|
Post by Tiers1 on Mar 30, 2019 10:26:29 GMT
So I just watched a clip I have yet to see, supposedly of one of the best movie sword fights ever made where realism is concerned. It from a Polish film called 'The Deluge,' with sabers.
From what I know to be a fact, if a hardened sword edge comes into contact with another similarly hardened sword edge at high speed, both edges will be gouged and the entire sword is potentially compromised...hence the focus on trying hard to avoid edge on edge contact in classical sword based martial arts and be very prompt and decisive unarmored. These two dudes were absolutely going to town on edge to edge to the extent that the edges would be obliterated, yet the final blow was one that required a keen edge. Perhaps these sabers were classically only sharpened on the last 6" (as I have heard before) so there are able to beat the crap out of the other 24" and then just strike with the last 6?
Any thoughts? I was pumped to see this and then left somewhat disappointed by ye 'ole movie trope of attack the other guy's sword instead of the man holding it...
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 30, 2019 11:29:58 GMT
I really don't have a lot of experience with a variety of fighting styles, but the one I've studied doesn't discriminate when it comes to edge blocks. The theory is that since the other guy is trying to kill you and therefore you are trying to avoid being killed in the process, the edge of the sword is nothing more than a means to an end. If the edge is damaged in a fight, but you survive, the edge can be repaired. But if you fight trying to preserve the sword, then the sword will survive and your opponent will take possession of it after he cuts you in half (which can't be repaired). And in sparring, the fights only last a few seconds anyways- just long enough for one person to land a strike. If a blade gets chipped in the process then it will probably make a more jagged wound that will bleed out faster. In many ways, sharpness is overrated, but that's a discussion for another thread.
The blocks I've learned involve a follow-up strike that depends on the edge having a certain orientation. Kind of a circular or figure eight action. So block, roll or slide around the opponents blade, strike- it's over. I know other techniques involve different actions- but that's why swords are all different shapes and sizes because they are all employed in a different fashion.
As far a sabers go....I really can't answer for that specifically.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Mar 30, 2019 14:39:22 GMT
I don't do sabre but i believe it is mostly edge on edge parries. Edge on edge is also very common in other systems such as longsword and sidesword.
Sure your edge will get chewed up, but if minor it can be fixed. And if unfixable, then hey at least you defended your life and that takes priority over the sword.
Also consider that you often parry with the strong or middle of the blade but cut with the weak. So even if your strong is chewed up it can still cut the other guy just fine.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 30, 2019 14:49:09 GMT
Sabre is a game of tactics. It is common to the obscene to strike only to be parried, As a strike is a set up for another strike. I thought the fight was fairly good in terms of visuals, because let's face it it would be be boring if the fight went "strike parry strike parry strike slip kill", As the fight also acts as a narrative device. One man is portrayed to be cool, collected, and merciful, whilst the other is overconfident, flailing, and shameful. Most sabres move too slow for a first parry - riposte action to be fatal. You have to set up your opponent to make a mistake and let his guard open, or put your forte across his blade quick enough before he can parry a thrust. When both opponents are very skilled, a fight can last awhile, especially if there's no outside threats, eg; it's a duel, and you have time to set your opponent up and play through different games and use different tactics. Edge parrying is the only way to parry in many sabre systems, in fact in a later manual it is specifically taught NOT to parry with the flat as not to damage the sword through way of bending it. I have actually bent a sabre this way in sparring - my sparring partner threw a cut, and I parried it accidentally with the flat due to a too thin handle. The blade took a bend that looked like an archery bow. Edge damage will happen no matter what you hit, and most sword guards in history protrude to protect and knuckles first. My service sharpened KS52 made in 1860 and used in either the Austro Prussian or Franco Prussian war (some research potential there to see in which war the unit it's marked to saw action) has a number of nicks, As does my sparring sabre. Here is a pic of some of the edge damage. imgur.com/QwNYChPFinally, If you will some experimenting - take a sabre if you own one and bring it to salute, than extend the arm upwards such that your arm is in a right angle, the blade covers your head, and the point is pointing slightly towards your opponent. Make sure the flat is pointing to the sky. Then have your opponent take an almighty blow across the flat of the blade. If the sword doesn't bend, it will blow through your guard position. It's about body mechanics as well. Blocking or parrying with the knuckles facing is far far stronger than the back of hand or palm facing. The condition of your edge matters much less than the condition of your hand.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 30, 2019 14:57:29 GMT
the final blow was one that required a keen edge. Perhaps these sabers were classically only sharpened on the last 6" (as I have heard before) so there are able to beat the crap out of the other 24" and then just strike with the last 6? You also have this a little bit backwards. Often times, in later military sabre the blade is sharpened 2/3rds of the way up, or half of the way up. 6 inches would be too little of the blade for an effective cut, and Colonel Mary Monge wrote in his book the most effective place to cut is 16 inches down the blade no matter what the sword. On my service sharpened examples I have seen anything from 2/3rds, 1/2, to the entire blade. It was up to the armorer or the officer. Parries are made with the forte, but the part being parried will usually be a little under the point of percussion or part of the blade where it was wanted to connect. So either way there will be some damage to the sword. It should also be noted that a nick does not dull a blade, It simply creates a nick in the blade. The edge will still be sharp.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Mar 30, 2019 16:19:54 GMT
My US m1840 seems to have seen a lot of fighting in its time. Both the foible and the forte, as well as the basket, are nicked up pretty good. The flats seem fairly pristine (other than loads of black patina). fwiw
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 30, 2019 16:42:12 GMT
@willaims I felt your input interesting and informative. I had not considered my blade bending when hit from the side. But then with a one hand grip I would never parry using the side due to the body mechanics. However that is an attraction to me to use a two handed sword as I can rotate the blade presenting the side, actually to some extent the edge of the spine to take the impact. I saw the instructor’s iaito with marks there when the light hit it.
