Random Thoughts and Miscellaneous Questions about blade based combats

[Master Seblaise]

Hello,

In this section of the forum you can find plenty of saber enthusiasts with different background. Obviously, it is a place to share knowledge about lightsaber combats, the 7 forms ...

But maybe you can also have question about blades/staff based combat in general ... and maybe people here may have the answer ... You may also want to share an opinion ....

This topic is made for that, in order to avoid off topic ... and remember, "we are all geek with glow stick" (c) Mater Uilos

So, i have a question (i ask on an other topic but i start the discussion again here)   

I have a question about 2 weapons styles:

Maybe i do not have enough historical references but to me, 2 weapons styles were developed mainly for dueling ... During war or open field battles, i never read something about 2 weapons styles.

Are you agree with that or do you know examples of 2 weapons styles used during massive battles?

[wandering-seeker]

Hello,

In this section of the forum you can find plenty of saber enthusiasts with different background. Obviously, it is a place to share knowledge about lightsaber combats, the 7 forms ...

But maybe you can also have question about blades/staff based combat in general ... and maybe people here may have the answer ... You may also want to share an opinion ....

This topic is made for that, in order to avoid off topic ... and remember, "we are all geek with glow stick" (c) Mater Uilos

So, i have a question (i ask on an other topic but i start the discussion again here)   

All depends on if a shield counts as a weapon, mate.

[Master Seblaise]

All depends on if a shield counts as a weapon, mate.

You are right ... my question was wrongly asked

I thought about 2 BLADES style

[wandering-seeker]

I think this is going to be a fun thread.

[Master Seblaise]

I think this is going to be a fun thread.

 

Do not forget that some of us are not english speaker ... you will need some indulgence lol

So, to me, 2 blades styles are for duel and not for war .... Am I wrong?

[wandering-seeker]

 

Do not forget that some of us are not english speaker ... you will need some indulgence lol

So, to me, 2 blades styles are for duel and not for war .... Am I wrong?

Functionally, yeah. You can't wield two blades in full combat. It can work in dueling, hell it looks awesome. But a lot of duelists get slaughtered as soon as they fight actual soldiers or step onto a field. The styles of combat are just too different.

[Master Althalus]

Actually, there are even less accounts of duels fought with two swords. Rapier & dagger was common during the 16th and 17th century, the combination being the "standard" for fencing manuals to show. The Case of Rapiers, though, is rather uncommon and mostly given only a rather short chapter in the manuals.
Of the earlier texts, only Marozzo and Manciolino have anything about Due Spade (two swords) in their manuals - that's where I work off from.
Later on, weapon combinations fell into disuse all together, as firearms more and more took over the duelling ground.

It IS definitely easier to work with a long-short combination, that's why there's a prevalence of dagger/knife for the off-hand all over the world. There are some styles of stick/cane-fencing using a knife in the left, for example, and the Japanese Niten-Ichi-Ken-Ryû uses the Shoto in conjunction with the Daito (Katana).
Weapons of the same length are comparably few and far between, mostly shorter blades like machetes. Shorter blades are easier to control as their point of balance is usually closer to the hand than in longer blades.

All depends on if a shield counts as a weapon, mate.

Depends on the exact type of shield - but used correctly, it is. 

[wandering-seeker]

Actually, there are even less accounts of duels fought with two swords. Rapier & dagger was common during the 16th and 17th century, the combination being the "standard" for fencing manuals to show. The Case of Rapiers, though, is rather uncommon and mostly given only a rather short chapter in the manuals.
Of the earlier texts, only Marozzo and Manciolino have anything about Due Spade (two swords) in their manuals - that's where I work off from.
Later on, weapon combinations fell into disuse all together, as firearms more and more took over the duelling ground.

It IS definitely easier to work with a long-short combination, that's why there's a prevalence of dagger/knife for the off-hand all over the world. There are some styles of stick/cane-fencing using a knife in the left, for example, and the Japanese Niten-Ichi-Ken-Ryû uses the Shoto in conjunction with the Daito (Katana).
Weapons of the same length are comparably few and far between, mostly shorter blades like machetes. Shorter blades are easier to control as their point of balance is usually closer to the hand than in longer blades.
Depends on the exact type of shield - but used correctly, it is. 

All of which is true, but in Europe that was mainly dueling yes? The rapier and the gauche being a prime example of the classical understanding. In Asia, where my own martial training comes from, yes peole trained with two weapons, my school favored deer horn knives which are punching weapons more than slashing. Going off the Japanese example, that was more for single combat than actual war-fighting/brawling yes?

I think at the end of the day, the question of using two blades or other weapons is really a question of the school. I trained in a school that didn't train duelists or show fighters, the singular focus of everything we learned was to kill singular or multiple opponents quickly. Which necessitated an extremely close-quarters and often ugly fighting style. Because of those requirements, we were always trained to have one empty hand. Other schools with different focuses would obviously result in different methodology and weapons styles.

And yeah, I've seen shields with steel rims for chopping into a downed enemy, or spikes in the center for skewering a foe who is focused on the blade. Even a relatively unadorned shield can be used to bludgeon the enemy in order to open space, though I'm small enough that that's never really an option.

[Master Althalus]

but in Europe that was mainly dueling yes?

We don't know.  The problem is that there are not many sources to begin with and actual accounts fewer still. The Viking sagas have parts about heros that picked up an additional sword or axe in battle to make up for a destroyed shield, the Spanish seem to have used rapier and main gauche in battle sometimes at close quarters, but that's essentially it. I know of one picture of an Italian duel with two swords and the accompanying story to that.

