# swordfighting



## grimreaper (Sep 7, 2012)

Recently, I read a post by zero angel on another thread , where it was said 



> The difference is a lot. There is a trick to holding a sword and swinging it. It's not the same as picking up a stick off the ground and swinging it (I'm not comparing it to bo-staff fighting or kendo or something like that, just saying that it's not just picking it up and swinging it). There's a LOT of subtleties in fighting that is NOT natural. And there's really nothing that we do in our lives that prepare us for sword-fighting (although other martial arts do help with the basic principles).



That made me sit up and take notice, because I always thought that sword fighting was not much different from fighting with a stick .

So , my question is :- can any one please direct me to a place (a book, an website, anything) , where I can learn enough about sword fighting to write about it in my novel without sounding stupid? I already tried looking around in my locality , but did not manage to find any such thing as a fencing master.


----------



## Kit (Sep 7, 2012)

grimreaper said:


> I already tried looking around in my locality , but did not manage to find any such thing as a fencing master.



If you want to actually LEARN to use a sword (how better to be able to write swordfighting?!), there are several martial arts that incorporate it. I've used swords in both Tai Chi and Kung Fu. Just be warned that most legit teachers will make you train for quite a while on basics and empty-hands work before they start putting sharp objects in your hands.


----------



## CupofJoe (Sep 7, 2012)

Re-enactment groups might be a good source. I learnt a lot from a brief time with a Viking Horde... ah sweet memories....


----------



## Telcontar (Sep 7, 2012)

I'm not sure I agree that there is some "trick" to wielding a sword that separates it from using a stick in a similar way. I am very well versed in several martial arts, one of which is Arnis (a weapon style using rattan canes). Furthermore I fence, and do stage combat choreography, along with a few other odds and ends. Suffice to say, I'm not an expert on swordfighting, but I think I have a pretty good grasp on the basics.

A stick and a properly-weighted, double-edged sword (for many sword types , "properly-weighted" means to place the center of balance as close to the hand as possible) differ in one primary way: striking surface. The stick can hit along any part of itself with similar results, whereas a sword obviously needs to use one of the bladed edges. However, the optimal striking surfaces are the same. A sword is bladed to the fore and back, rather than to each side, because that is where the muscles in the human arm can apply the most force. Thus, you want to use a stick in the same way, because you can hit the hardest.

Obviously much of the minutia changes - favored strikes and targets, how you defend, etc - but for the basic motions, you swing a sword (again, of the double-edged, middle-ages sort) and a stick in much the same way.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 7, 2012)

grimreaper said:


> Recently, I read a post by zero angel on another thread , where it was said
> 
> That made me sit up and take notice, because I always thought that sword fighting was not much different from fighting with a stick .
> 
> So , my question is :- can any one please direct me to a place (a book, an website, anything) , where I can learn enough about sword fighting to write about it in my novel without sounding stupid? I already tried looking around in my locality , but did not manage to find any such thing as a fencing master.



Before you make any other assumptions, an important caveat:_ Different styles of swordfighting will have different ideas of how to do things._ Even seasoned martial artists tend to assume that what they have been taught in their specific style is the correct way while all others are mistaken, but the truth is that there is as many ways to use a sword as there are types of swords. This is good to keep in mind.



Kit said:


> If you want to actually LEARN to use a sword (how better to be able to write swordfighting?!), there are several martial arts that incorporate it. I've used swords in both Tai Chi and Kung Fu. Just be warned that most legit teachers will make you train for quite a while on basics and empty-hands work before they start putting sharp objects in your hands.



I recommend finding a HEMA group. In my experience, they tend not to mess around much with theory - the one I visited took a few minutes explaining the most basic guards and attacks, then gave me a waster and told me to defend myself. After spending months learning kendo without ever getting to actually fight anyone, it was _very _liberating.



Telcontar said:


> I'm not sure I agree that there is some "trick" to wielding a sword that separates it from using a stick in a similar way. I am very well versed in several martial arts, one of which is Arnis (a weapon style using rattan canes). Furthermore I fence, and do stage combat choreography, along with a few other odds and ends. Suffice to say, I'm not an expert on swordfighting, but I think I have a pretty good grasp on the basics.
> 
> A stick and a properly-weighted, double-edged sword (for many sword types , "properly-weighted" means to place the center of balance as close to the hand as possible) differ in one primary way: striking surface. The stick can hit along any part of itself with similar results, whereas a sword obviously needs to use one of the bladed edges. However, the optimal striking surfaces are the same. A sword is bladed to the fore and back, rather than to each side, because that is where the muscles in the human arm can apply the most force. Thus, you want to use a stick in the same way, because you can hit the hardest.
> 
> Obviously much of the minutia changes - favored strikes and targets, how you defend, etc - but for the basic motions, you swing a sword (again, of the double-edged, middle-ages sort) and a stick in much the same way.



Mechanically speaking, swinging a sword is not very different from swinging a stick. They'll probably have different weight and balance, but there are only so many ways to swing around a long object. In fact, the so-called singlestick was the most common tool for training military swordsmanship from the 16th century and onward. 

That said, when you get down to the specifics, you will usually want a training tool that is as close to the actual weapon as possible. Differances in weight and balance will warp your form and create bad habits, and some techniques will require a sword with a specific shape, etc. In that sense "a stick" will only take you so far.

