"Tis but a scratch!"
Posted on 08/23/2012 9:52:00 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
To borrow a famous line, the problem with most people trying to understanding the true nature of historical sword combat is not that they're ignorant — it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
It's amazing, really, how a subject that so permeates our modern pop culture, and is so ubiquitous, is one which virtually no one any longer has any real world experience in, nor pursues for its original function. As a result, most all our conceptions of sword-fighting get it wrong. The reality of it is not what you think it is.
(Excerpt) Read more at io9.com ...
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!”
Yeah, combat by sword back in medieval times was incredibly brutal. Remember when the followers of William Wallace followed him on the battlefield. Me? I would have run a few steps forward...and then dropped my sword and run straight back outta there. And I don’t think most modern men would do any differently.
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!
I think I just got an idea for my 10 Things blog.
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.
“alright then...we’ll call it a draw eh”
Well the early clan Scots had their women fight along side...blue woad and all. I got some of that fighting spirit from my Scottish sisters.
Funny thing about that scene. The screenwriters had a complicated sword fight written in, but Harrison Ford was ill so the script was changed to Indy shooting the swordsman.
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...
One thing that I did learn from a History Channel show on medieval fighting was than men in armor were surprisingly nimble. Knock one down and he's not like a flipped turtle. He'll be back on his feet in a couple seconds.
Didn’t know that. The expression on his face was not acting. It worked better anyways.
Heck, *I* will give one, and I'm no blase master (which he clearly believes he is):
The typical sword fight in the real world lasts less than 3 seconds. If it lasts longer than that, you're both probably going to bleed out. The way to win is to close, cut first, and cut brutally. Anything else is likely to end in a "you both die" tie...
blase = blade. Apparently I’m no typing master, either...
Yep.
Sharp swords got damaged and lost their edge quickly.
Butterknife sharp they were.
In fact..here it is:
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.
Do you know the term Decimation?
I use a machete as one tool to help with gardening. Hard to keep it sharp, constantly sharpening it, so you are probably right. I suppose swordsmen plunged their blade into flesh with the sharp point to cause the most harm. I have an antique Japanese sword but have never used it against a living creature, so this is of interest to me (in case the Obummer zombies run wild soon).
Sharp blades are also useless against armour.
Swords were used to batter opponents into submission, until they were too weak to fight, then they were either run through or hacked until they died from a loss of blood.
And my mom told me that Dungeons and Dragons was an unproductive hobby. :)
Bone breakers.
Now, if you can get dollar weed to mind....
;o)
Bayonet training at Parris Island with pugil sticks was as close as I got to close combat fighting. Those bouts were usually 3-5 seconds and despite the padding could inflict some pain. One guy was actually knocked out cold.
That training convinced me that medieval weapons were a good thing to have when and if the fighying gets up close and personal.
In a similar vein, I note "that Rock and Roll Crap" my grandmother always bitched about has held its value a whole lot longer than the "forties music" she thought of so highly!
True that.
In one - on - one combat with swords, the winner is the one with superior training and motivation.
The "Kill Bill" films part I and II to see how it works.
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.
Sharp blades are also useless against armour.
Swords were used to batter opponents into submission, until they were too weak to fight, then they were either run through or hacked until they died from a loss of blood.
I’ve read elsewhere that the War-Hammer and the Mace were the preferred tools of knights vs. knights. Also on the Connections videos Burke shows that the preferred place to strike a man in battle was in the lesser armored legs. That was confirmed by examination of several burial mounds in France and England.
DITTO, I kept reading looking for where he was gonna show me his chops and nada.
I would like to see him in a match with a veteran martial artist trained in the use of the katana. I am willing to bet he wouldn't fare well.
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.
Its one of the reason's I liked those movies, the combat looked real, not staged. And the behind the scenes interviews on my Special Edition DVD reveal it was close to real with many of the actors getting hurt. Though there was still an air of swashbuckling swordplay to it all.
IIRC that particular meme got started because of the gear Knights wore for a joust, not actual combat. Many did have to be helped onto their horses and if they got knocked down they couldn't get right back up. But the reason was you were trying to protect the knight from a head on collision with a total impact speed that could exceed 50 miles an hour (Two horses moving towards each other at around 25 miles an hour each at the gallop)
Jousting Armor over the years got bulkier and heavier to try and compensate for the hard knocks jousters took. But I doubt any would have worn such versions into battle. It would have put them at a great disadvantage.
Technically, he didn't *say* those things, he *wrote* them. ;-)
“Technically, he didn’t *say* those things, he *wrote* them. ;-)”
Goes without writing. . .just sayin’
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.
We don't even really know the typical spacing of medieval forces, or the depth of formations. Pikemen presumably stood should to shoulder, but swordsmen need more room.
If something is so obvious that it it goes without saying, please don't waste my time saying it.
If you teach writing and have awards for public speaking (?), please don't end sentences with prepositions.
Full plate armor was only around 50 pounds. Our troops are expected to run around in combat with more than that, when you add up body armor, weapons, ammo, water, radio, etc, etc.
A man in his prime, who works out every day practicing fighting in armor as the ancient knights did, would get to the point where he hardly noticed the weight of his armor.
And the way they fought bore no resemblance to Hollywood sword fighting, which was patterned on fencing (alias "playing tag with car antennas"). Real fighting is FIGHTING: you try to hack off hands, slash legs, knock his sword out of the way with your gauntlet-protected hand so you can smash him on the head with your sword hilt before chopping it off, etc.
Movie depictions of the use of the Japanese katana mostly focus on the "draw & quick strike" aspect of the brutal art, and are therefore much more representative. The Japanese through martial arts have preserved much of medieval swordplay, so perhaps it's understandable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.