Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2008 23:40:23 GMT
I'm not saying that all swords were crap back in the day, nor am I saying that they were all wonderful. My point is that more than likely they ran the gamut of quality from absolute crap to amazing, high-quality blades. I find this reasonable to assume, as it seems true of just about everything else in the world from cars to swords to guns or whatever. Sounds reasonable to me ;D
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 21, 2008 23:46:08 GMT
"Good Shot George!"
"Why think you, Pemberton, but I'm afraid my mauser might be a tad off!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2008 5:02:24 GMT
"Good Shot George!" "Why think you, Pemberton, but I'm afraid my mauser might be a tad off!" There are good munitions grade guns, but there's been plenty of crappy ones too. The French Chauchat comes to mind, as well as the early model M-16's.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 22, 2008 20:28:47 GMT
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I said mauser just to add something the probably woulnd't have beena round in washington's time. Just like the car. Didn't really have any relevence
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2008 23:26:10 GMT
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I said mauser just to add something the probably woulnd't have beena round in washington's time. Just like the car. Didn't really have any relevence Lol good thing there was reason behind that. For a second I was like "that liberal rammstein has been smking pot again. Mausers in the 18th century. Preposturous!" I kid, I kid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2008 7:27:09 GMT
I really don't want this to come across as an attack, but really, misinformation is misinformation and I can't stand it.
Bigger windup? Speed = Power?
Mass and Velocity do make up the two main components of impact, but there are a couple of problems with your conclusion.
1: With a sword, your goal is to cut, not bonk. So impact isn't what you should be going for. If you're fighting a man in armor, you'd better be using the murder stroke or half-swording. If you're using sword and shield, that's fine until you come up against someone else in armor wherein you should attack the joints, the face, and the hands; preferably via grappling because there's no way you can cut through plate.
2: Even if it was your primary goal to increase impact as much as you want, since it's a multiplicative relationship, it's also proportional. If you increase Speed from say, 40 mph to 80 mph, then you've effectively doubled impact. A sword weights 3 lbs, let's say. If you add a mere 6 lbs of your own mass through body alignment to that, you've tripled the impact. And my arm alone weighs probably in excess of 6 lbs. If I align even a quarter of my 160 lbs body to the sword, that increases impact by over 1300%.
Now for windup...
Let me just start by saying that using your hips to generate power doesn't mean cocking your whole body back and then throwing yourself forward... that's a... well, it has its place. Let's just say that.
Have you ever heard of a man named Bruce Lee? Did you ever hear about his 1-inch punch? Look it up. That man, weighing 130 lbs, could coordinate his body so much he could hit a man(weighing 180 lbs) - from a mere inch away, with NO windup and send him careening backwards.
THAT is good technique, and the same technique can be applied to using a sword.
I'm sorry if this comes across as a shock, and if this makes me a rude bastard that deserves a smiting so be it.
SCA combat, while fine and perfectly effective given the tools they use to practice with and the rules imposed upon them, does not, in any way other than superficially to an uninformed observer, resemble actual fighting with edged weaponry. Any conclusions drawn from veterans thereof regarding the use of actual edged weaponry, I must immediately dismiss as uninformed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2008 7:56:08 GMT
While I am admittedly not an expert on period metalworking, I hope to clarify a few things that have come up in this discussion so far.
I cannot state unequivocally that all period swords were or were not tempered, I think it could reasonably be stated that instances of both are likely to exist. As slavia631 said earlier, there is a difference between tempering and hardening of steel.