With a one handed sword I have to offer the cutting edge to parry or whatever will come crashing through, I need to keep all of those joints straight and in line, and I can’t help but to think of that precious edge and that raises another question. Clothing offers a surprising amount of resistance to a cut and according to what I see on YouTube it takes a very sharp edge to reliably cut through. My attempts to cut clothing in the back yard have been less than satisfying. In actual combat my edge will get banged around some I find it less sharp which makes me question its effectiveness pushing me more into the thrusting school. I do not sharpen the entire blade leaving the forte alone to better stand a parry. I also found your quote that the 16” point is the most effective cut area interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 30, 2019 17:03:41 GMT
pgandy The book I pull it from is the book "A memoir on swords", by colonel marey monge. It's a very interesting book, and goes into a lot of detail about cutting and blade dynamics. I think you could probably find a PDF online, but here's a digital transcript I found. archive.org/details/MemoirSwords/page/n34Whenever I spar I try to cut to what I think are the primary targets, The head/neck, the arms and wrists, and the legs. I don't feel very satisfied about body shots usually. Clothing is surprisingly cut resistant, especially by straighter swords, As you and I have both learned in our tests apparently
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 30, 2019 17:47:33 GMT
To actually cut with a sword requires a specific technique. It's not just swinging around like a baseball bat- there needs to be a lateral motion down the blade. It's hard for me to describe in words, but you can press a sharp blade into your hand at 90 degrees and it won't cut. But take the same blade and move it down the palm of your hand while also pressing, and you will be getting stitches for sure. The style I learned combines a forward motion of the arms with movement of the body to enable the cutting action- again, it's hard to describe in words. At the time of the strike, the blade must be moving laterally (either forward or back) or it won't cut very effectively. This is also why it really isn't going to be much of a problem if you have a nick or two on your edge because during the strike, the chips will tear as well as slice and make a very ugly wound (which is kind of the idea in the first place). And it's also why we can shave with a straight razor and not cut our own heads off- for as long as the razor is parallel to the skin, it won't cut you, but as soon as you start moving it laterally...yeah...
Perhaps this is best discussed in another thread because it gets into some pretty complex geometries and also fighting philosophies.
What I can say for sure, is that cutting a pool noodle will certainly let you know if you've got it right or not. Those things are unforgiving of bad technique.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Mar 30, 2019 18:06:45 GMT
The concerns of edge on edge contact have always been massivley over stated. Yes, it is possible that when two sharp swords have their edges collide they can gouge each other. However keep in mind that in a fight, a sword is a tool to defend your life. Getting a few notches is totally worth not dying. You could always repair the damage later or just buy a new sword. Furthermore, a "real" sword fight almost never lasts beyond a handful of exchanges. Hell, plenty of fights will never even have a parry in them. Person X lunges person Y doesnt get their sword up in time, boom. Fight over. To sustain significant edge damage in the first place, you and your opponent would have to hammer away at each others blades for a few minutes and thats just not gonna happen. Most importantly, this idea is moot because dozens upon dozens of original saber manuals explicitly tell you to parry with the edge.
As to your point about parts of the szabla being unsharpened like later sabers, I can say with certainty this was not the case. I'm kinda obsessed with szablas and all of the museum pieces ive looked at and really accurate replicas Ive purchased have been sharpend the entire length. Polish Saber utilized a lot of draw cutting, which the heavily curved blade assists with. If only the last third of your saber is sharp, you have a smaller surface to draw across your opponent, thereby weakening the technique. To see this principal, check out shapenening on other curved draw cutting swords like the tulwar, kilij, and shamshir. They are all sharpend from the guard up.
