# True Sword Fighting



## Ankari

I found this video about real sword fighting from the Viking era. I thought it was interesting and useful.

[video=youtube_share;xFiIDl_mt2c]http://youtu.be/xFiIDl_mt2c[/video]


----------



## Malik

Except that what he's saying about keeping your sword in front of your shield is a good way to go through life with the nickname "Lefty." Especially with a Viking- or Migration-era Type X sword. Yow.

I personally believe that with a Type X -- which has no quillon or handguard -- the hand should be kept behind the shield always, less you risk losing everything below the transverse distal arch. 

There's a school of thought, most recently endorsed by Roland Hammerborg, that the center-grip roundshield was used in concert with the Viking-era Type X sword sort of the way a pitcher uses his glove to hide the ball until it's released. This seems more plausible to me.


----------



## CupofJoe

I don't know about its accuracy and I know even less about different Viking swords but I like the messy style they show. Much closer to a street fight that a boxing match/dance you sometime see in films. 
I could guess the method of fighting would change depending on what type of fight you were in.
One on One I can see the open style like the video suggests where you can move around but if Many on Many then I guess things would be a lot more defensive with each fighter helping keep those beside him covered. You wouldn't want to turn your back on too many people with the swords swinging...


----------



## Caged Maiden

We apply a lot of that in our lessons, too.  While we fight with rapiers, I'm learning "sword fighting" rather than "fencing" because the latter has a forward backward, connotation associated with Olympic fencing.  We learn a lot of the geometry of combat.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Malik

Agreed. I always thought right-of-way was ridiculous.


----------



## Devor

I wonder how much of that would still be preferred if you were fighting someone who didn't have a shield, or if they had a weapon other than an ax.  I bring it up because sometimes you train with your fellow soldiers, against people armed similarly to yourself, like in the video, and may not be prepared for your actual enemy.  It'd be cool to know how that would actually play out in a fight.


----------



## Guy

For one thing, I take issue with the "as it really was" line. There are no historical sources that say exactly what Viking fighting methods were, so we can't say for certain how they did it. Suiting up and fighting it out can tell you how they may have done it, but that doesn't automatically tell you how they did it. A few things I found notably absent were offensive use of the shield and shots to the leg. The problem with trying to go around the shield as the video showed is that the opponent simply has to shift position of his shield or body. A solid blow can stun or stagger the opponent and you then lay into him with your sword. Or hook your shield behind his and haul it aside. The sagas mention leg cuts fairly often. Skeletal remains from the battle of Wisby also show lots of hits to the leg. This makes sense when you see where their armor stopped. 



Caged Maiden said:


> We apply a lot of that in our lessons, too.  While we fight with rapiers, I'm learning "sword fighting" rather than "fencing" because the latter has a forward backward, connotation associated with Olympic fencing.  We learn a lot of the geometry of combat.  Thanks for sharing.


There are many kinds of fencing. The basis for the word comes from of_fense_ and de_fense_. So there's fencing with two handed sword, one hander, etc. Olympic fencing is sport fencing and totally artificial, almost completely divorced from actual fighting


----------



## Guy

Devor said:


> I wonder how much of that would still be preferred if you were fighting someone who didn't have a shield, or if they had a weapon other than an ax.  I bring it up because sometimes you train with your fellow soldiers, against people armed similarly to yourself, like in the video, and may not be prepared for your actual enemy.  It'd be cool to know how that would actually play out in a fight.


Technologically there was no difference between the Vikings and their opponents.


----------



## FatCat

Here's a cool video I saw on swordfighting. I was fascinated by how fast these fights went down, and how quickly a "mistake" can be taken advantage of. Also the use of all parts of the weapon is a cool thing to see in a media-centric view of swordplay that most of us are use to.


----------



## Nihal

Guy said:


> A few things I found notably absent were offensive use of the shield and shots to the leg.



I wondered about this as well. Those tender, mailless legs just waiting to be hacked...


----------



## FatCat

I think the three major points of attack during sword combat were neck, groin, and thighs due to major arteries and the fact that these areas were not usually armored heavily.


