|
|
Post by jammer on Jul 27, 2017 18:49:12 GMT
I have made a complete mess of editing my post. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by jammer on Jul 27, 2017 19:01:39 GMT
The trick with a short sword against spear is to get the spear to attack the sword itself, if he does, then yes, a spear can be easily beaten with a short sword. Its just if you can get the spear to attack the kodachi. The stance whilst holding the short sword is a key to getting the right attack. A very experienced spearman will never attack the short sword, but enough apparently did to make a complete subset of kata. Its a bit like your video, of which I was critical, sword vs knife, where you let the knife touch your sword tip, the advantage is lost. This is what I mean by getting the spear to attack (fight) the short sword. In my experience, the trick was to either bait an attack you could advance on while simultaneously advancing or to dominate control of the flow. I want to say good reflexes help, but I've had mine tested and they are below average at near 300ms in visual stimuli but average elsewhere (could be because I have poor eyesight without glasses though). I think the trick is more to be comfortable with fighting a spear and knowing that just because you blocked/are in close, doesn't mean a spear can't retract and come from up close to run you through (chinese spear techniques often deal with people who get too close). You have to flow with the spearman but not let them gain control or initiative because if you do, the speed at which it can maneuver and thrust is hard to deal with. After getting more used to them and how to fight them, I didn't find them more difficult to fight than a skilled fighter of any other weapon. It is the concept maai. I would say maai is about 80-90% engrained through kata, repeated and repeated, with an amount of leeway for situations, it should almost totally engrained, IMO. But that takes serious dedication, not the sort of time investment put into every participant in battle. Fighters that have not engrained maai, and say rely on cues, like tips touching, tend to let a shorter weapons too close, they fight the opponent's weapon, not the opponent, and get drawn in. |
|
|
|
Post by Kiyoshi on Jul 27, 2017 20:12:52 GMT
That is a fair point. I've always noticed beginners waiting for certain cues and twitch reactions to those cues. Think of those guys who try to look for a certain technique to counter and constantly make those twitchy motions towards the counter every time they think the move is coming. It happens in sparring, in MMA, kendo, etc.
I've also noticed them having poor maai, I just never put two and two together. I've always done maai drills with friends and students to help develop their sense of how far a person can exactly travel with one step and swing. It can be surprisingly far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dalaran1991 on Jul 31, 2017 13:49:58 GMT
Ok so I've been talking with a lot of HEMA and kenjutsu people about the subject. Here's an interesting perspective:
It's absolutely possible to beat the spear / any longer weapon with a sword / shorter weapon.
The problem is, in the modern day, almost everybody (in the community of course) knows how to use a sword, but few really know how to use a spear.
This leads to a meta where you have overwhelmingly swordmen fighting / sparring vs other swordmen, but very few instances of swordmen vs polearms users.
This, coupled with the much easier learning curve of using a spear/polearm (stay out of range and keep poking/slicing the limbs) eventually leads to the norm that, when a swordman goes against a spear/polearm user, he has no clue what to do, meanwhile the spearman knows exactly what all the tricks the swordmen have. Eventually this leads to the widespread belief that spear is better than sword, not just economically.
While in truth, the sword might be quite capable of beating the spear, it's just that the techniques are lost. Most European texts concern itself with longswords fights, and a few treatises on polearm vs polearm. And among the kenjutsu crowd there's a whole cult of the sword while people just learn bo/yari as part of the curriculum. In Japan guys often look down at practicing naginata because it's considered a girl's weapon.
This kinda makes sense to me because if the spear is so useful then there's no point in developing the sword into a full battlefied weapon. If swords were simply sidearms, there wouldn't had been a constant struggle to improve forging techniques, guard/blade evolution, and anti-armor capabilities. The longsword for example was clearly a battlefield weapon and a primary one given its need to be extremely sturdy, its length, and its multi-uses with pommel and crossguard etc.