You mention bladed edges. That actually brings us to an aspect of swordfighting that's most people tend to overlook: The simple fact that cutting properly with a sword is actually _really _tricky. Very few manage it on their first try. It's not just a matter of how hard you hit or how much you have trained the motion - just getting the edge a little bit out of alignment will cause the attack to fail and you will only cause a small nick, the rest being blunt force. Among us recreational water-bottle cutters, it's called "batting", because you end up sending your bottle flying as if hit by a bat. 

Even if you are very skilled at a certain style, like kenjutsu or one of the Chinese schools, I bet you could completely fail to execute a sword swing that would actually cause serious damage unless you've specifically trained to aquire real cutting skills. And the only way you are going to aquire those skills is to actually cut stuff over and over until you can do it intuitively.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 7, 2012)

Grimreaper - Is there any type of swordfighting you are particularly interested in? There's a lot of decent videos on youtube that can give you a good idea of how swordfighting works, but again, it varies a lot depending on style.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Sep 7, 2012)

You'll want to narrow down what you're trying to write.  I personally am a member of the SCA, where I fence and am learning cut and thrust.  The types of swords dictate the style, and so that'll be where you want to start.  The game changes when you have a rapier and your opponent has a two-hander.  In that instance, I can't see the heavier sword winning, the fencer will pick his opponent apart.  

Also, be wary of things like shattering blades, long, drawn out combats, etc.  Most sword fights were in reality, ended rather quickly, and while writing, if authenticity is your goal, you might want to mention the weapons being used so the people here can help a bit more. 

If I can answer any specific questions about sword fighting (Since I do it twice a week), of you'd like me to read over the combat scene, feel free to PM me.

Best wishes.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Sep 7, 2012)

Here's a link to a sword fight I wrote you can look at for ideas   :

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/challenges/2546-mfma-tournament-battles.html


----------



## Kit (Sep 7, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I recommend finding a HEMA group. In my experience, they tend not to mess around much with theory - the one I visited took a few minutes explaining the most basic guards and attacks, then gave me a waster and told me to defend myself. After spending months learning kendo without ever getting to actually fight anyone, it was _very _liberating.



((wince)) When I said that about "a legit teacher will make you train a lot before giving you a sword" I didn't mean that that was a BAD thing.  If you really want to know what you're doing, and be good at it, working stances, theory and other basics for a long time first is the way to go.  YMMV.

There are a crap ton of bad MA schools and bad MA teachers out there, and you have to be careful. Not saying that a teacher who hands a sword to a rank virgin is necessarily a bad teacher, but I would find that a bit worrisome.


----------



## grimreaper (Sep 8, 2012)

> Grimreaper - Is there any type of swordfighting you are particularly interested in? There's a lot of decent videos on youtube that can give you a good idea of how swordfighting works, but again, it varies a lot depending on style.



yes I am interested in the eastern styles (Japanese and ancient Indian to be precise).



> You mention bladed edges. That actually brings us to an aspect of swordfighting that's most people tend to overlook: The simple fact that cutting properly with a sword is actually really tricky. Very few manage it on their first try. It's not just a matter of how hard you hit or how much you have trained the motion - just getting the edge a little bit out of alignment will cause the attack to fail and you will only cause a small nick, the rest being blunt force. Among us recreational water-bottle cutters, it's called "batting", because you end up sending your bottle flying as if hit by a bat.



when I talked about sounding stupid , I meant not knowing this sort of thing , actually.



> If you want to actually LEARN to use a sword (how better to be able to write swordfighting?!), there are several martial arts that incorporate it.



I agree . However the only martial artist teacher in my whole town is my karate teacher and even he said he won't be able to help me with this , as he has little experience of weapons-based martial arts.



> Here's a link to a sword fight I wrote you can look at for ideas  :


thanks.

Thanks to all those who took the time out to read and reply. If you can provide some more help, it will be deeply appreciated.


----------



## pskelding (Sep 8, 2012)

The documentary film Reclaiming the Blade will make you rethink swordfighting in medieval Europe.

Also there's a great free PDF fight manual here http://www.thearma.org/Fight-Earnestly.htm which is a real translated fight manual circa 1459 which shows many medieval techniques.  

There's also many videos on YouTube that are helpful.  

I can't really point out anything on ancient Indian techniques though.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 8, 2012)

Kit said:


> ((wince)) When I said that about "a legit teacher will make you train a lot before giving you a sword" I didn't mean that that was a BAD thing.  If you really want to know what you're doing, and be good at it, working stances, theory and other basics for a long time first is the way to go.  YMMV.
> 
> There are a crap ton of bad MA schools and bad MA teachers out there, and you have to be careful. Not saying that a teacher who hands a sword to a rank virgin is necessarily a bad teacher, but I would find that a bit worrisome.



Oh, I know there are a lot of questionable schools, but I also believe some serious styles waste a lot of time drilling in the basics for arbitrary reasons. (Sometimes deliberatelly, as part of some misguided philosophy about teaching patience, or overblown concerns about safety.) Don't get me wrong, I agree the basics are important, but I see no reason not to include sparring from day one as well. I believe you learn faster that way.

The nice thing about HEMA is that it's such a new thing it doesn't have a lot of traditional martial arts mindset attached to it, so they are often more concerned about getting results. (And having fun.)



grimreaper said:


> yes I am interested in the eastern styles (Japanese and ancient Indian to be precise).



Japanese swordsmanship would be kenjutsu, preferably older koryu styles. It should be relatively easy to find, though I expect it's mostly kata. I have seen very little actual kenjutsu sparring.