----------



## Malik

The major points of attack in sword combat are anything you can get. 

You don't pick your targets; your opponent picks them for you through his mistakes.


----------



## FatCat

No doubt, but wouldn't you agree that these areas, considering manuals at the time, were prime targets? From what I've read that was the agreement. Breastplates were common, were groin, armpit, and neck armors were considerably less common for most 'warriors'.


----------



## Malik

Most definitely. It's the old adage about how no plan survives contact with the enemy. It's more a matter of being aware that those areas are the most lethal, and then capitalizing on a bonehead move by your opponent so that you can hit him someplace that counts.


----------



## Guy

FatCat said:


> No doubt, but wouldn't you agree that these areas, considering manuals at the time, were prime targets? From what I've read that was the agreement. Breastplates were common, were groin, armpit, and neck armors were considerably less common for most 'warriors'.


Depends on the time period and region. No one has yet discovered a fight manual from the Viking period. When plate armor was developed, armpits were still protected with mail. The is no way to cover the inner armpit with rigid armor (at least, not if you want to be able to move your arm). A piece called a basegew, essentially a steel saucer, was sometimes used to provide some armpit protection by dangling in front of the shoulder. There was groin armor, but knights usually didn't have it simply due to riding on horses - try to imagine wearing an athletic cup and sitting in a saddle. Neck armor, called a gorget, was also common for plate. There was also a mail hood called a coif that covered the head and neck. In the Viking era, shields were usually good for protecting the neck and groin and mail was usually long enough to protect the thighs.


----------



## FatCat

I agree a gorget was common in Knights, but groin and armpit armor? Not so much. Not because the realism wasn't expecteded in armorers, but that these areas were considerably diffifult to armor. No matter what, there will always be the argument between arms ann armor, and if you look hisorically, armor is the runner up. People are smart, if you task someone with killing another enough, they will figure out the best way to do so. As I see it, there is no vicotor in combat, only the most ruthless. If you have to kill to survive, you're damn sure to learn to kill efficientlly.


----------



## wordwalker

As for hitting the legs: to reach them you have to lean down a bit, or commit your weapon to a lower arc-- somewhat riskier moves. (Less so the longer your weapon is, though.) But of course that's all filtered through how options have change in a given second:



Malik said:


> The major points of attack in sword combat are anything you can get.
> 
> You don't pick your targets; your opponent picks them for you through his mistakes.


----------



## Nihal

wordwalker said:


> As for hitting the legs: to reach them you have to lean down a bit, or commit your weapon to a lower arc-- somewhat riskier moves. (Less so the longer your weapon is, though.) But of course that's all filtered through how options have change in a given second:



Unless you're short, isn't it?


----------



## Malik

Never lean over. Ever. You flex your knees if you want elevation. The back stays straight. If you slip a disc in 40-50 lbs. of armor, you're boned. (No one ever slips a disc in fantasy combat. Why is that?)

You can hit a leg fairly low with a high hanging guard out of, say, tierce or sixte. You get the sword moving in a teardrop or even a horizontal arc, and then drop your thumb and turn your hand over. The blade strikes the back of the leg with the forward (thumb) edge and your elbow never dips. It's super effective if you do it while stepping back out of range. You're moving back, and you strike him from behind.

You can also lower the risks of committing to an attack below the plane of the hips by using your shield to obscure your opponent's vision -- or by smashing him in the visor with the crown of your helmet so that he can't see anything but hot purple gummy worms for a few seconds.


----------



## Guy

wordwalker said:


> As for hitting the legs: to reach them you have to lean down a bit, or commit your weapon to a lower arc-- somewhat riskier moves. (Less so the longer your weapon is, though.) But of course that's all filtered through how options have change in a given second:


As you noted, with a weapon significantly longer than your opponent's it works. Also, if you can tie up your opponents weapon, you can go for his leg. For example, if you manage to grab your opponent's wrist, you can then cut at his leg. Same if you catch his weapon on your shield. Based on the leg wounds shown on the skeletons from the battle of Wisby (one of whom seems to have had both of his legs removed with a single sroke), I speculate that what happened a lot was that the assailant swung his sword down at his opponent, coming from over his right shoulder. The defender received the blow on his shield while cocking his sword arm back and to his left and under his shield.This placed him in a position to execute a backhanded cut at the assailant's forward leg either while receiving his assailant's blow or immediately following it. Based on skeletal remains and accounts given in the sagas, cuts to the leg were fairly common when the fighters were using swords and shields.