I think this argument is especially true in the case of the zweihander. Nobody actually knows how they were used. The theory that they were used to chop off pike head is rebuffed by most sensible people. And if you have to use a polearm why not just use a polearm? Why have to use a huge sword that costs more? Yet the doppelsoldner were paid double just for their ability to use a huge sword that nobody knew why.
I think this might be one of those tragedy of lost knowledge, like with the pyramid and greek fire. Swords wouldn't be much of a rage all throughout antiquity - early modern age if the spears were indeed a be superior weapon. When gundpowder was invented people were very quick to ditch both swords and armor on the battlefield. But they didnt ditch them because of spear being cheaper and (more) effective, so there has to be a reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jul 31, 2017 14:36:42 GMT
Eventually this leads to the widespread belief that spear is better than sword, not just economically. It isn't just modern. 16th/17th century writers considered the spear to be better than the sword (e.g., Musashi in "Book of Five Rings", Chinese writers). They were writing when spear met sword on the battlefield. This kinda makes sense to me because if the spear is so useful then there's no point in developing the sword into a full battlefied weapon. If swords were simply sidearms, there wouldn't had been a constant struggle to improve forging techniques, guard/blade evolution, and anti-armor capabilities. The longsword for example was clearly a battlefield weapon and a primary one given its need to be extremely sturdy, its length, and its multi-uses with pommel and crossguard etc. I think this argument is especially true in the case of the zweihander. Nobody actually knows how they were used. The theory that they were used to chop off pike head is rebuffed by most sensible people. And if you have to use a polearm why not just use a polearm? Why have to use a huge sword that costs more? Yet the doppelsoldner were paid double just for their ability to use a huge sword that nobody knew why. A Zweihander is a beautiful weapon for controlling lots of space. Not head-heavy like a halberd, so more agile, and the long blade makes it less vulnerable if an opponent closes, so it controls space better than a polearm of similar reach. So better than halberds or pikes for controlling the most space with the least soldiers. A fairly specialist weapon, and not surprising that it was outnumbered on the battlefield by pikes and halberds (and conventional swords). Most Doppelsoldner were armoured pikemen. Paid extra for being well-equipped veterans, rather than for using two-handers. Given what we do know of the battlefield use of two-handers (guarding flanks of pike blocks, guarding standards and commanders, and other potential few-against-many situations), it isn't surprising to see them in the hands of Doppelsoldners. But while most two-handers might have been in the hands of Doppelsoldners, most Doppelsoldners didn't have two-handers in their hands. I think this might be one of those tragedy of lost knowledge, like with the pyramid and greek fire. Swords wouldn't be much of a rage all throughout antiquity - early modern age if the spears were indeed a be superior weapon. When gundpowder was invented people were very quick to ditch both swords and armor on the battlefield. But they didnt ditch them because of spear being cheaper and (more) effective, so there has to be a reason. Since spearmen, when they could afford to, wore swords as sidearms, it isn't likely the spear would have made the sword disappear. Sidearms can be very useful. I don't think there's any doubt that on the modern battlefield, a rifle is better than a pistol. However, plenty of pistols still around. Gunpowder didn't get rid of the sword. Swords were still in widespread use in the 19th century, and still in use by cavalry in the 20th century. OK, economics. Some late 16th century English prices: Pike: 1.5 to 2.5 shillings Sword: 6.5 to 10 shillings Musket: 16 to 20 shillings Body armour: 23 shillings Helmet: 3 shillings Cavalry armour: 60 shillings to 30 pounds Common soldier's pay: 20 shillings per month So the weapons cost. But the men cost more. The weapons were only about 1/4 to 1/10 of the total cost of supporting an army, with food, clothing, pay, etc. being the majority. (The pay was meant to cover food, and deductions were made before the men were paid.) EDIT: Oops! Calculated the monthly pay wrong. AFAIK, the fraction of the army support cost as arms (1/4 to 1/10 of the total) includes gunpowder. |
|
|
|
Post by jammer on Jul 31, 2017 19:18:06 GMT
