"Tis but a scratch!"
I had a feeling that movie swordfighting was way too "gentlemanly."
"Tis but a scratch!"
Especially when the hero narrowly escapes being killed by his adversary, averting death at the last possible moment. But when he has disarmed his opponent, the hero shows mercy and spares his life. I wonder how often that happened.
I have fenced for years but I recently started doing daggerfencing.com with a wireless system. Kinda fun!
bkmk
From the descriptions I have read about, not movies, basically opponents hacked each other to death. The last one standing wins.
me ping to read later
“There can be only one!”
My understanding is these things weren’t really all that sharp; it was more of a bludgeoning operation than a slicing one.
Beat you to the ping!
Off-topic, but since I teach writing and have awards for public speaking ...
If something is so obvious that it it goes without saying, please don't waste my time saying it.
To be blunt, if you have any clue how to cut quickly and effectively with a blade and have the will to do so, you'll win against someone who doesn't. So you're not going to be using “proper” medieval form. Who cares? Unless you are or come across a true blade master, knowing how to effectively make the first quick cut means you win.
Again, mostly a worthless “I know it and you don't” ego-masturbation of an article...
Studied E-Tool (entrenching tool) extensively during my military career with some side study on claymores....not the sword kind.
Swords .....not so much. Machetes, bolos, parangs, etc... Carried and used em in jungle environments to battle “wait a minute vines” but never swords.
Elephant grass feared me !
That’s my BTTT comment PJ”...:o)
Stay safe.
Bone breakers.
May I humbly suggest a related, and quite fun documentary? Reclaiming the Blade (both a website and documentary, which I think is on youtube, and Netflix, iirc.)
I once saw a fascinating documentary shot at the Royal Armory at Leeds. They came across some Medieval(?) manuals of swordsmanship for the Claymore, and re-enactors at the Armory worked out a full-speed display of sword combat based on what was in them. The Claymore was an amazingly agile instrument in the hands of a trained man- it wasn’t the swing-it-like-a-baseball-bat meat cleaver that it’s shown to be in the movies.
I’ve been looking for that documentary online for years (granted, I haven’t looked in a while) but I’d love to watch it again.
And yeah, it was brutal hack and slash stuff...very bloody and gruesome.
Japanese sword-fighting on the other hand was a little more refined (but still bloody and vicious) because quite simply their swordmaking was superior and the blades much lighter. The same for Damascus blades, which originated in India and Persia.
Ultimately with edged weapons, combat must have devolved into one-on-one, one-on-two, or one-on-three matches. Most of these must have been very short, although I suppose that two skilled swordsmen, equally matched, could occasionally have had extended fights, assuming their comrades did not rush in to overpower the opponent. The individual challenge matches between champions that occured occasionally throughout history probably had some of this character. A general melee or small group fight would have been different affairs. One of the tests for any warrior would have been the ability to adapt to different circumstances.
I am not a reenactor, but I do respect the ability of reenactors to generate microhistory on interesting subjects. Perhaps a couple can pitch in on this thread. One thing we don't know nearly enough about is small unit tactics on ancient and medieval battlefields. Professional warriors would presumably have learned to fight in organized teams. (They weren't stupid; they wanted to survive; and combat is an fast and effective teacher.) We just don't have enough in the written record to picture it easily. I imagine serious reenactors have rediscovered some of these lessons.
We have probably better detail about the Romans in the heydey of the legions: they were disciplined and trained, which was important; they fought in formations that allowed for mutual support; they were armored, and therefore much more willing to close with often unarmored barbarian opponents; and their training, tactics, and formations were such that they could relieve the front ranks in combat, keep fresh men to the front, and pass wounded men to the rear. It's probably an error to assume that medieval warriors were incapable of the same things, at least as far as the professionals were concerned.
The best information is at: ‘The Book of the Sword’ by Sir Richard Francis Burton
A ripping good read it is, too!