----------



## Malik

Malik said:


> You can hit a leg fairly low with a high hanging guard out of, say, tierce or sixte.



Hanging point out of tierce and sixte would be seconde and octave, respectively.

I need to quit posting before my second cup of coffee.


----------



## ThinkerX

Second video about sums it up.  Something like a dozen fights in less than a minute, including the setups. 

One, Two, Three...end of that time, serious fight between pro's, one guy is either dead, hurting real bad, or running like blazes.

Which is how I write my fight scenes.

I don't really hold with duels that go on for minutes or hours, unless something really weird is in effect.  Or unless one guy takes off running, but thats something else.


----------



## Guy

ThinkerX said:


> Second video about sums it up.  Something like a dozen fights in less than a minute, including the setups.
> 
> One, Two, Three...end of that time, serious fight between pro's, one guy is either dead, hurting real bad, or running like blazes.
> 
> Which is how I write my fight scenes.
> 
> I don't really hold with duels that go on for minutes or hours, unless something really weird is in effect.  Or unless one guy takes off running, but thats something else.



That's one of my major issues, too. From what I've seen, sword fights will go on for a long time if the fighters are very well armored or very incompetent. Otherwise, it'll end pretty quickly.


----------



## Nihal

In "duels" during a battle, I agree. But saying that every sword fight by experient opponents *must* be short seems like an overstatement to me. You're imposing arbitrary rules that don't reflect every situation for no reason, and you're the only one who will lose with it.



Spoiler: Blood.


----------



## Guy

Nihal said:


> In "duels" during a battle, I agree. But saying that every sword fight by experient opponents *must* be short seems like an overstatement to me.


Must be? No. Conditions under which they last long are when the fighters are very well armored, are too incompetent to score decent hits, or are using weapons that fail  to inflict enough trauma to stop an opponent. Read about the duels Miyamoto Musashi fought. In most cases it was as simple as his opponent swinging and missing, Musashi swinging back and hitting, and it was over. And in several of those duels Musashi was using a wooden practice sword while his opponent was using a sharp steel one, yet they ended within a couple of strikes, and in Musashi's favor. Why? Because he was good. Duels involving rapiers and small swords could go on for a while largely because the duelists were not professional warriors and lacked the skill of someone like Musashi or their narrow bladed weapons failed to stop their opponents.


> You're imposing arbitrary rules that don't reflect every situation for no reason, and you're the only one who will lose with it.


No, I'm making a conclusion based on historical accounts, experience and observation. Look at a fist fight between two skilled fighters. Even though they're skilled, they tend to score frequent hits on each other. Now put a box cutter in each one's hand. Things are going to get a lot uglier. Now replace the box cutters with swords three to four feet long and you can see that this fight isn't going to take long. 


> Spoiler: Blood.


Duels fit two of the criteria I mentioned above - the weapons often fail to inflict enough trauma to stop an opponent (read the historical accounts and there are numerous instances of men fighting on after being stabbed with a rapier or small sword) and what I would classify incompetence at fighting - restricting oneself with rules. Rapiers and small swords were civilian weapons designed specifically for civilian duels, where each man is armed identically and following a set of rules. Someone fighting for his life and restricting himself with notions of "fair" or "unfair" is, in my opinion, an incompetent fighter who will get his lunch eaten when he comes up against someone who has no compunctions about combining kicking, punching, grappling, and smashing with the pommel with his cuts and thrusts. Moreover, most duelists were courtesans rather than professional warriors. I know of three or four historical accounts of men armed with rapiers going up against opponents armed with war swords or staffs. In every instance, the rapier man got his ass kicked. What worked on the battlefield usually worked on the dueling field, but what worked on the dueling field usually didn't work on the battlefield. Therefore, a fighter using dueling methods is using an inferior method and is therefore incompetent.