That is a fair point. I've always noticed beginners waiting for certain cues and twitch reactions to those cues. Think of those guys who try to look for a certain technique to counter and constantly make those twitchy motions towards the counter every time they think the move is coming. It happens in sparring, in MMA, kendo, etc. I've also noticed them having poor maai, I just never put two and two together. I've always done maai drills with friends and students to help develop their sense of how far a person can exactly travel with one step and swing. It can be surprisingly far. There is also a very interesting aspect of the maai with a poearm vs a short singlehanded weapon, such as a short sword. And that is the ability of the short sword to actually grab the shaft of the polearm with the off-hand very quickly. This makes it an imperative, in the unlikely situation a spear faces a wakizashi, to keep the wakizashi-man at the distance one would another spearman, or from the wakizashi POV to try to draw the spearman in. |
|
|
|
Post by jammer on Jul 31, 2017 19:46:55 GMT
I am actually reminded of a story describing Musashi in a stalemate with a good spearman. To break the deadlock Musashi threw his wakizashi at the spearman. I cant remember if he was victorious, in that it was a duel, or if it was during a larger battle for teritory. I am sure that this was a tactic musashi was well known as being capable of, although shuriken is not part of his extant schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 31, 2017 20:09:53 GMT
Eventually this leads to the widespread belief that spear is better than sword, not just economically. It isn't just modern. 16th/17th century writers considered the spear to be better than the sword (e.g., Musashi in "Book of Five Rings", Chinese writers). They were writing when spear met sword on the battlefield. This kinda makes sense to me because if the spear is so useful then there's no point in developing the sword into a full battlefied weapon. If swords were simply sidearms, there wouldn't had been a constant struggle to improve forging techniques, guard/blade evolution, and anti-armor capabilities. The longsword for example was clearly a battlefield weapon and a primary one given its need to be extremely sturdy, its length, and its multi-uses with pommel and crossguard etc. I think this argument is especially true in the case of the zweihander. Nobody actually knows how they were used. The theory that they were used to chop off pike head is rebuffed by most sensible people. And if you have to use a polearm why not just use a polearm? Why have to use a huge sword that costs more? Yet the doppelsoldner were paid double just for their ability to use a huge sword that nobody knew why. A Zweihander is a beautiful weapon for controlling lots of space. Not head-heavy like a halberd, so more agile, and the long blade makes it less vulnerable if an opponent closes, so it controls space better than a polearm of similar reach. So better than halberds or pikes for controlling the most space with the least soldiers. A fairly specialist weapon, and not surprising that it was outnumbered on the battlefield by pikes and halberds (and conventional swords). Most Doppelsoldner were armoured pikemen. Paid extra for being well-equipped veterans, rather than for using two-handers. Given what we do know of the battlefield use of two-handers (guarding flanks of pike blocks, guarding standards and commanders, and other potential few-against-many situations), it isn't surprising to see them in the hands of Doppelsoldners. But while most two-handers might have been in the hands of Doppelsoldners, most Doppelsoldners didn't have two-handers in their hands. I think this might be one of those tragedy of lost knowledge, like with the pyramid and greek fire. Swords wouldn't be much of a rage all throughout antiquity - early modern age if the spears were indeed a be superior weapon. When gundpowder was invented people were very quick to ditch both swords and armor on the battlefield. But they didnt ditch them because of spear being cheaper and (more) effective, so there has to be a reason. Since spearmen, when they could afford to, wore swords as sidearms, it isn't likely the spear would have made the sword disappear. Sidearms can be very useful. I don't think there's any doubt that on the modern battlefield, a rifle is better than a pistol. However, plenty of pistols still around. Gunpowder didn't get rid of the sword. Swords were still in widespread use in the 19th century, and still in use by cavalry in the 20th century. OK, economics. Some late 16th century English prices: Pike: 1.5 to 2.5 shillings Sword: 6.5 to 10 shillings Musket: 16 to 20 shillings Body armour: 23 shillings Helmet: 3 shillings Cavalry armour: 60 shillings to 30 pounds Common soldier's pay: 5 shillings per month