Indian styles are trickier, though you probably want to look up Kalaripayattu.



> when I talked about sounding stupid , I meant not knowing this sort of thing , actually.



That's not so stupid - like I said, not a lot of people actually think about it.

In fact, I can't recall ever reading a single fantasy book that brings up the subject of cutting practice.



> I agree . However the only martial artist teacher in my whole town is my karate teacher and even he said he won't be able to help me with this , as he has little experience of weapons-based martial arts.



Sounds like it's the internet for you, then.


----------



## Jabrosky (Sep 8, 2012)

Caged Maiden said:


> Also, be wary of things like shattering blades, long, drawn out combats, etc.  Most sword fights were in reality, ended rather quickly


Thank goodness, I sometimes worry that my action scenes in general end too quickly. Too much sword-swinging and parrying grows repetitious to write anyway.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 9, 2012)

Regarding how long swordfights lasted, it actually depends a bit. Usually they wouldn't have lasted long, but sometimes they would drag out. It depends a bit on the circumstances, how aggressive the fighters are and what type of swordfight.

For example: Rapiers and similar dueling swords were notoriously unpredictable in terms of killing power - sometimes you could kill or disable your opponent almost instantly with a single thrust, sometimes you could keep stabbing each other over and over until one could not continue fighting due to the many wounds eventually taking their toll, which could take up to an hour or more. An Italian fencer named Agesilao Greco is said to have fought a duel that lasted almost four hours.

And that reminds me, a good book on swords and fencing is Richard Cohen's _By the Sword. _It's full of interesting stuff like that.


----------



## SeverinR (Sep 10, 2012)

There is alot of difference between Europe sword fighting and Oriental.  Basically the weapons are different and the armor of the target is different.

Pick what style you want to write about and look into that. Don't just learn oriental martial arts and expect to know about European style.  Also don't learn the "art" of fighting and expect it to work in real life. High spinning leaping kicks have a place, but not usually with a opponent on equal footing. (Think of Indiana jones facing the impressive swordsman, watches the show, then shoots him.)


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 10, 2012)

SeverinR said:


> There is alot of difference between Europe sword fighting and Oriental.  Basically the weapons are different and the armor of the target is different.



In some ways, true. In other ways, they can be surprisingly similar, because there are only so many ways to swing a sword effectively.

For example, people who practice Japanese tend to find that the guard positions of the European longsword are very similar to their own _kamae_, and jianshu fencers may find a lot of parellels between Chinese and European fencing, etc.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 10, 2012)

grimreaper said:


> Recently, I read a post by zero angel on another thread , where it was said
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow. I inspired a thread and I didn't even know it existed. 

There's already been a lot of good information on here. I thought one of the best was whoever said that each style has its own moves and styles. 

I train with bladed weapons and do re-enactment with rattan mock-ups of medieval weapons in the SCA, so I haven't done anything with the fencing aspect of it (beyond research and a couple of fencing classes in college). I've been trained in budo (tonfa, bo, sai, judo, karate etc) and a couple of other people in our SCA group have martial arts training as well, including one black belt kendo fighter.



Telcontar said:


> I'm not sure I agree that there is some "trick" to wielding a sword that separates it from using a stick in a similar way. I am very well versed in several martial arts, one of which is Arnis (a weapon style using rattan canes). Furthermore I fence, and do stage combat choreography, along with a few other odds and ends. Suffice to say, I'm not an expert on swordfighting, but I think I have a pretty good grasp on the basics.
> 
> A stick and a properly-weighted, double-edged sword (for many sword types , "properly-weighted" means to place the center of balance as close to the hand as possible) differ in one primary way: striking surface. The stick can hit along any part of itself with similar results, whereas a sword obviously needs to use one of the bladed edges. However, the optimal striking surfaces are the same. A sword is bladed to the fore and back, rather than to each side, because that is where the muscles in the human arm can apply the most force. Thus, you want to use a stick in the same way, because you can hit the hardest.
> 
> Obviously much of the minutia changes - favored strikes and targets, how you defend, etc - but for the basic motions, you swing a sword (again, of the double-edged, middle-ages sort) and a stick in much the same way.



...that's not exactly what I was referring to, although there has already been the cutting comeback. If you are trained in the use of swinging a stick that's great and might translate well to swordfighting (although I'm sure you'll agree not 100%). The thing is though, that most people that pick up a stick to swing aren't trained in swinging that stick. A lot of people are under the assumption that swordfighting is like what we do when we are kids and it is not at all.



Anders Ã„mting said:


> Before you make any other assumptions, an important caveat:_ Different styles of swordfighting will have different ideas of how to do things._ Even seasoned martial artists tend to assume that what they have been taught in their specific style is the correct way while all others are mistaken, but the truth is that there is as many ways to use a sword as there are types of swords. This is good to keep in mind.


Great point.



Anders Ã„mting said:


> You mention bladed edges. That actually brings us to an aspect of swordfighting that's most people tend to overlook: The simple fact that cutting properly with a sword is actually _really _tricky. Very few manage it on their first try. It's not just a matter of how hard you hit or how much you have trained the motion - just getting the edge a little bit out of alignment will cause the attack to fail and you will only cause a small nick, the rest being blunt force. Among us recreational water-bottle cutters, it's called "batting", because you end up sending your bottle flying as if hit by a bat.
> 
> Even if you are very skilled at a certain style, like kenjutsu or one of the Chinese schools, I bet you could completely fail to execute a sword swing that would actually cause serious damage unless you've specifically trained to aquire real cutting skills. And the only way you are going to aquire those skills is to actually cut stuff over and over until you can do it intuitively.


