some vids of me swordsmanship

[Aeon StarGazer]

I have some videos on the way of the saber section I posted, however its eating up a lot of space. So I'll start posting here. Subscribe to my YouTube (YouTube.com/user/jessbrissonhema) here are some recent random unedited vids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3OrZv_E5g4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2XwKyDvj_M&feature=youtube_gdata_player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFgLEcpSrBo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Master VorNach]

Nice work, thanks for sharing!
Point!

[dhenwood]

Nice work - though i am of the belief that every time someone shoulder rests an edged blade part on their shoulder chuck norris kills a kitten 

[Aeon StarGazer]

Hey thanks for all the likes! As for resting a blade on your shoulder is actually very historically accurate and is well recorded in medieval manuscripts as a guard (the forte isn't as sharp as the foilable.) Also grabbing the blade is common and known as halfswording. Here are 2 pics.

http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Boffer/Wiki/images/2/27/Alber_vomtag.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ui6T3MV.jpg

[Aeon StarGazer]

Here's my first day on sword and dagger. Sloppy style!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbLWFQ4Lixs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[dhenwood]

Im aware of halfswording, i was of the belief that the ability to hold that part of the blade was because it was dulled so you could hold it/ rest it. the rest of the blade should be extremely sharp and you would need thick gloves. thus why i dislike resting in general. Tournaments are different because you were not allowed to use sharp blades only those  that were wooden or dulled.

[Aeon StarGazer]

Yes it really depends on the source. Most practitioners agree resting on the shoulder and fighting from there is beneficial and not dangerous. In my experience with sharp blades is you can grip it and rest it with minimal to no protection as long as you're not causing friction and while gripping is meore of a pinch. Funny thing is the sharpest sword I've halfsworded was a zweihander that was pretty dang sharp all the way down the foilable and sharp into the separated ricasso, not very accurate at all, non the less it never cut my shoulder from resting it before the couple swings I took with it.

[dhenwood]

its definitely something we we will never be sure of now, swords had to be sharp enough for slicing but dull enough to hold. bit of a paradox though i would certainly not wish to fight trying to hold an extremely shap object in my bare hand

[eerockk]

The first thing that came to mind was holy cow! You're spinning that longsword like a saber! Great videos, man. That sword seems to be an extension of your body. Nice control with the speed!

[Darth Nonymous]

its definitely something we we will never be sure of now, swords had to be sharp enough for slicing but dull enough to hold. bit of a paradox though i would certainly not wish to fight trying to hold an extremely shap object in my bare hand

Actually, most historical examples of Swords, esp. longswords, were not that sharp by todays standards. And it doesn't need to be. You can cut through a side of beef pretty well with a fairly dull blade that has enough behind it.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR9k23U-P10" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR9k23U-P10</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFQ4aanmupU" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFQ4aanmupU</a>

He's kind of a weenie, I know. But the concept is clear.

[Master VorNach]

Im aware of halfswording, i was of the belief that the ability to hold that part of the blade was because it was dulled so you could hold it/ rest it. the rest of the blade should be extremely sharp and you would need thick gloves. thus why i dislike resting in general.

My understanding of swords from this period is they were not that sharp and not razor sharp to be sure, more like a chisel edge. A razor sharp, slicing sword would be more prone to chipping the edge when used on metal armor. The chiseled edge is better suited to delivering kinetic energy through the armor, while still being able to chop and slice when there were softer targets available.
Wearing gloves would be a good idea but, as has been mentioned here, you can hold onto something sharp without getting cut, as long as you don't pull it along your hand.

[dhenwood]

We know that swords had to be sharp enough to cut or 'slice' as Ringneck refers to it which implies sharp enough to cut the skin by being pulled along it. it would stand to reason swords would have to be as sharp as a kitchen knife to do that. the archaelogical reports from towton for example showing the numerous injuries i thought dispelled any myth that weapons were blunt. Halfswording is legit but its battlefield effectiveness is always under scrutiny, theres no way to guarantee someone couldnt pull your sword bybthe crossguard or it gets stuck and then cuts the hand, it may well have been used in tournaments almost exclusively.
Sorry to pull this so off topic 

[Darth Nonymous]