So the weapons cost. But the men cost more. The weapons were only about 1/4 to 1/10 of the total cost of supporting an army, with food, clothing, pay, etc. being the majority. (The pay was meant to cover food, and deductions were made before the men were paid.) My understanding is that the Zweihander (Great sword) were very specialized weapons, used on the battlefield to cut at pike formations and troop concentrations, as you would continuously swing to keep the massive weight in motion. Of course, both Greatsword and Halberd came in different sizes, but if of similar weight, your still talking about 5 1/2 foot vs 8 foot (polearm) weapons. A properly balanced polearm (where the head isn't a monstrous ax like thing, with too much forward weight) would be radically more agile and fast. However, as you noted, for swinging power in a closer area, these niche weapons (Zweihander) could be frightful in the right hands, and at comparable size, hard to beat for their power, as they literally evolved into a kind of short poleaxe, but with that long blade. |
|
slav
Member
Senior Forumite
Katsujin No Ken
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by slav on Jul 31, 2017 23:51:04 GMT
New to the thread, lots of discussion, haven't read through it all.
But since it's still going, my response to the OP based on my Kendo experience would be to find the right moment to close in very quickly with a tsuki thrust. I don't know the size and weight of the longsword waster you would be going up against, but finding an opportunity to get in very close with your opponent would give them very little space in which to build momentum into a feasable strike with such a long/weighty weapon.
Let's say you can find an opening (or create one with a parry) and use your footwork to get within one-foot of the opponent's torso. In this space you are at a huge advantage with the lighter, shorter, curved weapon. You should still be able to slice and dice as you please, while the opponent should really only be able to perform halfway cuts which should not be fatal.
Regardless, both fighters should be prepared to bleed. It's just a matter of which one can ensure they bleed less.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jul 31, 2017 23:51:43 GMT
My understanding is that the Zweihander (Great sword) were very specialized weapons, used on the battlefield to cut at pike formations and troop concentrations, as you would continuously swing to keep the massive weight in motion. Of course, both Greatsword and Halberd came in different sizes, but if of similar weight, your still talking about 5 1/2 foot vs 8 foot (polearm) weapons. A properly balanced polearm (where the head isn't a monstrous ax like thing, with too much forward weight) would be radically more agile and fast. However, as you noted, for swinging power in a closer area, these niche weapons (Zweihander) could be frightful in the right hands, and at comparable size, hard to beat for their power, as they literally evolved into a kind of short poleaxe, but with that long blade. The "massive weight" of a Zweihander is about the same as the massive weight of a halberd (2kg to 3kg - the two-handed sword is probably heavier on average, since halberds are more likely to be in the 2kg to 2.5kg part of this range (but plenty of halberds at 2.5kg to 3kg)). 4' of blade vs about 4' of halberd haft past the lead hand. The halberd is head-heavy while the sword is not. Later halberds were often lighter, but they're not contemporaries of the Zweihander on the battlefield. Power isn't the strong point of the two-handed sword. It's reach, and ability to control a circle of space 6' in radius. I don't remember fighting with two-hander against halberd (might have done so in SCA long ago). One-on-one, unarmoured, I think it would be close. Against 3 opponents, I'd prefer the two-hander (or a spear) over the halberd. |
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 1, 2017 3:09:20 GMT
My understanding is that the Zweihander (Great sword) were very specialized weapons, used on the battlefield to cut at pike formations and troop concentrations, as you would continuously swing to keep the massive weight in motion. Of course, both Greatsword and Halberd came in different sizes, but if of similar weight, your still talking about 5 1/2 foot vs 8 foot (polearm) weapons. A properly balanced polearm (where the head isn't a monstrous ax like thing, with too much forward weight) would be radically more agile and fast. However, as you noted, for swinging power in a closer area, these niche weapons (Zweihander) could be frightful in the right hands, and at comparable size, hard to beat for their power, as they literally evolved into a kind of short poleaxe, but with that long blade. The "massive weight" of a Zweihander is about the same as the massive weight of a halberd (2kg to 3kg - the two-handed sword is probably heavier on average, since halberds are more likely to be in the 2kg to 2.5kg part of this range (but plenty of halberds at 2.5kg to 3kg)). 