Even better points. I always like to think of it as cutting into the flesh instead of breaking bones. And different styles also use different attacks also. For instance, in kendo, slashing attacks are all you need. I imagine rapier fighters are more about the thrust although cutting happens as well, yes?



Caged Maiden said:


> You'll want to narrow down what you're trying to write.  I personally am a member of the SCA, where I fence and am learning cut and thrust.  The types of swords dictate the style, and so that'll be where you want to start.  The game changes when you have a rapier and your opponent has a two-hander.  In that instance, I can't see the heavier sword winning, the fencer will pick his opponent apart.


Yeah? ...how about if the heavy sword fighter hits the fencer first? Or if the heavier sword fighter has, I dunno', armor appropriate to the weapon style. By the time of rapier fighting, a gun would kill you, so they stopped wearing heavy armor and the weapons became lighter because you didn't need the heavy sword. If a fighter was wearing full plate, I am not sure I can see the rapier fighter being able to damage the fighter at all. 



Caged Maiden said:


> Also, be wary of things like shattering blades, long, drawn out combats, etc.  Most sword fights were in reality, ended rather quickly, and while writing, if authenticity is your goal, you might want to mention the weapons being used so the people here can help a bit more.


I'm OK with this if you change the word "sword" to "rapier". Do sword fights end quickly? Yes. Do sword fights end not so quickly? Yes. And as far as shattering blades, again, it depends on the time frame, but a common rapier side arm is a "sword-breaker" isn't it?

I really find rapier fighting interesting, but I do disagree that a rapier fighter would tear apart a two-handed sword fighter (or even vice verse depending on the situation--there's no one style that I am going to agree is the best or even entirely superior to one other). It all depends on the situation of the story you are trying to tell.



Kit said:


> ((wince)) When I said that about "a legit teacher will make you train a lot before giving you a sword" I didn't mean that that was a BAD thing.  If you really want to know what you're doing, and be good at it, working stances, theory and other basics for a long time first is the way to go.  YMMV.
> 
> There are a crap ton of bad MA schools and bad MA teachers out there, and you have to be careful. Not saying that a teacher who hands a sword to a rank virgin is necessarily a bad teacher, but I would find that a bit worrisome.


Sink or swim. To each their own. The higher the stakes, the more you improve, but also the risk increases as well.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 11, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> I train with bladed weapons and do re-enactment with rattan mock-ups of medieval weapons in the SCA, so I haven't done anything with the fencing aspect of it (beyond research and a couple of fencing classes in college). I've been trained in budo (tonfa, bo, sai, judo, karate etc) and a couple of other people in our SCA group have martial arts training as well, including one black belt kendo fighter.



I have fairly little formal training - a bit of kendo, a bit of sports fencing and a few basic instructions with the longsword. For the most part, I'm self-taught via online videos. 

Currently trying to learn how to use a saber by watching Cold Steel's _Fighting with the Saber and Cutlass_ over and over.



> ...that's not exactly what I was referring to, although there has already been the cutting comeback. If you are trained in the use of swinging a stick that's great and might translate well to swordfighting (although I'm sure you'll agree not 100%). The thing is though, that most people that pick up a stick to swing aren't trained in swinging that stick. A lot of people are under the assumption that swordfighting is like what we do when we are kids and it is not at all.



Yeah, I think the basic gist is: At the very least, you need someone who can actually teach you how to fight. It's not really something you can work out on your own by trial and error. At least, you don't _want _to, seeing as you'll be banking your life on it.

I think it's in Eragon - the movie, anyway, don't know about the book - where Eragon and his buddy spent their free time randomly beating each other with sticks, which somehow meant he knew how to fight with an actual sword. o__O



> I always like to think of it as cutting into the flesh instead of breaking bones. And different styles also use different attacks also. For instance, in kendo, slashing attacks are all you need. I imagine rapier fighters are more about the thrust although cutting happens as well, yes?



Not sure "slashing" is the right word - the katana is all about the cut. For all the hype surrounding it, the Japanese sword really is a devastatingly efficient cutting weapon that can indeed dismember your opponent if used correctly. 

You do sometimes cut in rapier fencing, but it's mostly a way to distract or inconvenience your opponent. The average rapier blade simply didn't have the mass to cause serious cutting damage. 



> Yeah? ...how about if the heavy sword fighter hits the fencer first? Or if the heavier sword fighter has, I dunno', armor appropriate to the weapon style. By the time of rapier fighting, a gun would kill you, so they stopped wearing heavy armor and the weapons became lighter because you didn't need the heavy sword. If a fighter was wearing full plate, I am not sure I can see the rapier fighter being able to damage the fighter at all.



First of all, rapiers aren't actually especially light swords - all complex hilted swords tend to be somewhat weighty. At best the rapier would be about as heavy as your average medieval single-handed sword, mostly between 2 and 3 pounds. The differance is how the weight is distributed. Rapiers have the weight concentrated in the hilt to provide point control.

In fact, a common complaint among rapier fencers today is that they can't simply use sports epees, because the epee is _too light_ and would not translate techniques correctly.