We know that swords had to be sharp enough to cut or 'slice' as Ringneck refers to it which implies sharp enough to cut the skin by being pulled along it. it would stand to reason swords would have to be as sharp as a kitchen knife to do that. the archaelogical reports from towton for example showing the numerous injuries i thought dispelled any myth that weapons were blunt. Halfswording is legit but its battlefield effectiveness is always under scrutiny, theres no way to guarantee someone couldnt pull your sword bybthe crossguard or it gets stuck and then cuts the hand, it may well have been used in tournaments almost exclusively.
Sorry to pull this so off topic 

OF course they had to be sharp enough but, as the video shows, that isn't that sharp. I am also operating from the perspective that the reigning myth is that swords were sharp not semi-sharp. You can take a piece of sheet metal and cut your self on it. You could even cut stuff with it if you had a way to drop a big sheet on something.

Since half swording was a techniques for shorting the leverage to get more force during specific encounters, I don't categorize that as scrutiny. It has limits and parameters of application. It is great for what it is used for and it's boundaries need to be tested like anything else. The likely hood of them pulling your sword during an appropriate half swording moment is rather low. You have two hands on the sword one end of the sword should be touching the target, and the force applied is more pushing slow then fast and slippery.


 I haven't seen any archeological evidence that shows injuries that require a very sharp blade. I have several "blunt" swords that are never the less fully functional and can cut meat, plastic bottles, and pierce through pretty tough stuff. as long as your blade shape is right You can cut to your hearts content. And you blade will last longer.

[dhenwood]

there is a popular opinion amongst historians that sounds would be sharp with the aim to inflict damage through a padded jack. there is a difference between wounds inflicted by blunt weapons and sharps, unfortunately its impossible to tell an axe or a sword apart in most cases heres an example of the skull type.

http://www.brad.ac.uk/life-sciences/media/lifesciences/schooloflifesciences/ages/Towton_Image4-215x250.jpg


there is evidence also of severed arms etc which you would certainly need a sharp sword to pull off. the degree of what semi sharp to sharp to the point were it is brittle is whats under question. thats just a matter of opinion. the problem with some half swording is when the pommel and crossguard is utilised as a weapon, there is even sword manuals that depics using the crossguard to snag an opponents weapon, but that would require the blade to possiblu run the hand.

[Darth Nonymous]

there is a popular opinion amongst historians that sounds would be sharp with the aim to inflict damage through a padded jack. there is a difference between wounds inflicted by blunt weapons and sharps, unfortunately its impossible to tell an axe or a sword apart in most cases heres an example of the skull type.

http://www.brad.ac.uk/life-sciences/media/lifesciences/schooloflifesciences/ages/Towton_Image4-215x250.jpg


there is evidence also of severed arms etc which you would certainly need a sharp sword to pull off.

Not true. You can easily go through one with an axe that is not very sharp just as easily as with a sword of the same. By semi sharp I mean you can still run you finger lightly down the edge without getting cut but may be able to if you press hard enough. Like a pair of scissors. Sure you can still get superficial paper cuts and scratches, but this is not really useful for armored combat. But even that edge is not totally needed.

The fact that you cannot tell an axe from a sword in most cases is the point I was trying to make. Most of the injuries that archeology and forensic  anthropology will be using is bone and textile damage. The type of injuries that go through bone are almost entirely percussive in nature. Meaning the sharpness of the balde has less to do with it than the relation of blade geometry to momentum behind the strike. Even when you slice through it with swords these days (which are way sharp) a thick bone will still stop a blade that is lighter or has less inertia. The combination of an edge and wedge geometry is what makes the cut of a limb work.

But, that is irrelevant. No sword should be sharp enough to cut you if you lay the strong on your shoulder.

 

the problem with some half swording is when the pommel and crossguard is utilised as a weapon, there is even sword manuals that depics using the crossguard to snag an opponents weapon, but that would require the blade to possiblu run the hand.

1. I don't consider that half swording. That is a hilt attack. I am talking about moving you hand up the balde to thrust through plate armor or pry into the opponent.
2. Even there the way you would grip the sword prevents you from getting cut if it is pulled out. You can grab it by the flat and not even touch the edges.