Finally, the Deluge fight in particular. TO add some more context, Michal (the shorter fencer) is toying with his opponent the whole fight. The reason you see this protracted parrying in a very historically accurate movie, is because Michal is just demonstrating how effortlessly he can beat his opponent. Thats why he switches hands and taunts the tall man for swinging his szabla like a flail. Once his points been made, Michal stops chasing his opponents sword and instantly strikes the head, proving he could have ended the fight at any time he pleased up until then.
Edit: Oh and to address another one of your points about the final blow demonstrating a fine and undamaged edge, keep in mind parrying is usually done with your forte (the botton third of your sword) and strikes are done with the foible (the last third). Michal was parrying with his forte, so even if his saber did get gouged, the damage would not be on the portion of the sword he landed his blow with.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 30, 2019 18:29:41 GMT
To actually cut with a sword requires a specific technique. It's not just swinging around like a baseball bat- there needs to be a lateral motion down the blade. It's hard for me to describe in words, but you can press a sharp blade into your hand at 90 degrees and it won't cut. But take the same blade and move it down the palm of your hand while also pressing, and you will be getting stitches for sure. The style I learned combines a forward motion of the arms with movement of the body to enable the cutting action- again, it's hard to describe in words. At the time of the strike, the blade must be moving laterally (either forward or back) or it won't cut very effectively. This is also why it really isn't going to be much of a problem if you have a nick or two on your edge because during the strike, the chips will tear as well as slice and make a very ugly wound (which is kind of the idea in the first place). And it's also why we can shave with a straight razor and not cut our own heads off- for as long as the razor is parallel to the skin, it won't cut you, but as soon as you start moving it laterally...yeah... What you are describing I know as a sabering cut , aka slicing cut, and I am aware of that. My testing technique leaves something to be desired which is a free standing bottle that does not offer as much inertia as a man would or one that is too solidly fixed, but so far is the best I can do. Of the two I prefer the free standing bottle. I have taped at times two together bottles together to increase the resistance and I wish my supply would allow me to do that more often. I have no problems slicing “naked” bottles including gallon size heavy walled jobbies. But once I start put clothes or a scatter rug(s) over the bottle to simulate street clothing or a gambeson the story changes. I find thrusts much more effective getting through. Knit offers more cut resistance than board cloth due to its ability to stretch. Certain type of cloth will offer greater cut resistance, silk for example. But that is a field all to itself, I can only speak in generalities.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 30, 2019 18:46:32 GMT
No argument there. I expect the real thing would be over in seconds. not much more than a swish, swish, and I’d rather the edge be damaged than me. Aside from the fact that by the time I pay international shipping, custom fees, and sometimes a lawyer, the price of a sword at least, at least doubles, I am discouraged from buying high end swords because after it’s all over the sword will be damaged. How badly? I do expect the quality to be sufficient that the sword doesn’t fall apart on me. As for Polish swords being sharpened the full length I’m not arguing that, but not all nations, nor personnel for that matter, followed that line of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Mar 30, 2019 18:50:45 GMT
No argument there. I expect the real thing would be over in seconds. not much more than a swish, swish, and I’d rather the edge be damaged than me. Aside from the fact that by the time I pay international shipping, custom fees, and sometimes a lawyer, the price of a sword at least, at least doubles, I am discouraged from buying high end swords because after it’s all over the sword will be damaged. How badly? I do expect the quality to be sufficient that the sword doesn’t fall apart on me. As for Polish swords being sharpened the full length I’m not arguing that, but not all nations, nor personnel for that matter, followed that line of thinking. I just brought up that fact about szablas because the OP was referring to the Deluge duel which had szablas. Sabers having a sword of parrying bar at the base was a later development and some nations like Spain did find it useful. I look at it as part of Western Europes "smallswordification" of sabers.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 30, 2019 19:40:56 GMT
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that thrusting will go right through pretty much everything but heavy chainmail and plate armor. Again, though, we've had these discussions in various threads about the tactical use of a sword as a sidearm, not a primary combat weapon. So if the opponent is wearing armor, it's best to use another tool for the job rather than a sword.
