swordfighting

[grimreaper]

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

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

 

[Anders Ämting]

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.)

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.

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]

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

 

[thedarknessrising]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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 Ämting]

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?

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.

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]

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 Ämting]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 Ämting]

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.

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.

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.