A lot of it also comes down to the audience's taste. I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to fight scenes. I practice martial arts, I've got an M.A. in European History and wrote my thesis on why rapiers became popular, so I'm coming at this from a different perspective than most other readers. I could go on and on about how badly movies portray gunfights, and they're the same way with sword fights. And, sadly, movies are where the general population gets their information about things like sword fights and gun fights, and they carry that with them when they read novels.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Guy said:


> Read about the duels Miyamoto Musashi fought. In most cases it was as simple as his opponent swinging and missing, Musashi swinging back and hitting, and it was over. And in several of those duels Musashi was using a wooden practice sword while his opponent was using a sharp steel one, yet they ended within a couple of strikes, and in Musashi's favor. Why? Because he was good.


Great epic series written by Eiji Yoshikawa, by the way.


----------



## wordwalker

Thinking back on this, it's great stuff, but it clashes with Drama 101 that a good scene usually wants to be stretched out.

--In fact, at least half of the absurdities we see in battle scenes come down to the author not accepting (or not realizing) how many things in a fight would end it too quickly for straightforward drama. "Stormtrooper marskmanship" could be the symbol for how hard many people's storytelling works to avoid, well, accuracy, just to drag things out.

Still, there are wrinkles we could use to get longer fights, that play off that fact instead of deny it. Such as:


*Multiple* fights. The MC's moving through a battlefield, wood, whatever, watching for the next enemy. Each fight could be this short, but keeping alert and how each enemy placement and battle changes the next (starting with, don't they yell for help?) make it an ongoing process however a fight goes.
*Stall!* Sometimes one opponent wants to run away, or get the other talking or would rather savor (or avoid) the killing blow than get down to business. Though it's a lot harder if the other does want to fight, or suspects he's being played. (Classic fight in the Amber books: one guy wounded but barricading himself in a corner, to give his guards time to beat the door down and rescue him.)
Heavy *armor*. I normally like the "LOTR kit" of a hero geared to bypass more enemies than he fights, but what about the hero and the time that he _can_ suit up? Or he's got advanced magic, if that doesn't come off as invulnerable. (I still like the very first _Gundam_ fight, where the novice hero could barely move in his super-machine, but he won because his enemy couldn't even dent him.)
*Weak* weapons or fighters. If one side is less effective, can you zero in on ways that's still a threat? A widow tries for revenge on a badly wounded soldier; a cell block of convicts try to get past one armed guard; a newly-spawned monster could be immensely powerful but mad and half blind.
(Or, just *let* the fight be quick. Focus on the buildup before swords are drawn, knowing that because you write this way there'll be few second chances if it goes further. Or use a complete ambush, for shock rather than suspense.)


Yeah, there's room for realism in fights.


----------



## ThinkerX

> •Multiple fights. The MC's moving through a battlefield, wood, whatever, watching for the next enemy. Each fight could be this short, but keeping alert and how each enemy placement and battle changes the next (starting with, don't they yell for help?) make it an ongoing process however a fight goes.



I use this one.  I have a fight scene in 'Labyrinth' where the MC actually engages in two or three quick 'duels' in rapid succession (his side is out numbered, but the terrain prevents the enemy from simply overwhelming him).



> •Stall! Sometimes one opponent wants to run away, or get the other talking or would rather savor (or avoid) the killing blow than get down to business. Though it's a lot harder if the other does want to fight, or suspects he's being played. (Classic fight in the Amber books: one guy wounded but barricading himself in a corner, to give his guards time to beat the door down and rescue him.)



In a nonbattlefield situation (not between armies, or elements thereof), this one has merit.  