But for sake of this discussion, I am making the assumption that the combatants are wearing street clothes only. In that circumstance, there are many good cuts you can do that will defeat even heavy clothing. And always keep in mind that a disappointing 2" deep cut during practice on a water bottle or tatami mat will translate into a crippling slash to the forearms of an actual opponent. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but 2" deep into my wrists will sever everything important that I have going to my hands. Hard to continue fighting when you can't hold as sword and your blood pressure is rapidly dropping. Not every sword hit has to cut the dude in half to end the fight.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 30, 2019 20:37:15 GMT
Granted; in street clothing a backyard cut that halves a jug is not necessary. And to tell the truth I would much prefer ending the fight by breaking a clavicle or fracturing the forearm with a dull blade; that makes for fewer legal waves. Talking about those “disappointing 2” deep cuts”; during practice this morning with my cutlass I misjudged the distance passing the tip completely through the jug horizontally but not far enough in to split the jug. When I visualized the jug as a person a shuttered. He was definitely out of action. That is if the blade didn't tangle in his clothing.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 30, 2019 22:10:48 GMT
Granted; in street clothing a backyard cut that halves a jug is not necessary. And to tell the truth I would much prefer ending the fight by breaking a clavicle or fracturing the forearm with a dull blade; that makes for fewer legal waves. Talking about those “disappointing 2” deep cuts”; during practice this morning with my cutlass I misjudged the distance passing the tip completely through the jug horizontally but not far enough in to split the jug. When I visualized the jug as a person a shuttered. He was definitely out of action. That is if the blade didn't tangle in his clothing. Strike- opponent moves- tip slice 2" deep belly cut- intestines ooze out - sword tangles on jacket zipper- thrust through the kidney/spine- end of discussion. It's not wrong if it works. We should always practice to perfection, but we should not judge ourselves too harshly if, at the end of the day, our technique was ugly but it got the job done.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 30, 2019 23:15:20 GMT
Edge parrying is the only way to parry in many sabre systems, in fact in a later manual it is specifically taught NOT to parry with the flat as not to damage the sword through way of bending it. You parry using your edge. Ideally, you parry against their flat. This means you will be deflecting their blade, not stopping it hard - you don't have to worry about a forceful blow pushing through your block. I have a Moro kris with a cut on one of the flats - it appears to have been on the receiving end of a hard parry.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 30, 2019 23:48:53 GMT
Edge parrying is the only way to parry in many sabre systems, in fact in a later manual it is specifically taught NOT to parry with the flat as not to damage the sword through way of bending it. You parry using your edge. Ideally, you parry against their flat. This means you will be deflecting their blade, not stopping it hard - you don't have to worry about a forceful blow pushing through your block. I have a Moro kris with a cut on one of the flats - it appears to have been on the receiving end of a hard parry. I've never run into that in my fencing career so far, unless you mean in binding work or when you beat against their blade. In the military sabre sources I've studied, you parry or block with by putting your forte in the path of their blow. I haven't encountered very much actual rerouting of the blade except in "St. George's guard", where in different variations you have different ways of letting the blade slide off your own blade, but in sparring it tends to be a risk. In most others parries, you tend to immediately riposte after a parry or block.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 31, 2019 4:47:51 GMT
One example:
... and another:
You don't always have the option against cuts, and you often can't hit the flat evenly on the flat but instead hit it at an angle. Movement - which you don't always have time for - might be needed to be able to parry against the flat. If you can't parry against the flat, not a problem - just do what works. Against a thrust, you are more likely to hit the flat evenly.
This is not unrelated to unarmed parries where (a) you get out of the way, and (b) you parry as (i) insurance in case you didn't get out of the way as well as you planned, (ii) stop them from following your movement with their attacks, and (iii) restrict their movement after the parry. The slip is the primary defence, the parry is secondary. Translate this to sword vs sword, and it's void the attack as the primary defence, and parry as secondary. If you're close enough, you don't parry their sword - you parry against their forearm. This might not stop their sword (ideally, it won't stop their sword!). Thus, it's a good idea to not be in the path of the sword.
The advantage over just sticking your forte in the path of the blow is that (a) you can stop stronger blows with less effort, and (b) riposte faster (as long as you don't overdo it - parry just far enough and not too far). And be less likely to damage your edge, but IMO that's a lesser consideration than (a) and (b).
Le Marchant's manual is interesting. He write that in a guard position with the sword horizontal in front of the face,
and later,
He also has parries with the spine.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Mar 31, 2019 6:20:34 GMT
There is a parry against thrusts in my manual with the back edge, however it states it's only to be made against slower weapons such as bayonets or heavier sabres.
I can't comment at all on polish sabre, only military manuals post 1845, and specifically the infantry manuals, which in the American late new manual sabre makes no mention that I see so far in it of making parries with the flat. There are some pretty big differences between the sabre Le Marchant uses and practically all the sabres (aside from the foot artillery men) used after the period of the 1796.
The Easton video, to be honest the only spots I see flat striking is when Easton ripostes, and knock the weak of his blade against the flat of his opponent, the cut of which he does is meant to actually cut to the arm or mid body, and the spot in the video wherein he demonstrated the weakness of the foible parry.
If I understand you correctly, you posit that a parry should be made by placing your flat in the path of their flat, or junction of flat and spine?
There is a section in the American new manual of 1872, where he describes why the cut number 3 is bad because your opponent can cut down across the flat and the spine, but this is incredibly awkward to-do as we found because it basically throws the blade into your gut, and it is more risky than the typical half circle or point down parries. All the other parries are shown and described with the edge of the forte meeting the attacking edge, aside from the aforementioned back of edge for slower thrusts.
|
|