Steel in its most basic form is an alloy of iron and carbon. Iron tends to form a neat atomic matrix, roughly cubic in form (think jungle gym). Carbon atoms (which are much larger) are fairly randomly interspersed in this matrix. Heat treatment (a broad term for both the hardening and tempering process) is basically done to control how evenly this carbon is scattered through the iron matrix. When heated to a certain ideal temperature for the alloy(generally around 1400 deg/F), the iron matrix expands, and the carbon atoms are able to migrate into the spaces between the iron atoms. When the metal is cooled rapidly (in the case of lower carbon steels, which is a fair bet we're dealing with) the cubic matrix of iron collapses around the carbon atoms, putting the structure under a certain amount of tension (like a tennis ball stuck in a chain-link fence). This makes the alloy very hard, but also somewhat brittle. To combat the brittleness, blade steel is tempered, which is really a process of heating the steel to a lower temperature(say 800 Deg/F), and allowing some of the carbon to precipitate out, thereby relieving some of the stress, and producing a somewhat softer state. The tempered state allows for a blade to be more resilient, and less likely to fracture from use. With low-carbon steels, this is not as much of a problem as one might guess, as larger amounts of carbon are required to really harden a blade to the point of being brittle. An average low carbon steel(with some coaxing) may be able to reach 40 hardness on the Rockwell scale, while modern high-carbon alloys can easily reach 60+, which is an order of magnitude harder, and requires tempering to bring it down to 45-50, ideal for a small blade, but still rather hard for a sword. Heat treating steel, all other things being equal, will have no effect on corrosion over time. However, other elements (basically impurities in the steel bloom) most definitely will. For example, if the blade contained metal from a meteorite, it would likely have a high enough nickle content to add considerable corrosion resistance. Inconsistencies in the ore used, the firing process, etc., would have caused wildly fluctuating quality in the refined steel, with some blooms becoming fantastic alloys, and others very poor indeed. Well known smiths of the time would likely have had access to a more consistent, better quality of steel than some others were able to procure. It would not be unreasonable to assume that such smiths would be courted by the wealthy man-at-arms, while the everyday foot soldier would be at the mercy of whatever they could afford or loot. (On a side note, from some research a number of years ago: a knight's sword from the medieval period would cost the equivalent of approx $20,000 in late-1990's dollars.)
Tsafa- Good video, but there was no real discussion of the quality of steel (or hardness), but the real issue talked about was weld quality. Welding steel is normally one of the most difficult tasks a smith will ever have to perform. The pieces of metal must be heated almost to the melting point, and then hammered together as quickly as possible, so as not to loose the heat. Also, it is necessary to use some type of flux, to clean any scale and/or metal oxides from weld area, to yield pure metal at the junction. Heat in welding is absolutely critical, too low and you risk cold shuts (physical gaps), too hot and you risk burning the steel and/or contaminating the weld and you fail again. Inconsistent heating as mentioned in the video, would likely mean that some welds were fine, while others were poor or failed in the same blade. In a pattern-welded blade, the steel could be perfect, but would likely split, splinter, flake or chip excessively from the poor welds.
While it is easy to think of the smiths of antiquity as being rather unsophisticated, the lion's share of their substantial knowledge base has been lost, and in modern times, not only do we not know how extant period pieces were made, but have no way of reproducing a stunning array of these items.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2008 3:31:53 GMT
Just want to jump in and say that for a sword, RC 50 is pretty universal as good, as anything less is pretty soft - and soft steel means rolled edges.
When you say 'small blades', you can make the steel harder because lateral stresses are considerably less and so as the blade's length shortens, so too does it's susceptibility to brittleness. This is why knives can commonly be hardened to about RC 60 and be fine.
Darksword tempers to RC 53, and Angus Trim goes to 52.
Don't quote me, but I recall Gus saying somewhere(SFI I think) that he's seen perfectly fine and functional swords range everywhere from 46-55, but personally I wouldn't want anything softer than 48 or harder than 53. Either way, 45-47 is still pretty darn soft as far as good swords go.
1050, which is a medium carbon steel, can easily get to RC 55, from what I've read, and Cheness uses 1045 in some of their low end katanas, which are pretty hard. What do you mean when you say 'low carbon steel', since It can't really get too much lower and still be considered steel. I think anything much less than 1030 is in the realm of 'wrought iron', but I could be wrong.
It's important to know also, that lattice of iron atoms in the matrix of an iron body normally slide over each other, more or less in sheets resulting in a quality known as ductility. The softer the iron, the easier the iron atoms shift around each other. The reason carbon makes steel harder when introduced into this matrix is that it prevents the iron from shifting aroung - resulting in a harder, stronger substance - albeit at the cost of brittleness as too much stress - instead of bending or misshaping the allow - will now make it break.
