|
Post by elbrittania39 on Dec 19, 2017 0:34:09 GMT
Is there any records or references to sabre and main gouche usage? Daggers are commonly thought of as companions to rapiers but all three saw overlap so I'm wondering if they got used with any slashier cousins. Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Dec 19, 2017 0:52:15 GMT
Philippine espada y daga? Bolo and knife together, both slashy. Also Japanese katana + wakizashi. Chinese usage of a a companion weapon with a dao is usually two twin dao rather than long and short.
Sabre doesn't need a companion as much as a large heavy rapier does. A sabre is lighter and faster, and even if the opponent comes in really close, you can probably bring the point back far enough for a thrust (maybe not if you have a 35-36" sabre, or have short arms without a short sabre to match), and even if you can't you have an effective edge. A big function of a companion dagger with rapier is to discourage the opponent from getting so close that your rapier is ineffective.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Dec 19, 2017 0:57:25 GMT
Philippine espada y daga? Bolo and knife together, both slashy. Also Japanese katana + wakizashi. Chinese usage of a a companion weapon with a dao is usually two twin dao rather than long and short. Sabre doesn't need a companion as much as a large heavy rapier does. A sabre is lighter and faster, and even if the opponent comes in really close, you can probably bring the point back far enough for a thrust (maybe not if you have a 35-36" sabre, or have short arms without a short sabre to match), and even if you can't you have an effective edge. A big function of a companion dagger with rapier is to discourage the opponent from getting so close that your rapier is ineffective. It's a good point that sabers are better for in fighting and don't need a dagger to compensate. I'm also thinking that since saber saw more usage on cavalry, they obviously wouldn't have a use for main gouche. I think the combo would be neat on foot though so I'm trying to figure out if its got a source or is just fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Dec 19, 2017 1:14:32 GMT
Sabre was often used with a companion weapon: pistol. Before pistols, the usual companion would be a buckler or shield. If you don't have a shield or buckler, and don't have a pistol, why not use something in your off-hand?
(There are some reasons not to use an off-hand weapon, even if you could. E.g., KISS can lead to better performance in a fight, because you're less likely to do something silly, grappling/trapping might be a better use for the off-hand (depending on clothes/armour), empty off-hand makes you less likely to put it in harm's way, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Dec 19, 2017 1:27:33 GMT
Sabre was often used with a companion weapon: pistol. Before pistols, the usual companion would be a buckler or shield. If you don't have a shield or buckler, and don't have a pistol, why not use something in your off-hand? (There are some reasons not to use an off-hand weapon, even if you could. E.g., KISS can lead to better performance in a fight, because you're less likely to do something silly, grappling/trapping might be a better use for the off-hand (depending on clothes/armour), empty off-hand makes you less likely to put it in harm's way, etc.) Yep, pistol is a good point, I guess I'm thinking a little bit earlier before revolvers became a common off hand. The down side to any off hand is you also present a bigger target since you can't turn as side face.
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Dec 19, 2017 1:31:11 GMT
Is there any records or references to sabre and main gouche usage? Daggers are commonly thought of as companions to rapiers but all three saw overlap so I'm wondering if they got used with any slashier cousins. Thanks in advance! You’re an R.A Salvatore fan, aren’t you? Hehe
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Dec 19, 2017 2:26:03 GMT
Cant say I am! I play DnD but never read Drizzt, I just like sabers and parrying daggers a lot lol.