4' of blade vs about 4' of halberd haft past the lead hand. The halberd is head-heavy while the sword is not. Later halberds were often lighter, but they're not contemporaries of the Zweihander on the battlefield. Power isn't the strong point of the two-handed sword. It's reach, and ability to control a circle of space 6' in radius. I don't remember fighting with two-hander against halberd (might have done so in SCA long ago). One-on-one, unarmoured, I think it would be close. Against 3 opponents, I'd prefer the two-hander (or a spear) over the halberd. We are mostly on the same page, with Zweihander being near the same weight, though heavier on average. I'm probably getting into general variance regarding all polearms, rather than Halberd in particular, so their is a somewhat wide array of different head weights. I think you have something with the swinging circling power in dealing with 3 opponents, and also using the spear. One on one, unarmored, however, I'd personally go for a balanced billhook or halberd with it's 8' of length. I think Silver put it at the top of the food chain, as the range, tip speed and leverage were impressive, and again, it was so universal on the battlefield. I think I would (sword on sword) rather have a light longsword, one on one, vs a great sword, as well as against multiple opponents (using your spear theory, which seems smart). Really, Zweihander is so niche, as well as misunderstood, as people lumped them with ceremonial swords, and even longswords, with all three being merged incorrectly over the centuries to make people believe they were all slow, Conan powered, lumbering monsters. I do know a trained individual (highly skilled) could wreak havoc against certain formations. |
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Aug 1, 2017 3:39:21 GMT
You know, on the original topic, one piece of advice I got on it, is this:
I noticed most sword sparring guys tend to place too much mind in their sword. They think of themselves as the sword. They think of the advantage their sword has, and which ways it can be used to their advantage.
Rather than thinking how to get past the cross guard, or how to beat his reach, instead think outside the sword thats in his hands, and think of it as a person sparring another person.
Might be kind of nonsensical, as this made a ton more sense to me till I tried spelling it out, but one trick is to try hit him, not to hit his sword. Learn to be faster with training, strike with speed, and use feints. Out think the opponent and make every strike a surprise. Over come with aggression and speed, but do not over commit to the strikes and movements.
When I used to spar when I was in my teens, we used sticks without guards, so we kinda had to learn how to parry an attack without letting it slide down to the hand. But it also taught me how to not rely on blocking too much. Same thing goes for this foam covered plastic stick sparring I did a lot later in life, as they were too flexible to block anything, so feinting was a big way to get attacks in, and everything had to be done fast, aggressively, without over commitment.
Not at all claiming it was a superior training method, but the idea is to think outside the box when facing disadvantages. I went from rigid training tools to flexible. Next I need to try some proper wasters, to expand what I know.
This isn't intended to sound like some psuedo spiritual advice like "think of yourself as a flame and he a water, you must burn ferociously!" or some other hard to decipher stuff, by the way
|
|
slav
Member
Senior Forumite
Katsujin No Ken
Posts: 4,457
|
Post by slav on Aug 1, 2017 6:38:53 GMT
You sound high af but in essence you're right. A good swordsman focuses the spaces and openings--where the opponent's sword is not or will not be. Because after all, wherever their sword is not is a space you can occupy without dying. An effective way to identify and claim this space is by waiting for or creating an overcommitment, like you said.
If you pursue Kendo like you intend, you'll learn about something called ma-ai. This is the concept of finding the "center" of the fight...meaning the right distance and angle for setting up your attack, whilst preventing your opponent from finding it first. To do this you must pay attention to much more than the opponent's sword. If you focus on their sword--especially the tip--they own you and you've already lost.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Aug 1, 2017 8:25:53 GMT
I dont get high anymore...