Lastly, while there can be no doubt that a good sword was an expensive commodity, I've seen reports vary anywhere from the equivalent to the cost of a good new car, to a mere couple thousand dollars.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2008 6:19:36 GMT
~ I probably would have been better off not mentioning HRc at all, but it is the modern coin of the realm when discussing blades, so it's hard to avoid. ~
In modern, homogeneous, alloyed steel, HRc 50+ is realistic for a sword, but is inconsistent with tested period blades. As a matter of fact, it was rare enough as few as 15-20 years ago. I had a friend (who was a bladesmith at the time) come up with some fantastic new steel from one of the Scandinavian countries (don't remember which), that he used to make a bowie that tested out about HRc 53-55, and his greatest joy in life was to lay it edge to edge with any other blade laid before it and peel the other's edge off in one long, curly strip. I seem to remember some technical info from Buck knives that they strove for 45-47 HRc in that period (and were one of the hardest, most durable blades on the market).
A true discussion of the relevant metallurgy, the structures of ferrite, austenite, martensite, bainite, pearlite, what they mean, as well as the effects of alloying elements/impurities and their relevance are well outside the bounds of this discussion, and have indeed filled volumes of metallurgical texts.
Suffice it to say that the limited hardness testing of period blades(which is, after all, what this thread is about) has revealed both wide irregularities in the same blade and even average edge hardnesses that fall below the capabilities of the 'c' Rockwell scale (less than 20). In that light, a period blade averaging 40 HRc or so, would arguably have been both fairly resilient and indicative of a rather well-made sword. In battle of course, a blade that bends and takes a set, while inconvenient and less effective as a weapon, is still better than a broken blade, so erring on the lower side of hardness was probably a realistic consideration for many smiths of the time.
And yes, even AISI 1030 still has a substantially greater carbon content than AISI 1005 (approx .06% carbon by weight), which is still considered steel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2008 7:37:14 GMT
Bigger windup? Speed = Power? Mass and Velocity do make up the two main components of impact, but there are a couple of problems with your conclusion. 1: With a sword, your goal is to cut, not bonk. So impact isn't what you should be going for. If you're fighting a man in armor, you'd better be using the murder stroke or half-swording. If you're using sword and shield, that's fine until you come up against someone else in armor wherein you should attack the joints, the face, and the hands; preferably via grappling because there's no way you can cut through plate. Sword fighting is not just limited to the 14 th century or to Europe. The are many different levels of armor to be considered and sword types used started with the Trojan war and running through thousands of other battles between then and the 14th century. There are battles to consider all across Asia over that same time. There are places where people just wore leather and furs as armor. Look beyond the short lifespan of plate in the 14th century. What about mail. No one is even sure exactly how far back it dates. Its really tough to cut with a sword, but you can bruise the person underneath it pretty bad... And how about gambsons.... I have talked to a few people and I am told that there are no actual surviving examples. I started asking around because I thought it was odd I had not seen any at the MET or in any of the museums in Europe. So how thick were they??? We don't know. Two inches would seem reasonable to prevent bone breakage, but a sword blow would cause enough of a blunt impact to bruise a muscle beyond use for that battle. Making them four inches thick would protect very well against blows but make it hard to move. It is reasonable that they came in a variety of thickness. So you never know exactly what the enemy has under their mail. Its not a matter of a 3 lb sword vs a 6 lb sword. But also a matter of the 2 lb and 2.5 lb. swords. Each man picks what works best for them based on how they plan to use it or even if they know how to use. People over 3000 years of sword fighting would have had many ideas both good and bad. Actually.... you misunderstood me (I was not clear). To me firing a strike from Vam Tag IS a "big windup". I don't need that much space to accelerate a two-handed sword. I can make a lethal blow from "Posta Breve" I keep the sword half way between Vam Tag and Longenort. I can generate enough power with my arms and a slight hip twist in that short distance. From that position I have the option of either Cutting or Thrusting in one fencing time. Many people will not be able to generate enough power for a good cut in that short distance and will need the "bigger windup" from Vam Tag. I agree with the concept of less telegraph is better. If you can make a huge explosion in a short distance, your opponent will not even see your sword coming. That is why I fight longsword from "Posta Breve". That is also why with the sword & shield I keep the sword in front of my face... so I can deliver that "one inch" blow. Well... its more then an inch, but its the same idea your talking about. But there is a catch my friend, you need to spend serous time in the gym for that and build triceps like horseshoes. Most people can't, and have to swing the sword from further back. I also think its worth mentioning the Bruce Lee was an "actor". He had great knowledge of Asian Martial arts and would be a serious contender in a high level fight, but he could no more throw a man with a "one inch" punch then any of the other modern champion UFC fighters can. Not at all. You did not insult me. You made a statement and you gave your reasons for your positions and there is nothing wrong with them either. In fact... I respect your knowledge of 14 Century Fighting techniques. You also provide a foundation for stimulating discussion. Most of the differences stem from you being focused only on 14th century combat as shown in the manuals. Perfectly good stuff to study. I do too, but my interests cover a much larger time period as well stretching back as far as the ancient world. It also covers people at different social levels, not just Nobility. Would you feel more comfortable with the methods if they were used with edged weapons??? I have a demo with an SCA legal Axe I sometimes use in SCA combat. The methods work fine with an edged-axe too, just slower. Its got nothing else if not a very big edge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2008 13:00:58 GMT
Well it comes down to two options: 1) Your opponent is wearing armor that can be cut through or exploited. or 2) He is wearing armor that cannot be cut through or exploited with your weapon. If 1. then cut. if 2. then do something worse than bruise him. I'd much rather break a man's arm then hit him on the leg so that he gets a nasty green bruise over the week after he kills me.