Second, two-handed swords weren't really that heavy either, unless we are talking about true Renaissance zweihanders. (And even they can be deceptively fast, I've been told.) 

Relevant video:








> I'm OK with this if you change the word "sword" to "rapier". Do sword fights end quickly? Yes. Do sword fights end not so quickly? Yes. And as far as shattering blades, again, it depends on the time frame, but a common rapier side arm is a "sword-breaker" isn't it?



As far as I understand, the swordbreaker was not really common - more of an occasional curiosity. And even then, I think they were more specialized parrying daggers rather than something meant to literally break swords.

Did rapiers sometimes break? Probably. But _all _swords can break, and they wouldn't have seen such widespread use if they were unreliable.



> I really find rapier fighting interesting, but I do disagree that a rapier fighter would tear apart a two-handed sword fighter (or even vice verse depending on the situation--there's no one style that I am going to agree is the best or even entirely superior to one other). It all depends on the situation of the story you are trying to tell.



I'm personally a bit careful about saing things like "no one style is better than the other" or "it's the swordsman that matters, not the sword." I do think that with variation comes advantages and disadvantages, so there should logically exist weapons and styles that have more advantages then disadvantages over certain other weapons and styles. Basically, I don't like generalizations.

But you are basically right: Most swords were made to be efficient killing tools, and each was refined to perfection within its own context. That's the most important thing to keep in mind, not which sword is the "best."


----------



## grimreaper (Sep 12, 2012)

pskelding said:


> Also there's a great free PDF fight manual here http://www.thearma.org/Fight-Earnestly.htm which is a real translated fight manual circa 1459 which shows many medieval techniques.



That pdf is enlightening. 
But now I have a new question.
How far can these techniques , which are for the European longswords, be successfully translated to a curved blade like the talwar or vice-versa?
Specifically , what would happen if a character trained to fight with a talwar suddenly finds himself saddled with a longsword
and faced with an enemy?


----------



## grimreaper (Sep 12, 2012)

Also there is something else I would love to understand. 



> The grip of the talwar is cramped and the prominent disc of the pommel presses into the wrist if attempts are made to use it to cut like a conventional sabre. These features of the talwar hilt result in the hand having a very secure and rather inflexible hold on the weapon, enforcing the use of variations on the very effective "draw cut".


This is from Wikipedia. And it all goes a mile above my head.
If anyone would be so kind to take the trouble and explain it in layman's language.........:Confused:


----------



## grimreaper (Sep 12, 2012)

http://www.shastarvidiya.org/index2.jsp

Found this website just now . This seems like a good place to look around.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 12, 2012)

grimreaper said:


> That pdf is enlightening.
> But now I have a new question.
> How far can these techniques , which are for the European longswords, be successfully translated to a curved blade like the talwar or vice-versa?
> Specifically , what would happen if a character trained to fight with a talwar suddenly finds himself saddled with a longsword
> and faced with an enemy?



Basically, he wouldn't fare well at all. We're talking about two _very _different weapons here. A few very basic principles _might_ translate over, but he's going to have very hard time making his training work with such a different weapon. He's going to find that the longsword doesn't handle like the weapon he's used to, has different weight, balance and range to the weapon he's used to, and doesn't defend or attack the same way as the weapon he's used to. It would be like a chef trying to filet a fish with a woodcutter's axe - doable but very cumbersome and frustrating.

Actually, this is _another_ common inaccuracy fantasy stories - particularly movies - tend to feed us: The idea that if you know how to use one kind of sword you will also be able to use any other kind of sword, even if they are wildly different. (See: Highlander, Stardust.)



grimreaper said:


> Also there is something else I would love to understand.
> 
> This is from Wikipedia. And it all goes a mile above my head.
> If anyone would be so kind to take the trouble and explain it in layman's language.........



A tulwar hilt looks like this:








See that flat disc-shaped pommel? It's pretty much the only sword in the world with that design. Most swordfighters will look at that and go: "What the heck? That doesn't even make sense. _Why _would they do that?" 

Most sabers let you use wrist-movements and a pivoting grip to maximize your dexterity. Most sabers don't even have proper pommels, and if they do they will be small and out of the way. The tulwar grip is a lot more limiting and seems to be intended more or less exclusively for a "hammer grip," because the hilt is short and the disc would get in the way of too much wrist movments. When you see weird features like that, most likely the sword was designed to be wielded in a very particular way. 

As for the draw cut, that's pretty much what it sounds like - rather than swinging your sword through the air so the point of percussion hits your opponent, you place the edge on your opponent and draw it across him while applying pressure. Kinda like how you'd cut meat with a chef's knife.



grimreaper said:


> Sanatan Sikh Shastar Vidiya - Home
> 
> Found this website just now . This seems like a good place to look around.



I found this video for you:






Seems to be the same style. Interesting stuff - even I haven't seen this before.


----------



## grimreaper (Sep 13, 2012)

@Anders Amting   thanks a lot. Both for the explanation and the help.


----------



## thedarknessrising (Sep 13, 2012)

I use Nerf swords. I'm pretty skilled with those. However, since they are foam, I know that they don't do nearly as much damage that a real blade would do. Before I used these, I used branches and sticks, and they seemed to work nicely. As long as you find a heavy enough branch, that should simulate the weight and feel of a proper blade.


----------



## Ireth (Sep 13, 2012)

Just popping in to ask a quick question. Generally speaking, how well would a steel sword fare against a bronze one? Would either metal do significant damage to the other in a fight?


