means, though, is that a high level athlete with a high degree of training will be better at physical activities than someone who isn't.
|
Thank you for your well thought out and honest response Bill. I think we both understand each other on this issue. I too have been beaten silly by modern, high level, sports fencers using rapiers
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
Last edited by Bill Tsafa on Fri 29 Aug, 2008 3:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | Well, I don't know how else to say it, then. Because it shouldn't be offensive. I do modern fencing. Its a sport, plain and simple, and I don't find that offensive. Sports have long been an important element of martial training... but left by themselves, without the rest of the art, they are still sports. |
I agree it shouldn't be offensive and it clearly is not intended to be in your very careful use. However, there are those in WMA that clearly use the word sport to disparage activities that other people enjoy. I've experienced it first hand and its been reinforced on more than one occasion. For that matter, I've been guilty of doing it myself when I was dabbling in WMA.
The problem is once you fall out of "us" for whatever reason you are by definition one of "them". Then meaning can seem too be all to clear. Even when its not the intended meaning. It all comes down to perspective.
Does that make any sense?
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
Last edited by Joe Fults on Fri 29 Aug, 2008 3:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Fults wrote: | | Does that make any sense? |
Yes, it does, and I agree with you. Unfortunately, I do think too many people equate "sport" with "silliness". One of my pet peeves in the WMA world is when people disparage combat sports that existed historically. Joachim Meyer's treatise has a large section of longsword fencing for sport, and many have criticized it for this reason. Personally, I find historical sports just as fascinating as the "earnest" counterpart.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally I've enjoyed the conversation so far and maybe it is starting to go around in circles and getting too obsessed with definitions and hair splitting ( Some from me but only meant to have an open minded debate ).
If people can avoid reading things between lines and have thicker skins they would not perceive very much more than pleasant differences of opinion and an attempt at reaching consensus or agreeing to disagree. 
I would suggest that from whatever sources or how much value or lack of value some techniques may be perceived by the different approaches it might be interesting to discuss, show or debate specific moves and try to place them in context as useful or worth thinking about as part of a martial art or sport ? ( Those who might find this boring or un-useful can just ignore the Topic !? ).
There is a lot out there I have no clue about and I'm just curious about discussion relevant to the experimental video clips that started this Topic or other similar experiments like that suggest with modern fencing and rapier ( Not the same at all from what I understand but seeing how a modern trained fencer and a rapier fencer might conclude from a friendly match would be interesting ? ).
Let keep this fun and to quote the JOKER: " Why so serious " !
EDITED/ADDITIONAL: The last few posts happened while I was composing the above and I have to agree strongly with what Bill has written as being very balanced and fair.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can conclude that SCA-dians were very good at hitting my fat melon. 
On the original topic of Bill's clips, I found them interesting. From some of the others I've seen of his, Bill seems to be very good at getting his opponents to fight a linear fight (even when they shouldn't), which plays to his strength and power.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
Not the same at all from what I understand but seeing how a modern trained fencer and a rapier fencer might conclude from a friendly match would be interesting ?.
|
Not the same? lol. Its simple the pointy part of the sword goes into the other man, lol. Sure, modern fencing has stupid rules like rights of way and you have to stay in the lane, and who got who first... but rules are easy to do away with.
This should sound familiar, remember those dumb SCA rules, no low leg shots, no hand hitting , no grappling. Snap of the finger and those rules are gone too.
Then you can observe what real fight would be like and ask the question that is the topic of this thread. Has the training prepared the person for real combat in a historical setting without rules. Does it matter if a person trained with an epee if he can beat everyone when he picks up a rapier?
Sidenote: there historic progression of sword has been from larger heavier one to smaller lighter ones. Especially in unarmored combat. The lighter, faster Smallswords and Epees have the advantage among equally skilled fighters. I personally still prefer to fight with my longer rapier from a distance, but that's just me.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
Not the same at all from what I understand but seeing how a modern trained fencer and a rapier fencer might conclude from a friendly match would be interesting ?.
|
Not the same? lol. Its simple the pointy part of the sword goes into the other man, lol. Sure, modern fencing has stupid rules like rights of way and you have to stay in the lane, and who got who first... but rules are easy to do away with.