One thing has to be made clear: The sword (any kind) was never a weapon for the battlefield. It was a weapon of status, for settling disputes and personal self-defence, but was often left deliberately at home when going to war. On the battlefield, bows, crossbows and pole-arms rule. Most often, falchions are depicted in battles, being cheap choppers. Sabres and epées where sidearms mainly for officers who weren't meant to enter actual combat.

[Master Seblaise]

We don't know.  The problem is that there are not many sources to begin with and actual accounts fewer still. The Viking sagas have parts about heros that picked up an additional sword or axe in battle to make up for a destroyed shield, the Spanish seem to have used rapier and main gauche in battle sometimes at close quarters, but that's essentially it. I know of one picture of an Italian duel with two swords and the accompanying story to that.

One thing has to be made clear: The sword (any kind) was never a weapon for the battlefield. It was a weapon of status, for settling disputes and personal self-defence, but was often left deliberately at home when going to war. On the battlefield, bows, crossbows and pole-arms rule. Most often, falchions are depicted in battles, being cheap choppers. Sabres and epées where sidearms mainly for officers who weren't meant to enter actual combat.

It depends on the era ... After the XVth century, i think you are right ... but before, i am not so sure.

As an example, lets consider the battle of Azincourt (25th of october 1415) ... a well known disaster for the French army ...

We have testimonies that the melee was so dense that soldiers were not able to use their swords ... meaning that they used swords during battle in open field ...

[wandering-seeker]

It depends on the era ... After the XVth century, i think you are right ... but before, i am not so sure.

As an example, lets consider the battle of Azincourt (25th of october 1415) ... a well known disaster for the French army ...

We have testimonies that the melee was so dense that soldiers were not able to use their swords ... meaning that they used swords during battle in open field ...

There's also a cultural angle to consider. While swords are definitely a status thing, this holds more true for nomadic cultures as time goes on. My family are primarily from the Middle East and there's a theme in the war-boast poetry of time immemorial that speaks of warriors using both spears and scimitars(since most of them were nomads and therefore fought as cavalry). The factors to consider are therefore quite variable.

[Master Althalus]

meaning that they used swords during battle in open field ...

The Battle of Azincourt is one of the last real Knightly Battles in history. Of course, knights carried swords - as sidearms. Their primary weapon was the lance, then mace, hammer and shield. In full plate armour, the dagger is even more useful than the sword.
Most knights of this era carried two swords - the arming sword at the waist and the saddle-sword at the saddle. The later being a long sword for chopping up infantry. 
But: Knights are highly trained professional soldiers - a strike force but only a small part of a medieval army.

Btw, Azincourt is an example where the arrogance of the French knights led to their demise - they had already lost the battle before the melee even started. 

My family are primarily from the Middle East and there's a theme in the war-boast poetry of time immemorial that speaks of warriors using both spears and scimitars(since most of them were nomads and therefore fought as cavalry).

If I get my collegues from the Persian Martial Arts right, the bow was the most important weapon there, followed by the spear and then Shamshir, Quame and various shields.

[wandering-seeker]

Yeah, the bow is a seriously significant weapon, in Mongolia as well. Man, for someone coming from a line of Archers I really should be better with the bow. I always did better up close, spear and shamshir or talwar are my best weapons. Which I bring into lightsaber combat. Course, those are both seriously curved blades.

[Master Seblaise]

The Battle of Azincourt is one of the last real Knightly Battles in history. Of course, knights carried swords - as sidearms. Their primary weapon was the lance, then mace, hammer and shield. In full plate armour, the dagger is even more useful than the sword.
Most knights of this era carried two swords - the arming sword at the waist and the saddle-sword at the saddle. The later being a long sword for chopping up infantry. 
But: Knights are highly trained professional soldiers - a strike force but only a small part of a medieval army.

Btw, Azincourt is an example where the arrogance of the French knights led to their demise - they had already lost the battle before the melee even started. 

It is partially right i think. It is true that for a French point of view it was the last real Knightly battle ... but for an English point of view, it was a modern battle.

I will try to explain this opinion :
In the XVth century, everywhere in Europe, war became a science by raising old roman treaties and by studying concept like strategy, tactic ... But in France, war was still a question of individual bravery and heroism. We have old manuscript explaining that young knights were educated by legends about courageous knights ... in other words: no need of combat science, just charge in the name of the king and God* and everything will be OK

So, i do not thing it was arrogance ... it was just because they were already artefacts from the past.

If you read many testimonies of this particular Battle, we have 6000 English (1000 Lancers and 5000 Archers) vs 10 to 72000 French (the best historical assumption is 13500 - 1200 Knights on horses - 4000 Knights by feet - the remaining of the army composed by occasional soldiers with lance). The King of France did not send 4000 crossbowmen from Genoa.

Because of the weather, the charge of mounted Knight was a disaster ... Considering this disaster, a first wave of Knight by feet charged in the mud in a field full of dead horses ... it was a disaster .... Considering this disaster, a second wave .... [...] ... a fourth wave of Knight by feet charged in the mud in a field full of dead horses and Knight bodies ... it was a disaster ...

... So maybe you are right, it was arrogance ... I think it was worst of arrogance ... it was just because they did not know what to do ...

But yes, they had already lost the battle before the melee even started.






* Just a fact ... not an opinion against the forum rules

[Master Seblaise]

Another question already considered on this forum: the famous reverse grip

On many topics we have already discussed about the efficiency of reverse grip ... But does anyone here know about the origin of Reverse Grip? Short weapons? Defensive weapons?