----------



## wordwalker (Sep 13, 2012)

Ireth said:


> Just popping in to ask a quick question. Generally speaking, how well would a steel sword fare against a bronze one? Would either metal do significant damage to the other in a fight?



I've been wondering that myself. I know iron only replaced bronze because bronze's ores became unavailable, but that was the earlier irons; the later irons and steels compare better.

(What I've always wondered is, there's a moment in the _Iliad_ where Hector decides to fight Achilles. He throws his spear, Achilles ducks/blocks-- and right then Hector knows he's dead, as he goes for his sword. I wonder how much of that moment is not just knowing Achilles was better, but some Bronze Age "Oh bleep, I've got to fight a spear with a lousy sword!")


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 14, 2012)

Ireth said:


> Just popping in to ask a quick question. Generally speaking, how well would a steel sword fare against a bronze one? Would either metal do significant damage to the other in a fight?



Bronze is softer and weaker than steel, so it is conceivable in a drawn out fight the steel sword would render the bronze sword unusable. I don't think you'd have a breaking occurring (although I haven't tested this), but speaking out my butt, I would wager on significant deformation. 

I mean, bronze is less brittle than iron and you always hear about the celts stepping on their iron swords to bend them back into shape in as little as a single battle

Edit: Instead of just talking out my butt, I decided to google out my fingers. Here are two sites that I thought had some quick relevant info:
Iron Age sword - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HowStuffWorks "How Sword Making Works"


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 14, 2012)

wordwalker said:


> (What I've always wondered is, there's a moment in the _Iliad_ where Hector decides to fight Achilles. He throws his spear, Achilles ducks/blocks-- and right then Hector knows he's dead, as he goes for his sword. I wonder how much of that moment is not just knowing Achilles was better, but some Bronze Age "Oh bleep, I've got to fight a spear with a lousy sword!")



I always assumed it was because Achilles was the better fighter so he had one good shot (literally) at ending the fight and when that was done he had to hope to get lucky again in a fight against one of the best fighters in the world. 

Analyzing the weapons, a one hand spear has some good range and is able to do some damage with slashing when fighting someone with relatively little armor as well as the dangerous thrust. I would not bet on a bronze sword being able to do more than chip a significantly hard shaft of the spear, so Achilles can also probably safely block (at least a few) blows with the spear as well. 

In a battle with no armor, I'd rather have the one hand spear personally. If armor is in the mix (even a boiled leather level of armor), then the only thing I'd really be worried about is a devastating thrust. Get in close within the range of the spear and make the enemy play your game. They'll be forced to dance away or choke up on the spear, taking away some of the advantage of it. 

If it was one hand spear versus one hand sword with no armor and no shield, then I am not sure what I would pick. I guess it would depend on my energy level versus the energy level of my opponent. I'm picturing long attacks from the spear and short quick counters from the sword. The spear would need to be agile and fast and take the angles, while the sword would need to press the spear in tight, always being worried about the spear using the sword's forward momentum to catch a thrust. 

Hmm...nothing else is coming to mind, but the Benadryl is noticeably slowing me.


----------



## wordwalker (Sep 14, 2012)

One thing I heard recently, that if it's true changes the whole picture of swordfighting from what even the most realistic movies show, or any recreations I've done:

How much of the fighting wasn't actually sword vs. shield but shield vs shield?

It makes sense to me: if you're trying to get past the big wall of wood or metal the other guy's holding up, trying to swing around or bash through it leaves you vulnerable. If you thought your weight or balance was good enough, wouldn't you be keeping your guard up better if you slammed your shield into his and tried to throw it out of line or him off balance, then swung at him?

It would *seriously* change the image of how sword and shield works, and it's the one thing you never see filmed (except for a rare move) or train in at all, I guess for safety reasons.

I don't know how much it happened, but our old friend Wikipedia does say that ancient battles weren't just "break the shieldwall," they were mostly pushing contests of the two ranks simply pressing on each other trying to move the other back and start them falling over. Which I guess would be better than trying to poke between a well-drilled shieldwall, if you could.

Seem right?


----------



## Kit (Sep 14, 2012)

I don't work with a shield, but I do like to fight close up- and once you get really close up, actual bladework tends to devolve to shoving and bashing with the hilt. I imagine those with shields would be shoving and bashing with the shields. 

Two important aspects of this: 

1) Once you get that close, the shoving and bashing is going to greatly favor the taller/heavier/stronger opponent, unless the smaller opponent is very very good at what s/he doing. So if you're smaller, you don't want to get in there and start playing that game unless you know you're really good at it. Better to stay at sword range.

2) As I've mentioned before elsewhere, it's really easy to get hyperfocussed on your opponent's weapon. If all your attention is zeroed on that weapon, and s/he instead clocks you with the other fist (or a shield), or tries to trip you, or something- that can be a great way to end the fight.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 15, 2012)

wordwalker said:


> One thing I heard recently, that if it's true changes the whole picture of swordfighting from what even the most realistic movies show, or any recreations I've done:
> 
> How much of the fighting wasn't actually sword vs. shield but shield vs shield?
> 
> ...



Although it is a very dangerous technique to practice, I think most people that would train you with a shield would remind you that a shield is not just for blocking. At the same time, you don't want to overextend yourself with the shield. If you are pushing out with your shield, you are opening yourself up. 

Use everything at your disposal and train to use everything so that you will be able to use it when necessary.