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Dec 19, 2017 2:32:57 GMT
Cant say I am! I play DnD but never read Drizzt, I just like sabers and parrying daggers a lot lol. ah. I ask because Drizzt’s arch nemesis (Artemis Entreri) uses exactly this configuration of armament and combats Drizzt’s pair of scimitars often in climactic clashes of whirlwinds of steel. 😊 When I saw your inquiry I immediately thought of Entreri.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Dec 19, 2017 2:36:22 GMT
Cant say I am! I play DnD but never read Drizzt, I just like sabers and parrying daggers a lot lol. ah. I ask because Drizzt’s arch nemesis (Artemis Entreri) uses exactly this configuration of armament and combats Drizzt’s pair of scimitars often in climactic clashes of whirlwinds of steel. 😊 When I saw your inquiry I immediately thought of Entreri. Thanks for mentioning! Makes for a good source of artwork lol
|
|
|
Post by Verity on Dec 19, 2017 2:50:38 GMT
ah. I ask because Drizzt’s arch nemesis (Artemis Entreri) uses exactly this configuration of armament and combats Drizzt’s pair of scimitars often in climactic clashes of whirlwinds of steel. 😊 When I saw your inquiry I immediately thought of Entreri. Thanks for mentioning! Makes for a good source of artwork lol oh for sure.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Dec 19, 2017 3:50:41 GMT
Yep, pistol is a good point, I guess I'm thinking a little bit earlier before revolvers became a common off hand. The down side to any off hand is you also present a bigger target since you can't turn as side face. Before the revolver there were single shot pistols some with double barrels. After the revolver came on the scene the battle experienced officer, as he had a choice as opposed to a trooper who was more restricted, preferred a large bore single shot pistol and usually carried more than one. Colts particularly had a bad reputation. I am speaking from the British stand point, Americans took a different view. The issues the Brits found I also found to be true except for the killing power, I never shot anyone with a black powder pistol. I’ve read from several accounts that the navy calibre would not cut it, again with the Brits. Although Hickcok used a pair of navies with success I think up to the end, but I dare say that his adversaries were of a different nature than the Brits encountered in the 19th century. The Brits found the .36 cal. useless and the .44 marginal, preferring bigger bore single shot pistols although I’ve seen double barrelled pistols favourably mentioned. I found the .36 lacking for my tastes preferring the .44. Colt made .44s prior to their 1860 model that offered more power but they were massive. I by far preferred my Remington .44 repo to any Colt or Colt repo that I tried. The US Army found the same issue of not stopping a charging native in the Philippines after adopting the .38 as standard issue (about the same bore diameter as the .36) and went back to the .45 Colt and later the .45 ACP. The Brits did not like Colt’s cap and ball revolvers although they were popular in the beginning, too many failures.
|
|
Ifrit
Member
More edgy than a double edge sword
Posts: 3,284
|
Post by Ifrit on Dec 19, 2017 5:26:44 GMT
This is actually a combination I too was pondering on. I got a bayonet with a hook shaped guard that I felt would make an excellent off hand dagger to my saber. Interesting thread so far
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 19, 2017 15:35:42 GMT
Yep, pistol is a good point, I guess I'm thinking a little bit earlier before revolvers became a common off hand. The down side to any off hand is you also present a bigger target since you can't turn as side face. Before the revolver there were single shot pistols some with double barrels. After the revolver came on the scene the battle experienced officer, as he had a choice as opposed to a trooper who was more restricted, preferred a large bore single shot pistol and usually carried more than one. Colts particularly had a bad reputation. I am speaking from the British stand point, Americans took a different view. The issues the Brits found I also found to be true except for the killing power, I never shot anyone with a black powder pistol. I’ve read from several accounts that the navy calibre would not cut it, again with the Brits. Although Hickcok used a pair of navies with success I think up to the end, but I dare say that his adversaries were of a different nature than the Brits encountered in the 19th century. The Brits found the .36 cal. useless and the .44 marginal, preferring bigger bore single shot pistols although I’ve seen double barrelled pistols favourably mentioned. I found the .36 lacking for my tastes preferring the .44. Colt made .44s prior to their 1860 model that offered more power but they were massive. I by far preferred my Remington .44 repo to any Colt or Colt repo that I tried. The US Army found the same issue of not stopping a charging native in the Philippines after adopting the .38 as standard issue (about the same bore diameter as the .36) and went back to the .45 Colt and later the .45 ACP. The Brits did not like Colt’s cap and ball revolvers although they were popular in the beginning, too many failures.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 19, 2017 15:43:49 GMT
There was a US service single-shot pistol introduced after the Civil War in, I think, .50 caliber for those who felt the .44 and .45 wasn't enough. But others may have thought one shot wasn't enough, either.
The idea that the .38 Colt revolver was inadequate in the Philipines is well known, as it supposedly wouldn't stop a charging Pilipino with a blade. Yet it was also true that the .30 Army wouldn't either. The next rifle cartridge was also more powerful. I've also read complaints that there was a loss in stopping power when the army went to the .45-70, replacing the .50-70. Apparently, soldiers always believe two things: the rifle they have isn't as good as the one they used to have. And the enemy has better rifles.