> •Heavy armor. I normally like the "LOTR kit" of a hero geared to bypass more enemies than he fights, but what about the hero and the time that he can suit up? Or he's got advanced magic, if that doesn't come off as invulnerable. (I still like the very first Gundam fight, where the novice hero could barely move in his super-machine, but he won because his enemy couldn't even dent him.)



This is one of the covered exceptions.  Plate armor or its equivilent can stand a lot of blows and doesn't have much in the way of weak points.  Two knights in more or less equal armor...it comes down to an endurance contest.  Heavy armor, does, however, slow the knight down somewhat.  A lightly armored foe with good training and quick reflexes *might* be able to play 'dodge' for a while.



> •Weak weapons or fighters. If one side is less effective, can you zero in on ways that's still a threat? A widow tries for revenge on a badly wounded soldier; a cell block of convicts try to get past one armed guard; a newly-spawned monster could be immensely powerful but mad and half blind.



Again, I think this falls into one of the covered exceptions.



> •(Or, just let the fight be quick. Focus on the buildup before swords are drawn, knowing that because you write this way there'll be few second chances if it goes further. Or use a complete ambush, for shock rather than suspense.)



A valid approach.


----------



## shangrila

Couldn't a "duel" between two extremely skilled opponents go on for a while though? Or at least longer than a few moments?


----------



## ThinkerX

> Couldn't a "duel" between two extremely skilled opponents go on for a while though? Or at least longer than a few moments?



Not unless both were very well armored OR unless something weird was going on.


----------



## Guy

shangrila said:


> Couldn't a "duel" between two extremely skilled opponents go on for a while though? Or at least longer than a few moments?


Yes, but for the reasons already mentioned - the two fighters are well armored or their weapons are ineffective. Rapiers and small swords had narrow blades incapable of hacking off a limb or splitting a skull. They lacked stopping power. They were good for stabbing, but again, the wounds inflicted by the narrow blades often failed to stop an assailant. In historical accounts of duels, there are numerous accounts of men taking multiple stab wounds through the body and continuing to fight. There are also several accounts of them taking a single stab wound and dropping dead instantly. But I've read lots of records of duels and I've yet to see one that went on and on, up staircases, out onto balconies, across rooftops, etc. 

As far as writing fiction goes, one could lengthen the battle by having the two fighters adhere to a strict set of rules, like a boxing match, or one or both fighters are sadistic bastards who enjoy dragging things out and deliberately withhold a killing strike. A good example of this and what I think is one of the better duels in movies is the final duel in _Rob Roy_ with Liam Neeson.

Another possibility is to have a short, authentically portrayed duel but play up the tension beforehand - the hero painfully aware of time running out, having to face the music, knowing he may never again taste good food or sweet wine, listen to the rain or feel the wind, or hold his lover in his arms.


----------



## Jabrosky

Guy said:


> Another possibility is to have a short, authentically portrayed duel but play up the tension beforehand - the hero painfully aware of time running out, having to face the music, knowing he may never again taste good food or sweet wine, listen to the rain or feel the wind, or hold his lover in his arms.


I like this idea. I like awesome fight scenes as much as any other dude, but their awesomeness always increases when you have a lot emotionally at stake.


----------



## wordwalker

It's also possible both sides are taking their time about pressing the attack. They stand a half-step further back, make testing moves that don't connect, and end up looking at least a little like an Errol Flynn slash-and-quip fest but mostly made up of pauses between attacks.

But it's hard to justify that, and almost impossible to drag it out to the length most people assume a fight is going to take: if _either_ fighter decides to get serious, you're back to seconds-to-live. So this only makes sense if they've got more history between them (or maybe more fascination with sword moves) than they have a desire to win--or live--until they've worked out those issues. Or one does, and the other knows it and is stalling--

Still, anyone who's learned to fight knows taking your time is risking being stabbed in the back. _The Incredibles'_ "You got me monologuing!" might be a decent tactic against a mad scientist driven by his personal demons, but any kind of warrior would need the most convincing reason in the novel to slow down, ever.

Guy's reasons work a *whole* lot better.