This should sound familiar, remember those dumb SCA rules, no low leg shots, no hand hitting , no grappling. Snap of the finger and those rules are gone too.
|
Good POINT ( pun alert ) as both would be using rapiers and not using modern fencing rules and only seeing how a modern fencing trained fencer would faire in rapier fencing. To be interesting the modern fencer has to be a good one as well as the rapier fencer ( Matches between novices would not be very informative ).
From what Bill wrote earlier it would be challenging.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | Not the same? lol. Its simple the pointy part of the sword goes into the other man, lol. Sure, modern fencing has stupid rules like rights of way and you have to stay in the lane, and who got who first... but rules are easy to do away with.
This should sound familiar, remember those dumb SCA rules, no low leg shots, no hand hitting , no grappling. Snap of the finger and those rules are gone too.
Then you can observe what real fight would be like and ask the question that is the topic of this thread. |
But it isn't what a real fight is like. I gave the example above of the cage fighter who couldn't fight out of his context in the Krav Maga show (I think it was on the Discovery or History channel?). Besides which, there are always rules. In your fight, would it have been okay to pull out a pistol and shoot the other one? Would it have been okay to throw a rock at the other one? You also clearly had certain agreements on safety equipment. Would it have been okay to tackle the other person and rip off his helmet to hit him? This may sound a little extreme, so let's look at historical technique: Would it have been okay to perform any of the copious amounts of techniques that involve a)stomping on someone's knee from the front, b) throwing a person to the ground and dropping your knees on his testicles, c)grasping onto someones fingers and ripping them apart to the side, d)using an arm bar to hyperextend your opponent's elbow so that he drops his weapon? What about simpler techniques, such as Lignitzer's sixth play of sword and buckler, where the shield is twisted out in such a way that the fingers would have been mangled? (Not sure if that could be done on your shield or not, depending on the strapping, but you get the idea).
This is a fundamental flaw of using free fencing as the sole method of judging realistic combat. Even if a realistic scenario might not see some of these examples, there is still a difference in your attitude when approaching the bout.
That doesn't mean the sparring is invalid, because it isn't. I think bouting is an excellent method of pressure testing your own abilities, and I think there is a lot of good that can come out of it. But it is also limited, and can only tell so much, and we have to accept that or else we're kidding ourselves.
The funny thing about rules: Some of the most realistic fighting is done under strict rules. Many historical contests had very specific rules about how to tell who won (limited target areas, rules for dealing with double hits, etc). When they are used as part of a more wholistic training regimen (combined with solo and paired forms, passive and antagonistic drills, test cutting, case studies, etc).
| Quote: | | Has the training prepared the person for real combat in a historical setting without rules. Does it matter if a person trained with an epee if he can beat everyone when he picks up a rapier? |
But can that person defend himself against a spear? Or what about if he doesn't have a weapon? That person might pick up the techniques faster than someone who's never trained (since the rules of proper distance and timing apply to all weapons), and that person might react better under pressure than a person who's never done any sparring. But all the free play in the world is primarily making you become better at free play, and not necessarily doing much for the other aspects of combat.
| Quote: | | Sidenote: there historic progression of sword has been from larger heavier one to smaller lighter ones. Especially in unarmored combat. The lighter, faster Smallswords and Epees have the advantage among equally skilled fighters. |
I'm afraid the historical record doesn't agree. The Roman gladius was often lighter than most 15th century longswords. Many Viking and Migration era swords were lighter than many 16th century rapiers. Most 15th century arming swords are lighter than 16th century two handed swords.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
I'm afraid the historical record doesn't agree. The Roman gladius was often lighter than most 15th century longswords. Many Viking and Migration era swords were lighter than many 16th century rapiers. Most 15th century arming swords are lighter than 16th century two handed swords. |
Sorry, my mind was focusing on the Renaissance on since we were talking about rapier. What I specificaly had in mind was the progression from Longsword, to Cut and Thrust, to Rapier to Small and then to Epee sword. With some exceptions, there is a general trend in downsizing.
From what I can recall the Epee was a dueling weapon too used to draw blood with the tip.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic