[Sam N.]

[Bennison N]

Steve with a V,

There is a lot a halberd user can do that you didn't mention.

If we are talking about a real, to-the-death, man-on-man engagement, it is my bet that you will see a whole lot of things being attempted and accomplished that are not to be found in any manual. Manuals are guidelines, not set-in-stone rules (otherwise there wouldn't be so many different manuals...), and everyone who fights knows that you can't really learn how to fight from a book.

If you will allow me to use the example of a Edo period Japanese Warrior-monk, or Sohei, who were very well known for Naginata techniques, a fact that eventually led to their eradication at the hands of Oda Nobunaga, starting in 1571, and Tokugawa Ieyasu, ending in 1603. A Naginata is essentially a halberd, or glaive, depending on the Naginata, as I'm sure you will agree. The Sohei, who were very often defeated or disillusioned Samurai, and very organised professional soldiers, were able to create "sections" in an enemy line with the use of very fast turning, with the blade at alternating heights of leg, torso, head, and back again in random patterns. The opponents would not be willing to step inside the circle this created around the Monks, and would be scattered into smaller groups. The Ashigaru, or infantry, and usually armed with Yari, or spears, would then pick off these smaller groups of enemy with far less trouble. (Meanwhile, the Samurai would be facing off in a series of dismounted one-on-ones against other Samurai, or riding around on horses picking off stragglers and heroes with arrows and swords.)

It is true that they wouldn't have faced a Shield and Sword in combination, shields not having been very popular amongst Japanese fighters, but they would have faced many exponents of the School of "Two Skies", famous for the use of a Wakizashi and Katana at the same time, the Wakizashi being used primarily as a blocking tool. Not similar enough, I know...

Now, I realise that Western halberds were used on the battlefield in situations where a turn could hit your comrades as well as your opponents (unless of course the turn was ordered or expected...), but in a one-on-one fight, a turn out of a move such as you described would bring the head of your weapon back around, free, and ready for another series of cuts. A swordsman can jump above a lower leg cut, by the way, this is a fairly basic technique, and one which should be practised. He can also "stamp" the halberd just below the head if he is skilled with feet, and the shock of this to a halberdiers' grip is often enough to lose the weapon for an instant, or it may even force the halberdier to drop the weapon altogether. A good swordsman only needs an instant, as Vassilis will tell you.

Before I started ranting, and nearly went off this off-topic topic, my point was that there is an incredible abundance of techniques and strategies that do not come in manuals. The old masters would have included the fundamentals and intermediate levels only, and from experience with modern masters, I can tell you that they would not have shared everything they knew, except with the successor to their school.

Experimentation is the true path to free expression with a weapon, just as it is with any pursuit.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Steven Reich]

[Bennison N]

Steve with a V,

I agree wholeheartedly.

I would say it is always wise to stick to the basics unless you are facing someone who has as much, if not more, knowledge of the basics as you do. Then it becomes necessary to adapt and "evolve" the basic fundamentals into something that won't be easily predicted. If they can't predict it, they will not be able to easily block or counter it, and you will win.

This is all fairly obvious and a possible waste of three sentences.

Now... Hearing that there are techniques which, in your opinion, no-one presently living (so far) can perform, is just exactly the type of challenge I like to accept. If possible, would you be able to give me a link to a copy of Fabris' second volume (or a copy), or a similar volume of difficult advanced rapier or arming sword techniques? Since hearing of these manuals, I have managed to only locate excerpts and short copies, and to be perfectly honest, I didn't even know there was a Fabris part two. I am firm in my belief that I can use my personalised custom jian to perform these techniques... eventually. I'm only 30, I have all the time in the world, fate willing. And in any case, it gives me a whole wealth of new techniques to add to my practice and matching, and jianshu experts know jianshu, they may not recognise western styles, which may give me an edge during my next season of matches in Asia (coming soon... I'm trying to build up the holiday pay from work... Haha!).

I can't rely on the shock I cause Asian swordsmen by being the loud-mouthed White Boy with the Chinese Sword forever, right?

In the past, I have watched modern rapier matches, and found them to be what I can only describe as "withheld", as the participants fear accidental or intentional damage far more than I think is acceptable for free and expressive use of weapons. I believe that advanced techniques devised in an age where continuing to exist often relied entirely on your skill with a blade will be far more revealing as to the possibilities... and limits (heaven forbid...).

Is it possible, though, that these apparently near-impossible techniques are merely theories Fabris thought up and put on paper, but never actually tested or practiced? It doesn't matter. I would sincerely appreciate your knowledgeable assistance in acquiring them for my ongoing perfection of my art. You really seem to know a lot about the contents of these manuals... Do you practise them yourself?

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

There is something funny that struck me when reading more or less at the same time Fabris and Thibault.

What Fabris puts in his "advanced" book two is very close, tactically speaking, to what Thibault seems to consider basic. In both cases, the aim is to attack without leaving the chance for the adversary to take initiative back, by means of blade opposition, quick, decisive advance, and good feeling of what the opponent does to defend himself.

Conversely, what bothers Thibault most is what Fabris does first: attack from a distance with only a little action from the adversary. Thibault calls that "attacks of first intention" and they are treated only after the rest.

I'm not so technically advanced (read not at all ) with the rapier to have an experimental opinion, but could it be that what one considers advanced is specific to one's personal preferences? So that different masters will put the techniques in different orders... For nearly the same final result. Which I'm ready to believe no one knows how to do as of now A bit similar to how Fabris avoids blade contact at all cost, and Thibault is looking for it all the time.

Bennison, if you are interested by Fabris, I really recommend getting Tom Leoni's book. It is well worth its price, and a pleasure to read... There is also a translation of Thibault around, I don't know how good it is, I have the luck of being able to read it in the original language It has been said that it is obscure, but I find the explanations very clear. I'm a geek, sue me

[Steven Reich]

[Bill Tsafa]

Since the topic is Range... and we are talking about Rapiers....

What rapier blade length do you gentlemen prefer? 36" 40" or something else?

What is your preferred rapier form? singe, dagger, cloak, buckler, case or something else?

My favorite form is case and fight it with a 36" in one hand and a 40" in the other. I usually lead with the 36" and switch up occasionally. I'm also like dagger to a lesser extent. I don't like buckler much. I like single as a warm up or if I want to work on some specific technique. Cloak is too much like single.

[Steven Reich]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Sam N.]

[Bill Tsafa]

42 is a good length. I actually cheat the distance on my rapiers so I get about 43" on my long one and 39" on my short one. I have hand and a half grips so I hold them further back. My ring finger goes behind the second tier on the grip. I don't have much hand protection, so holding then further back is key. It also makes the side rings more effective against thrusts. If a tip comes in through a ring it is usually at an angle and hits the grip rather then my hand. I sometimes shift my grip while fencing and might go all the way back to the pommol for a maximum length of 47"..

[Steven Reich]

[Bill Tsafa]

I ordered Leoni's book today. I liked the reviews as saw here at My Armory as an easy to understand interpretation. I'm always looking to adding new techniques to my bag of tricks.

[Steven Reich]

[Chris Arrington]

One thing you can't do, is forget that the SCA has rules. And those rules, while needed for safety, don't allow for full realism.

If the shieldman rushes you in real life and you think he's going to get inside of you, drop the pole arm and grapple( and or a secondary weapon (dagger or short hafted weapon)).

That shield is a big lever that will work against its user. And some pretty simple aikido/judo style throws would work very well. You could also insert some of the german historical grappling styles as well.

Will this work every time? No way. But for people (especially SCA trained people, which I myself am one) to think the Polearm User has no option but to die, is far fetched.

From my experience, most SCA Shield users (and I mean a HUGE percentage) rely upon blocking that first shot to get inside. Very few consistently dodge. And has been mentioned, a real polearm is going to do serious damage to that shield, arm, shoulder, when blocking that shot.

Same for the "belly to belly" style of SCA fighting. I doubt that would happen much in real life. You would very quickly see leg trips, shield bashes, hip throws, tackles, and the list goes on.

Rules.... Never forget the Rules.

[Bill Tsafa]

[Gary A. Chelette]

[Bill Tsafa]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]