I know. If you read what I wrote I said the weight of the sword doesn't matter(I merely threw out a weight as an example) because a well aligned shot gains power from the body weight of the user, and that this effective multiplication of mass in the sword does far more for a strike than making it go faster. I brought this up because you said that a sword must make up for its light mass with 'lots of speed', when in fact, it doesn't.
Vom Tag is not codified as a position for a 'windup'. It is a position that covers an opening and threatens a cut, and is also the beginning position of the Zornhau and Zwerchau - neither of which is easy to strike from any middle guard by virtue of the fact that the sword must then move a greater distance, which takes more time, which is bad in something that relies so heavily on timing as a good zwerch or zorn.
Ideally, when you stand in Vom Tag in the Zufechten, you should be a sufficient distance from your opponent that he must move forward - either with a slide, lunge, or passing step - to strike you with either cut or thrust. If you're standing close enough to him that he can strike you without moving forward, then you're in distance to wind or close for a grapple. Either that or make distance by pressuring him to back up or backing away yourself(not advised, but sometimes necessary).
Also, if you're in a position halfway in between Vom tag and Langenort then you're wasting too much energy supporting the sword at a distance too far away from your body that also cripples you're reach and allows your opponent to get closer to you than you should let him in the zufechten.
Just how far back into the ancient world did people use armor that covered nearly as much of the body as does SCA combat? Where do we have evidence that anywhere in combat there were rules that banned strikes to the hands and knees, or grappling, or the like?
Do you really think that the Kunst de Fechten were for nobility only?
There are a lot of reasons why one shouldn't fight from just one guard. And that tricep comment basically informed me that you didn't get my point at all. Energy is never created or destroyed it only moves from one spot to another or changes form. The one inch punch was not a demonstration of strong triceps - that'd be silly and ridiculous. What it is a demonstration of is internal(coordinated relaxed) power vs. external(muscular tension) power. Bruce Lee could coordinate his whole body from his feet pushing off the ground to his hips moving, to his torso rotating to his shoulder and arm extending all together and direct that energy so subtly outward as to be concentrated in his fist.
Bruce Lee was first and foremost a Martial Artist. And a great one at that. He used acting as a way of getting his ideas and philosophies - which he was extremely passionate about - out to public view. To dismiss his martial prowess as 'Acting' or mere 'showmanship' is, I think, a great insult to a great man.
If you like reading, look up an author named Peter Ralston. He is, in my opinion, the greatest living martial artist, who developed a system called Cheng Hsin. He has written several books. I recommend 'Principles of Effortless Power'.
Except you're ridiculously close to your target and leaving your arm hanging in dead-man's space out there to do those strikes.
Also, UFC fighting isn't a martial art. It's a sport - like collegiate wrestling. Which, while one can gain some benefit from training in it, and it can be trained like a martial art can be, it is, in fact, a highly specialized form of controlled instigated conflict.