A lot of film fighting is sword on sword to the point where it looks like they are actually aiming for the person's sword. Even if you connect with someone's sword, unless you're just using that to bounce to another position, you should be trying to cut through to the person. Why throw a shot (unless feinting) that has no chance of hitting them even if they don't block it.


----------



## grimreaper (Sep 15, 2012)

Hmmm..... I always used to think fighting with swords involves something more than banging swords together (you see, I rarely watch movies). However , suppose a person with a two-handed sword is up against a person with a shield and a one-handed sword , what will happen? I don't think the person with the two-handed sword will want to allow the other one to come near, right?


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 15, 2012)

wordwalker said:


> One thing I heard recently, that if it's true changes the whole picture of swordfighting from what even the most realistic movies show, or any recreations I've done:
> 
> How much of the fighting wasn't actually sword vs. shield but shield vs shield?
> 
> ...



Shields isn't my area of expertise, but I think there were probably as many different ways to use a shield as there were types of shield, really. 

If you have half an hour to spare, this video goes into both viking style shields and bucklers:






That part with the viking shields looks pretty much exactly like what you suggested, actually.



grimreaper said:


> Hmmm..... I always used to think fighting with swords involves something more than banging swords together (you see, I rarely watch movies). However , suppose a person with a two-handed sword is up against a person with a shield and a one-handed sword , what will happen? I don't think the person with the two-handed sword will want to allow the other one to come near, right?



It would vary a bit on the size and type of shield and stuff like style and the lenght of the one-handed sword. But in general, the guy with the shield would probably have the advantage. Shields are just really tricky to get around, at least when used by competent fighters.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 15, 2012)

grimreaper said:


> Hmmm..... I always used to think fighting with swords involves something more than banging swords together (you see, I rarely watch movies). However , suppose a person with a two-handed sword is up against a person with a shield and a one-handed sword , what will happen? I don't think the person with the two-handed sword will want to allow the other one to come near, right?



I would much rather be the guy with the one handed sword and shield in that situation. The two-hander will definitely want to keep the other guy at killing range, but depending on the sword, there are options when the other gets closer. Choking up and grabbing the sword by the ricasso for instance and then using the pommel to, well, pummel the opponent. 

It's hard to say exactly how any one handed sword and shield versus any two-handed sword would go, but the general principal would be to keep your opponent in your killing range, and if by so doing you can stay out of their killing range all the better. So the one handed sword would probably sooner press the two handed sword, while the two handed sword would be more content to stay apart. On the other hand, the one handed sword may not be as inclined to press until they feel they have the advantage since they do have the shield to help them also.

Shield work is another area that people tend to get wrong too though. For instance, it's not just about putting the shield in-between your vitals and the weapon. There is an angling that is advantageous. Depending on your shield, your shield will get eaten up and be worthless relatively quickly if you are just throwing it out sloppily (unless it's a super-material--dragonscale, anyone?). And even if the enemy is throwing a blunt weapon at you, if you don't catch it at an angle, then you are going to feel the reverberations through your arm and probably do some damage to your shield arm/hand.

And if you do catch it at an angle, then make sure you are not angling it towards your vitals. And even then, a superior swordsman will use the opponent's shield against them.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 17, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> I would much rather be the guy with the one handed sword and shield in that situation. The two-hander will definitely want to keep the other guy at killing range, but depending on the sword, there are options when the other gets closer. Choking up and grabbing the sword by the ricasso for instance and then using the pommel to, well, pummel the opponent.



Most swords didn't have a ricasso, though, and those that did usually didn't have a ricasso long enough to grap on to. 

Besides, getting a hold of the forte means getting past the point and foible, which means getting inside your opponent's attack range. And if you can do that without getting grappled or recieving a faceful of hilt, well, then you're probably skilled enough to win anyway.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 18, 2012)

A lot of two-handed swords have a ricasso that you're able to grab onto...it was more of a last resort type of move than something you want to aim for. That is why I said "definitely want to keep the other guy at killing range" before I talked about other options if that doesn't work. If you're locked-up / close-in with a two-handed sword, sometimes the only way to generate enough force is to change your grip to hilt and ricasso and wrench it. It fails about as often as it is successful--I'd rather spin away and use that force to power the blade if possible while simultaneously moving out of close-in range.

Also, I am not referring to fencing style blades in any of the posts I've made unless I specifically reference fencing.


----------



## grimreaper (Sep 19, 2012)

So what is the difference between fencing-style blades and blades that were used in combat?
Another thing I was wandering is, how long would a sword made of quality steel (such as wutz or damascus) be expected to last if it was being used in combat everyday? (super materials such as Valyrian steel or mithril excluded). How long would a poor quality sword last in these conditions? All these is assuming that those swordsmen are not very highly skilled , maybe , like, intermediate level. Incidentally, what material were cheaper, poor quality swords made of?


----------



## thedarknessrising (Sep 19, 2012)

A fencing style blade is usually thinner and more flexible, whereas a sword used in combat is wider and sturdy. Fencing blades also have no edge to them.


----------



## Zero Angel (Sep 19, 2012)

grimreaper said:


> So what is the difference between fencing-style blades and blades that were used in combat?
> Another thing I was wandering is, how long would a sword made of quality steel (such as wutz or damascus) be expected to last if it was being used in combat everyday? (super materials such as Valyrian steel or mithril excluded). How long would a poor quality sword last in these conditions? All these is assuming that those swordsmen are not very highly skilled , maybe , like, intermediate level. Incidentally, what material were cheaper, poor quality swords made of?