But I am smashed af. Drunk outta my mind
Excellent guess on my message. Excellent call bro
|
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 1, 2017 20:05:24 GMT
I dont get high anymore... But I am smashed af. Drunk outta my mind Excellent guess on my message. Excellent call bro Drink, Trap, drink...gulp. |
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Aug 2, 2017 19:36:18 GMT
Reminds me of this from MS 3227a's gloss:
And of course "Alle kunst haben leng und masse"--all arts have length and measure. I suspect if you were to bring Liechtenauer, Fiore and Musashi back to life for a fight, they'd pay little attention to what blade they used beyond basic questions of steel quality. It's interesting that in most of the HEMA texts almost no attention is paid to the sword specifics we obsess over. Apart from reminding us to use the whole sword as a weapon, they don't seem to care if it's long, short, or whatever. It's just "a sword." The romantic and nationalistic notions about swords seem to be a product of our world. For them they were just tools. You focused on the fight and the fighter.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Aug 2, 2017 20:36:25 GMT
Reminds me of this from MS 3227a's gloss: And of course "Alle kunst haben leng und masse"--all arts have length and measure. I suspect if you were to bring Liechtenauer, Fiore and Musashi back to life for a fight, they'd pay little attention to what blade they used beyond basic questions of steel quality. It's interesting that in most of the HEMA texts almost no attention is paid to the sword specifics we obsess over. Apart from reminding us to use the whole sword as a weapon, they don't seem to care if it's long, short, or whatever. It's just "a sword." The romantic and nationalistic notions about swords seem to be a product of our world. For them they were just tools. You focused on the fight and the fighter. Thats an excellent text right there. More practitioners should read this and remind themselves about it frequently. A long time ago, when me and my friends would spar, one of my friends had the biggest stick out of all of us, and sometimes he did feel untouchable, especially when he had the high ground. But it wasn't impossible to beat him. it was just hard |
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Aug 2, 2017 21:42:28 GMT
A long time ago, when me and my friends would spar, one of my friends had the biggest stick out of all of us, and sometimes he did feel untouchable, especially when he had the high ground. But it wasn't impossible to beat him. it was just hard Meyer says: Provoke - take - hit (something along: feint - parry/displace his counter action - hit). So far, from what little I learned over the past few years, I am a big fan of Meyers work. There was a guard from Meyer that I love. Works amazing against the less trained |
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Aug 2, 2017 22:56:49 GMT
I think his work should be much more widely studied. He was regarded as not being martial enough at one point, but I think this has faded as we've started to understand more about the place of the fight books in the HRE. His illustrations are highly detailed and contain a wealth of information in the foreground and backgrounds. They're good enough you can be pretty sure what you're doing is what he intended. And we have his complete work. Lecküchner's messer treatise is another under-appreciated work.
|
|
|
|
Post by jammer on Aug 3, 2017 21:34:30 GMT
Reminds me of this from MS 3227a's gloss: And of course "Alle kunst haben leng und masse"--all arts have length and measure. I suspect if you were to bring Liechtenauer, Fiore and Musashi back to life for a fight, they'd pay little attention to what blade they used beyond basic questions of steel quality. It's interesting that in most of the HEMA texts almost no attention is paid to the sword specifics we obsess over. Apart from reminding us to use the whole sword as a weapon, they don't seem to care if it's long, short, or whatever. It's just "a sword." The romantic and nationalistic notions about swords seem to be a product of our world. For them they were just tools. You focused on the fight and the fighter. It's a lovely sentiment, in an "oh how I wish it was true" way. But the reality is that all credible schools seperate short sword, long sword, spear, staff etc into chapters or kata groups.I would imagine that most of the theoretically revived masters would be acutely aware of the length of the respective weapons, and most specifically the length of their weapon vs the length of their opponents. |
|
Nov 1, 2024 0:13:58 GMT
Nov 1, 2024 0:13:58 GMT