----------



## ThinkerX

> It's also possible both sides are taking their time about pressing the attack. They stand a half-step further back, make testing moves that don't connect, and end up looking at least a little like an Errol Flynn slash-and-quip fest but mostly made up of pauses between attacks.



This would be the 'fight between incompetents' exception.  This could drag out a while because neither warrior has much in the way of training, and lacks the expertise to take advantage of a foes mistake.

In a battlefield situation, this would be a clash between militia's or peasant mobs.

In my world I have the 'Liberators' - legions of soldiers maintained by the church - which fall into this catagory.  They are poorly armed (spears and spiked clubs), poorly armored (leather with maybe the odd scrap of metal), and poorly trained (much of their 'training' consists of long sermons, basic exercises like running, jumping, and climbing, and very little actual weapons practice). What keeps them from getting wiped out on the battlefield is they mostly face off against militia's and barely organized goblins who don't even have that much going for them.


----------



## shangrila

Guy said:


> Yes, but for the reasons already mentioned - the two fighters are well armored or their weapons are ineffective. Rapiers and small swords had narrow blades incapable of hacking off a limb or splitting a skull. They lacked stopping power. They were good for stabbing, but again, the wounds inflicted by the narrow blades often failed to stop an assailant. In historical accounts of duels, there are numerous accounts of men taking multiple stab wounds through the body and continuing to fight. There are also several accounts of them taking a single stab wound and dropping dead instantly. But I've read lots of records of duels and I've yet to see one that went on and on, up staircases, out onto balconies, across rooftops, etc.
> 
> As far as writing fiction goes, one could lengthen the battle by having the two fighters adhere to a strict set of rules, like a boxing match, or one or both fighters are sadistic bastards who enjoy dragging things out and deliberately withhold a killing strike. A good example of this and what I think is one of the better duels in movies is the final duel in _Rob Roy_ with Liam Neeson.
> 
> Another possibility is to have a short, authentically portrayed duel but play up the tension beforehand - the hero painfully aware of time running out, having to face the music, knowing he may never again taste good food or sweet wine, listen to the rain or feel the wind, or hold his lover in his arms.


Interesting. 

I didn't specifically mean going up staircases and silly crap like that though. I meant more like in a circle, two guys duelling that lasts for more than a few swipes at each other. For example, if they're both skilled wouldn't they be able to significantly cut down on the mistakes they make, thus not giving their opponent an opportunity to capitalize?

I understand the logic behind what you're saying (and that you've got evidence to back it) and maybe I've just had too much Hollywood ingrained into me, but I find it hard to believe that duels between evenly skilled opponents would be over as quickly as it's being implied in this thread.


----------



## Guy

shangrila said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I didn't specifically mean going up staircases and silly crap like that though. I meant more like in a circle, two guys duelling that lasts for more than a few swipes at each other. For example, if they're both skilled wouldn't they be able to significantly cut down on the mistakes they make, thus not giving their opponent an opportunity to capitalize?


Not as much as you'd think. Consider a boxing match. Both men are quite skilled, yet it's rare for one guy to walk out there, knock the other one out and the fight's over. They usually manage to land several blows on each other before the fight is done. Now put sharp objects in their hands and you see how this will probably end quickly. The same thing happens in sport fencing. One man usually scores a touch on his opponent very quickly. You can go on youtube and find videos or reenactors fighting it out and see the same phenomenon. It usually doesn't take very long for someone to score a hit.


> I understand the logic behind what you're saying (and that you've got evidence to back it) and maybe I've just had too much Hollywood ingrained into me, but I find it hard to believe that duels between evenly skilled opponents would be over as quickly as it's being implied in this thread.