I think you already got your first question answered. I am not 100% sure how long a steel weapon would last in everyday use. In my stories I file upkeep of weapons under the boring-everyday-crap-that-no-one-cares-about so I just go with the assumption that the characters are upkeeping their weapons whenever they can and after major battles when I leave them for a couple days that they have made any repairs or replacements needed.

Cheaper swords could have been made out of cheap steel or iron. Remember that steel was originally made by transferring carbon into iron by cementation or the crucible method. Checking online, they say that cementation was done with charcoal, but my research into blacksmithing has said that it was commonly done with organic matter. If you have cemented steel, then generally only the outside of the blade is steel while the inside is "soft" iron. This is why some older people still believe that if you nick a knife that it ruins the blade or that they think the steel can "wear out". 

Iron is not hard enough to last more than a single battle without significant deformation from everything I've researched on it.

Finally, as a point of reference, in the SCA group I am in we use 16 and 14 gauge steel helmets and hit each other with 1 and 1/4 inch rattan sticks. We regularly get dents in our helms (although this rarely causes us to have to have them repaired--usually we just keep accumulating dents). Now if you imagine instead of a helm, you have an awkwardly caught sword blow on a sword by your intermediate fighter--that is a lot of force to absorb. 

Sorry, one other thing. If it is cheap steel or made by an inexperienced swordsmith, it is possible that they will make it entirely unsuitable. You have to remember there are two competing properties of steel: hardness and ductility (actually there are a bunch of competing properties: hardness, ductility, tensile strength, yield strength, etc). When you quench a steel sword, it brings the sword to its maximum hardness, but also makes it very brittle--VERY brittle. Usually this is used for things like a file where there can be no give at all. On the other hand, when you temper a sword after quenching, you reduce the hardness somewhat but also increase the ductility or malleability. You can make it so that the steel is easily deformed but springs back into shape or is deformed and stays in the deformed shape--if you don't temper it, then it would probably break instead of being deformed.

So if someone makes a sword by quenching it in water and doesn't temper it, then it probably WILL result in one of the epic "sword-shatterings" that we know and love from movies etc. On the other hand, depending on the malleability of the sword, it might just be deformed. Although again, skill does matter also. If you are wacking someone with the flat of the blade, it might not stand up to the abuse as much as if you were able to cut through. Also, I believe that the swordsmith would probably have the blade be "harder" and the flat be "stronger". Since the blade is hard, it is also more brittle so awkward slashes may chip it, on the other hand, the flat of the blade may be stronger and able to absorb some of the force but also more susceptible to deformation.

Different swords do it differently though.

You know, after all this, I'd probably go with a quarterstaff...


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 21, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> A lot of two-handed swords have a ricasso that you're able to grab onto...



That's mostly just something you find on Renaissance zweihanders. I consider them to be kind of a special case.



> it was more of a last resort type of move than something you want to aim for. That is why I said "definitely want to keep the other guy at killing range" before I talked about other options if that doesn't work. If you're locked-up / close-in with a two-handed sword, sometimes the only way to generate enough force is to change your grip to hilt and ricasso and wrench it. It fails about as often as it is successful--I'd rather spin away and use that force to power the blade if possible while simultaneously moving out of close-in range.



Hold on, I'm confused. Who is using the two-hander in this scenario?



> Also, I am not referring to fencing style blades in any of the posts I've made unless I specifically reference fencing.



I don't see what that has to do with anything.



grimreaper said:


> So what is the difference between fencing-style blades and blades that were used in combat?



"Fencing" is really just another word for "swordfighting", so technically speaking I'm not sure there is such a thing as "fencing-style blades" unless you are talking about modern sport fencing. The word usually applies mostly to post-Renaissance self-defense and dueling swords, though.



> Another thing I was wandering is, how long would a sword made of quality steel (such as wutz or damascus) be expected to last if it was being used in combat everyday? (super materials such as Valyrian steel or mithril excluded). How long would a poor quality sword last in these conditions? All these is assuming that those swordsmen are not very highly skilled , maybe , like, intermediate level.



I think it's impossible to give an exect estimation in days - it would depend on a lot of different factors like the type of sword, type of steel, type of heat treatment, and type of damage the sword sustains. 

Also, what do you mean by "last"? Like, are we talking "needs sharpening" or "literally snaps in half"?

Also also, what do you mean by "combat every day"? The occasional fight on a daily basis? Actually hitting stuff all day long? I think that in this kind of scenario, the swords would last longer than the swordsmen. That is, your average soldier would die long before he manages to break his sword.

I might add that this isn't a very realistic scenario. Even in times of war, you wouldn't be expected to fight _every day._ If your goal is realism, I would be more concerned about that then how long the swords last.



> Incidentally, what material were cheaper, poor quality swords made of?



Steel. Just, you know, bad steel with low/uneven carbon content, poor heat treatment and so on. 

I mean, we're not talking Elder Scrolls here - people didn't have several different materials to chose from, it was pretty much all steel, all the time. 



thedarknessrising said:


> A fencing style blade is usually thinner and more flexible, whereas a sword used in combat is wider and sturdy. Fencing blades also have no edge to them.



This is kind of a huge generalization. Again, it is true if you are talking about modern sport fencing foils, but as soon as you move on to historical fighting weapons, things get a whole lot more complicated.


----------