|
|
|
Post by willmac on Dec 19, 2017 16:56:10 GMT
As pointed out, this combination of an off-hand bladed weapon with a saber is not historically accurate in European or American history but around the rest of the world, yes it was and is. Specifically the Filipino arts have many variation on this and if you want to see a good demonstration of it, espada y daga, I suggest looking at Tuhon Bill McGrath's videos on Youtube. His interpretation is rather good and would lend well to a Europen saber and shorter companion blade. But there are many other skilled people out there too who play with stance and distances that stem from a more Spanish influenced style seen with rapiers and daggers known as largo mano. Also, there is a much closer-in methodology called Serrada which uses shorter blades and is CQC oriented for indoor or tighter urban environments. All these styles are not "too hard" or "too complex" to be effective as some may believe. People are only limited by what they believe are their limits and these styles were readily trainable with the right instruction and drills. Kuya Doug Marcaida also is a good role model for a more modern approach, again can be found on Youtube videos where he demonstrates "drills" vs real usage, ranges, flow and adaptation. Your mileage may vary.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Dec 19, 2017 17:50:22 GMT
Maybe it depends a lot on the saber. Then again, introducing a second weapon for the other hand might call for a different form of fighting. Keep in mind, if possible, that not all scenarios include fighting another sword-armed individual, though perhaps a knife might suddenly appear.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Dec 19, 2017 18:27:19 GMT
To add on to a previous post, in sabre fencing, or at least the two styles I practiced there really aren't a lot of opportunities to use your second hand, since the systems revolved around keeping only your side presented to you opponent. I'm not how it goes in rapier.
As an aside, I personally wouldn't trust a dagger to parry any decent sabre, it makes sense for thrusts but in my opinion a thrust is far easier to parry in my experience, at least among who I sparred against.
As stated in previous posts, the European companion to the sabre was usually a pistol, stiff upper lip, or a shield in earlier times.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Dec 19, 2017 21:32:13 GMT
Philippine espada y daga? Bolo and knife together, both slashy. Also Japanese katana + wakizashi. Chinese usage of a a companion weapon with a dao is usually two twin dao rather than long and short. Sabre doesn't need a companion as much as a large heavy rapier does. A sabre is lighter and faster, and even if the opponent comes in really close, you can probably bring the point back far enough for a thrust (maybe not if you have a 35-36" sabre, or have short arms without a short sabre to match), and even if you can't you have an effective edge. A big function of a companion dagger with rapier is to discourage the opponent from getting so close that your rapier is ineffective. Yup. Your swinging the shorter, lighter saber around in greater arcs than the big rapier that is mainly used in thrusting and push/pull cuts, and needs the offhand for defense.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Dec 19, 2017 21:42:32 GMT
As pointed out, this combination of an off-hand bladed weapon with a saber is not historically accurate in European or American history but around the rest of the world, yes it was and is. Specifically the Filipino arts have many variation on this and if you want to see a good demonstration of it, espada y daga, I suggest looking at Tuhon Bill McGrath's videos on Youtube. His interpretation is rather good and would lend well to a Europen saber and shorter companion blade. But there are many other skilled people out there too who play with stance and distances that stem from a more Spanish influenced style seen with rapiers and daggers known as largo mano. Also, there is a much closer-in methodology called Serrada which uses shorter blades and is CQC oriented for indoor or tighter urban environments. All these styles are not "too hard" or "too complex" to be effective as some may believe. People are only limited by what they believe are their limits and these styles were readily trainable with the right instruction and drills. Kuya Doug Marcaida also is a good role model for a more modern approach, again can be found on Youtube videos where he demonstrates "drills" vs real usage, ranges, flow and adaptation. Your mileage may vary. I'm no expert, but I think length of blade (longer saber vs. shorter Filipino bolo/kris) probably had a lot to do with duel wielding practicality/feasibility, as longer, heavier blades would present problems for offhand.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Dec 19, 2017 21:47:12 GMT
There was a US service single-shot pistol introduced after the Civil War in, I think, .50 caliber for those who felt the .44 and .45 wasn't enough. But others may have thought one shot wasn't enough, either. The idea that the .38 Colt revolver was inadequate in the Philipines is well known, as it supposedly wouldn't stop a charging Pilipino with a blade. Yet it was also true that the .30 Army wouldn't either. The next rifle cartridge was also more powerful. I've also read complaints that there was a loss in stopping power when the army went to the .45-70, replacing the .50-70. Apparently, soldiers always believe two things: the rifle they have isn't as good as the one they used to have. And the enemy has better rifles. Makes one scratch their head in puzzlement when considering why the U.S. army went with 9mm over .45, particularly with potential use of non hollow point ammo. If one wants more ammunition, why not .40 s&w as compromise? I know answer is bean counter and NATO complexity.
|
|