Remember the two exceptions, though:  men wearing heavy armor and men using weapons lacking stopping power. When the fighters are wearing plate armor, obviously they're well protected. Historical accounts even have then sometimes whaling away at each other with pole axes without doing each other much harm. Then there are duels with rapiers and small swords, narrow blades that lack stopping power. There are plenty of accounts of men receiving multiple stab wounds from such weapons and continuing to fight. The duel between Edward Sackville and Lord Bruce is probably one of the better known examples of this. George Silver, and English fight instructor in the 16th century referred to men taking multiple stab wound from rapiers through the torso and limbs and continuing to fight. Another account described a man being stabbed in the wrist with either a rapier or small sword (I can't remember which). The tip of the blade emerged near his elbow. That stab wound ran the length of his forearm, yet he was able to continue using the arm in the fight. The narrow blade that had stabbed him just didn't inflict enough damage. You get men fighting with broader blades meant for war, and not wearing armor, and it'll end quickly because they're using weapons with greater stopping power while wearing no protection. 

To give a contemporary example, the same is true for shootings. Hollywood loves the long, drawn out gun battles, but real ones rarely play out like that. Military battles are the obvious exception, but when civilians shoot it out, and usually when cops shoot it out, it's over within a few seconds.


----------



## Dragev

In the case of viking-style fighting as seen in the video, a duel with both men in the same gear, wielding the same weapons (swords) _can_ last a bit, simply because you need an opening and and a well-wielded shield will prevent that. The sword is much more inefficient than say an axe or mace against that kind of gear, so you can expect some circling and sudden quick lunges with two or three blows on each side being parried before they draw away again, until a leg is hit or a shield bash or some equally "dirty" move is successful.

If for example one man had an axe, it would be very different.
And again, this is a duel. A fight involving more people would mean two shield walls facing each other, with the great axes and other polearms behind the first line, striking towards the heads of the adversaries.

Also, it's a friggin' mess;


----------



## Lohengrin

The boxing match helped me a lot to understand how a fight would end quickly, thank you!

And another video of how chaotic even duels could be, from something like a Medieval MMA in Poland


----------



## Malik

My book's fight sequences illustrate that there was a lot more of this sort of thing happening among the "noble knights" than anyone lets on.


----------



## Guy

Malik said:


> My book's fight sequences illustrate that there was a lot more of this sort of thing happening among the "noble knights" than anyone lets on.[/QUOTE]
> In popular fiction, yes, but one of the first casualties when you do historical research on this topic is the concept of the noble knights engaging in fair fighting. They used plenty of dirty tricks for two reasons:  either you wanted to kill the other guy, in which case you did whatever you had to do, or the dirty tricks enabled you to capture him, in which case you held him for ransom and made a profit. The latter motive was a huge reason for sparing an enemy. And, of course, the rules of chivalry didn't apply to soldiers of a lower social status; there's no point in holding someone for ransom if he has little or no money. Much of our idea of chivalry came from the church trying to gain some control over belligerents through what we now call rules of engagement. Then the storytellers added their romantic spin and the result was the current popular (and incorrect) perception of chivalry.


----------



## Sam Evren

While visiting the Polish salt mine, Wieliczka, something did strike me about melee combat in dungeons/mines. 

Swinging swords would not work. Maybe a Roman gladius could get in some good piercing stabs, but to actually swing any sword in a slashing arc... there just wasn't room.

Daggers and short stabbing swords were about all I could imagine being functional in those narrow corridors. 

Once you opened out into a major chamber, standard weapons could come into play. But those corridors are tight. Add multiple combatants and you'd have the setting for a slapstick routine more than a battle.

Interesting fact about Wieliczka: They have an underground chapel/cathedral made entirely out of salt! From chandeliers to polished flagstone floors, every statue, every stair, everything is made of salt!


----------



## Malik

If only we could use gifs for our avatars . . .


----------



## Guy

Dude, that is priceless! Where'd you find it?


----------



## Malik

An old friend sent it to me. He said he saw it and thought of me immediately. Asked me how the book was going.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim

Fights in full plate armor with swords (even with zweihanders) could last pretty long because plate armor is very resistant to cuts and even thrusts. Even if you're a professional fighter, you cannot always decide where you'll hit your opponent. If your angle is even slightly wrong, you won't hurt him substantially. You might daze him and finish with a follow-up, but if he's experienced, he might turn the fight into a grappling contest while you're close. 