Bruce Lee studied fencing, boxing, and wrestling, in addition to Wing Chun, and also innovated a number of his own techniques. It's not fair to simply say he had a 'great knowledge of asian martial arts'. He was very much practical fighter, who, when training in wrestling for example, was asked how he would escape a certain pin, he said he'd bite. What this expresses is that in a fight there are no rules to hide behind. No handicaps. No referees that will ban you if you aim a strike for a man's hands or knees, or grab his weapon or joint lock his arm.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2008 13:12:20 GMT
Agreed 100%, but we were talking about modern homogenous steels. I was just curious as to how low in carbon the low carbon steels you were talking about were to barely be able to make it to RC40, as that's pretty soft as far as hardened steel goes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2008 2:42:46 GMT
Mass and Velocity do make up the two main components of impact, but there are a couple of problems with your conclusion. 1: With a sword, your goal is to cut, not bonk. So impact isn't what you should be going for. If you're fighting a man in armor, you'd better be using the murder stroke or half-swording. If you're using sword and shield, that's fine until you come up against someone else in armor wherein you should attack the joints, the face, and the hands; preferably via grappling because there's no way you can cut through plate. 2: Even if it was your primary goal to increase impact as much as you want, since it's a multiplicative relationship, it's also proportional. If you increase Speed from say, 40 mph to 80 mph, then you've effectively doubled impact. A sword weights 3 lbs, let's say. If you add a mere 6 lbs of your own mass through body alignment to that, you've tripled the impact. And my arm alone weighs probably in excess of 6 lbs. If I align even a quarter of my 160 lbs body to the sword, that increases impact by over 1300%. Just a little nit picking in physics formula...but the formula is force=mass*velcoity^2. So doubling your speed quadruples the force...not just doubling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2008 4:45:02 GMT
You're right, and Impact = Force / Time. The reason I avoided the Velocity^2 deal is because Velocity^2 is another way of writing Acceleration which is what the law of Force is actually based on, and Acceleration deals with time which adds in a whole mess of other complications like duration of impact and so on and so forth. My point was made either way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2008 8:21:08 GMT
Sorry, I have to disagree. Most people in a medieval army will neither have plate nor be wearing T-Shirts. Most medieval people one wore 3 or 4 layers of linen or some skins. Your not just cutting through that with a sword. A club would cause a significant impact, but a sword edge, with its concentration of force on that edge, would cause a much greater impact that can not be ignored. Michale Eddelson did some testing on multiple layers of linen over at SFI, it show to be resistant enough.
In the end of the debate, you have your options on how to fight. You can fight in any way you please and your opponent can fight you in any way that they please. However... it should be noted that knights with their armor and methods did not always win the day. They fought both Arabs, Turks and Mongols who did not know of or use WMA and in many cases were defeated.
Ancient Greeks where pretty well covered. Full helm, shield from neck to knee, Greaves, breastplate, forarm braces. Romans were even better covered in armor and a shield from neck to ankles. There armies fought for hours because of their armor protection while rotating their front lines and trying to out-maneuver one another.
As far as SCA restrictions, yeah there are restrictions, people have to go to work the next day. There are also restrictions in my WMA group for the same reason. The restrictions in WMA are along the lines of, "I can't hit you hard"... or we have to use padded weapons. In an organization like the SCA with thousands of people, the rules have to be very well defined. In a WMA group with with 5 or 6 people, the rules can be flexible. Adam, unless you have a history of actually killing people in your WMA group, I am sure you have some safeties in place too.
Now, your taking the video out of context from what it is demonstrating. Your concern was edge alignment and I am proving that it can be maintained in multiple combinations. I am not suggesting that a person actually get into a repetitive pattern in a fight. I am sure you have seen my fighting videos, I don't just leave my elbow out there to get hit. The arm is also a hard target to hit because it is opposite the other persons sword side and it is usually moves in and out of range too fast.
Adam, what you fail to recognize, is that I know and practice what you know (WMA).... You have no information on that subject and in those techniques that I don't have.
I have some additional experience to draw on that you don't. I also know and practice Rapier.... that is a martial art you don't know. On top of that... I also fight SCA... I shoot a longbow too. These are some other things you don't know either. There is a lot of stuff I don't know... like JSA, Jujistu or even boxing. I would not think to criticize something I don't know. The difference is that I recognize, I would further benefit myself if I did learned more Martial Arts. When the right opportunity presents itself, I will learn them too.