The only weapons that can end a fight between opponents in full plate are hammers such as the bec-de-corbin, the mace etc. Because one hit on the helmet can give the opponent a concussion (or knock him out) and several hits on the chest can bend the armor out of shape and crack ribs. A pole-axe or pole-hammer is even better. Swords aren't very useful against a heavily armored opponent. They're viable and they're very interesting weapons (lots of options). But if I had to face down a heavily armored warrior, I'd go for a mace with a dagger for back-up. Maybe even a misericorde - which isn't even a weapon but which is perhaps the most effective dagger to kill knights.


----------



## Dragev

From what I heard, that's why many combatants switched from swords to these kinds of weapons in the late middle ages - early renaissance; I also heard that early rapier-like swords (_spada de lato_) were designed to pierce through heavy plate; not sure if that's correct, though.


----------



## Guy

Dragev said:


> I also heard that early rapier-like swords (_spada de lato_) were designed to pierce through heavy plate; not sure if that's correct, though.


That particular weapon is called a tuck or estoc.


----------



## Malik

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> The only weapons that can end a fight between opponents in full plate are hammers such as the bec-de-corbin, the mace etc. Because one hit on the helmet can give the opponent a concussion (or knock him out) and several hits on the chest can bend the armor out of shape and crack ribs.



I have an article coming out on this site in January about greatswords and warswords that will go into greater detail on this, with images. Salient points follow, however.

A greatsword absolutely was effective against plate armor. It wouldn't have seen 200 years of concurrent use with plate armor otherwise.

The pick end of a hammer is still the best way to kill a guy in full harness, but the honkin', two-handed, 5-lb. Oakeshott Type XX greatswords were developed and fielded in response to full plate. A properly-constructed greatsword with authentic edge geometry will trash plate armor pretty quickly. It will also crack bones, knock a guy out, or even send him into shock after a clean hit. After a few good hits, the recipient will be alive, but combat ineffective. He'd be dragged off the field by his seconds and, I imagine, would go lie down for a few days.  

The anti-armor weapons of the 15th and 16th Century -- greatswords, warswords, axes, polearms -- had a unique bevel, sort of like a chisel or a splitting maul, on a steel edge. That bevel and hardened edge would bite into iron plate and transfer the force of the blow, denting or splitting the armor instead of skipping off. The physics are equivalent to destroying a can of soup using a wide chisel. It takes some doing, but it's achievable. Also, ick. 

The reason you don't see this replicated in modern destructive testing ("sword vs mail" _ad nauseam _on YouTube) is that most modern reproduction swords have secondary bevels like a kitchen knife. This makes them super sharp, which is what most people who buy swords want in a sword. 

Most people are under the impression that plate armor was steel. Most of it was iron. (Some suits that have survived in castles and museums are steel, but most belonged to royalty and were super-expensive, the equivalent in their day of owning a Gulfstream jet. This is why they were babied for hundreds of years and survive today.) This has led to a load of misconceptions about the effectiveness of swords against armor. 

If you hit a steel plate that incorporates a compound curve, the way plate armor did (the primary function of armor was not to stop a blow, but to redirect it), with a steel sword that has a Ginsu-type edge, then the sword won't bite and the blow will glance harmlessly. This is what we see time and again in swords vs. armor testing, and why so many people think that knights in armor were invulnerable.

Your primary focus fighting in plate armor would be to avoid letting someone with a greatsword (or other anti-armor weapon, really) get a clean hit -- interposing your shield, your sword, or even someone else, wrapping the greatswordsman up in a clinch, _anything_ to keep him from getting a good windup and a clean arc. If a guy with a greatsword or big warsword gets several feet of moment arm on that sucker and connects with it, it probably won't kill you but you will wish it had for a couple of days. 

Of course realism makes fight scenes way less cool, and none of this will affect most heroes' magic swords, which are essentially lightsabers anyway, and most fantasy worlds that use swords seem to have an abundance of steel for no adequately explored reason, and readers don't seem to care about any of this, so really you can all take this or leave it.


----------



## Shadowfirelance

That was quite interesting, thank you for sharing that!


----------