Why not follow Bruce Lee's example who studied so many different Martial Arts forms and do the same. The more different they are from one anther the better perspective a person would gain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2008 1:07:23 GMT
I've studied as many different things that I can. Bruce Lee, in addition to studying a lot of different things also completely ignored those teachings and techniques that were not effective.
As for safety: You can't fight full armor and take out grappling and call it the same thing. I'm sorry, you just can't do that.
Thanks - I actually do archery. No I don't use a 130lbs bow. I usually go with a 60 lbs draw weight. I'm not trying to do it to shoot armored knights, i'm just doing it for fun.
Also - I study out of Capo Ferro's, Marrozzo's, and Agrippa's manuals(which is actually more of a cut'n'thrust than a true rapier- but they called it rapier anyway). Also, Meyer's fechtbuch has tons of information on rapier. WMA doesnt mean Longsword. Though longsword is definitely that which I have the most experience in. Just because I don't talk about rapier a whole lot doesn't mean I don't know it. It might interest you to know that I also study dagger work, of both the rondel kind and the more classical kind.
Then I'd aim for the exposed upper arms or thighs. Or even the backs of the legs(calves) before I try to just hit them so hard that they die from impact with a weapon designed to cut. If he keeps his shield in a way that SCA guys do, then I'll grab the shield and use it against him. Note: I don't lack experience in the SCA altogether - I've practiced with several SCA guys several times and decided that I didn't like it because it changed the martial art into a glorified and highly specialized form of dueling, rather than, in my opinion, an actual martial art.
In my opinion - taking out shots to the hands and knees, and also removing grappling, is like disallowing the use of the crossguard on a sword. These things are part of what the art is, and to take them away changes the art completely.
SCA combat : Sword and Shield :: Kendo : Katana Dueling. But even worse.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 6, 2008 3:26:49 GMT
I don't have much to add, but I'm backing Adam on this 100%.
He's got quite a bit more experience than anyone else here in WMA, and frankly, he knows what he's talking about.
SCA is fun, but it is a falacy to draw conclusions involving actual fighting from it. The SCA has too many restrictions the delude it's participants that they are doing real historical combat when they are simply practicing a rather blind interpretation of an interpretation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2008 6:18:04 GMT
Adam, I think you have lost track of the fact that WMA as shown in the fightbooks is a dueling-art rather then an art of combat on a battlefield. It was also popular in medieval tournaments.
The fightbooks do not mention fighting in formation in battle. Historically there is no mention what-so-ever of military formations of Longswordmen. There was never any army what took the field with just longswords. At best it was a commander's sidearm. A brief experiment by Germans with two-handed swords against pikemen proved unfruitful in the 15th century. The fact that the fightbooks show armored combat, does not imply military combat. Medieval nobles wore armor on a routine basis around their lands.
With no military evidence to the contrary, WMA while worthwhile learning, is a non-military art. A longsword is a rich-man's toy just as the later "smallsword" was. Some of the methods can be "applicable" should a military formation breakup but it is not what won battles. Fighting in a battle is about keeping formation, above all, and fighting in that formation.
To prove me wrong you must either show references in the fightbooks explaining the use of longsword tactics in large scale battles.... or show me examples of armies composed primarily of Longswords. I can point to Romans with their sword & shield, Greeks with spear & shield, Swiss with their Pikes, English with their longbows.... etc. as example of successful armies with other weapon forms. Where are the Longsword armies???
You may also want to ask yourself why did longsword fighting die after the 15th and 16th century. Swords did not. Single-handed swords were present on European battlefields right up until the beginning of the 20th century. The likely answer is that Longswords were never popular with military men so they were never passed down as a traditional fighting weapon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2008 18:02:48 GMT
Longswords were primarily back up weapons, but quite popular among the knights on the battlefield to. Especially against the lightly armored enemies. In most cases they were used one handed for up and down heavy cuts so you could say that the longswords were popular on the battlefield, but not so much the halfswording and other two handed techniques... More like early longswords XIIa and XIIIa that were quite heavy hand and a half weapons, but on the battlefield mostly used one handed...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2008 20:03:48 GMT
Sure, one-handed from a horse or with a shield or even two-handed as a last resort or clean up operations... I can buy into that.
I just wanted to clarify that the fightbook techniques are dueling and tournament techniques rather then battlefield techniques.
|
|