Fencing with Sabers

Chris Evans · 28th November 2006, 07:40 AM

Hi Zifir,

Many thanks for that most informative post. I wonder what was the weight of those Turkish sabres. Were they ever used with a shield, or always alone?

Cheers
Chris

ariel · 28th November 2006, 12:10 PM

Zifir,
Great quote!
I just wonder whether the author referred to Turkish kilijes that are highly esteemed by Mr. Z., to modestly curved sabers ( same) or to highly curved shamshirs. The statement that " ... the nearer it is to spear or lance...the better" is enigmatic: are we talking about length ( cavalry estoc?) or to limited curvature? I have never seen a saber that would be as long as a spear

Also, the author says that "the push with saber only is preferred for cavalry" which supports the idea that it was a primarily " one slash" cavalry weapon rather than an instrument suitable for swordplay.
Not so?

Zifir · 28th November 2006, 02:56 PM

For the weight of sabers I am not very knowledgeable. As far as I understood there was no standard weight, everyone chose a sabre suitable to its strenght.

The statement about " ... the nearer it is to spear or lance...the better" is also puzzling to me. What does he mean by it is not clear. Same is valid for "crooked". What does it exactly mean in English, I am not sure if the author meant a highly curved kilij or a modestly one.

Here is some more quotes from the same book:

Quote:

Their best Turkish sabers have one great defect, brittleness; they are apt to fly like glass by a blow given injudiciously, though a person used to cut with them will, without any danger of breaking saber or turning its edge, cut through an iron nail as thick as a man’s finger.

Quote:

As soldiers, even the best taught to use crooked sabers, are not always so calm in action as to make the best use of it, a blade tempered in the manner of the best blades in Europe is preferable, provided the edge be perfectly sharp, and the angle of it not too acute; and as to the crooked form, it also requires coolness and knowledge to use it, for if the part which bends most forward and the point do not descend in a straight line (i.e. if the edge and the back do not descend in the same line) the point will turn the saber sideways by its weight, as soon as the crooked part strikes, and prevent its cutting; for this reason a straighter blade, in an ignorant or timid hand, is preferable; but a light blade and thin hilt is absolutely necessary for the safety of the soldier. It may be remembered that the Romans, with their short swords, had a great advantage over the Gauls, whose long heavy swords soon tired them. A Turk, with his light short saber proportioned to his strength (for they are not long taking the chord of the segment) will not tire so soon as an European with his long heavy saber. I speak of cavalry, for the saber, after the invention of bayonet, is a bad weapon for infantry.

Yustas · 28th November 2006, 03:38 PM

Thank's Zifir,
Can i find this book on the web?

Emanuel · 28th November 2006, 08:18 PM

Wasn't the kilij also used by infantry among the Ottoman/Turkish troups? This would inply a far more complex system of sword-play than simply slashing from horse-back.

Zifir, this quote
"Their best Turkish sabers have one great defect, brittleness; they are apt to fly like glass by a blow given injudiciously, though a person used to cut with them will, without any danger of breaking saber or turning its edge, cut through an iron nail as thick as a man’s finger."
relates well to the True Combat Value of Wootz thread...I assume a perfect draw cut would be needed to cut through the nail rather than a simple edge-on hack as that would shatter the blade?
What I mean is, would the cut nail be a result of a drawing motion or simply due to the impact of the edge?

Emanuel

Chris Evans · 29th November 2006, 02:21 AM

Hi Zifir,

Again many thanks for your extremely informative quotes from that book.

I believe that this material is highly relevant to another concurrent thread, "True Combat Value of Wootz", and I think that you or the moderators should cross-post it there as well.

Cheers
Chris

Chris Evans · 29th November 2006, 05:51 AM

Hi Folks,

1. I still have trouble understanding why we are so infatuated with one to one sword play with military weapons.

For one, we all know that military weapons evolved to do one job well and every other application was secondary - The curved sabre was the weapon of the light cavalry. For an infantryman a sword without a shield can only be a secondary weapon and even then a short sword is more useful - Long blades are very encumbering, just think of that equally long scabbard dangling at one's side, never mind the unfavourable leverage of a lengthy sword with a short handle and the ensuing tiredness.

2. We also know that excepting the bronze age ,`heroic' (in the classical Homerian sense) battle-field duels were fairly rare - Simply not enough time and above all, efficient warfare demands team work and not opportunity wasting displays of prowess by individuals. Also, we have to remember that dueling was a particularly European social phenomena, a by product of the emergence of a bourgeois Renaissance middle-class. This kind of dueling was not widely found in other cultures, and even where it was present, as in Japan, it did not take on the same formalized intensity that would demand the technical refinenement of specialized dueling swords, as in Europe.

3. We have to keep in mind that the concept of using a sword alone for both defending and offending is something that evolved from the advent of the rapier in Europe. Up to that time swords were seen primarily as weapons of offence and this is reflected in the simplicity of their hilts, something paralleled by all Eastern swords, except the Indian gauntlet sword. For defence there were shields, left hand daggers, capes, armour, or all else failing, the left hand. Egerton Castle wrote extensively on this theme and his book is worth a read; This, because blade on blade actions are fundamental and largely indispensable to the very concept of `fencing' and demand a very special sword: Light and fast! Used in this way, even the very best sabres are poor performers. It was only after Radaelli, in the second half of the 19th century that a refined and complex methodology for the sabre emerged - Up to this time the sabre was seen as a coarse tool for the military and its wileding not much of an attainment.

3.1 It is precisely because of the inability of heavy swords to afford reliable defence (even the early rapier was best used with a parrying dagger or cape) that specialized single combat swords evolved, such as the epee, and with it the art of fencing.

3.2 Something that we also have to factor into our thinking is that edge parries, even with all the care in the world, quickly destroy a sword and could only be practiced once steel production reached such quantities that swords could be treated as disposable items.

4. I find it quite ironical that the we , perhaps unconsciously, start out with the paradigm established by the fully evolved dueling sword and then retrospectively try to project it onto to all kinds of weapons that were simply never intended for that kind of usage. To be sure there always was skill in using weapons, but systematized and technically complex fencing, that is, beyond the obviously correct (smart as opposed to dumb and adroit vs clumsy) ways to use them, was the product later ages. Even in Japan, fencing was only perfected during the peaceful centuries the Tokugawas and not during the era of continuous warfare.

5. I include some historical engravings that illustrate how curved swords were used in India. I think that it is safe to extrapolate that they were used in much the same way elsewhere. These pictures demonstrate that shields were considered the way to go and not even the courageous Englishman, Mr Shore armed with a stirrup hilted sabre, thought of indulging in a sabre alone fencing match against someone with better defences. That shields later became obsolete simply indicates that the nature of the encounters fought in war changed as the deployment of cavalry changed.

Cheers
Chris

Zifir · 29th November 2006, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yustas

Thank's Zifir,
Can i find this book on the web?

Unfortunately, no. These are the notes that I took when I read that book long time ago. Until I saw this topic, I had completely forgotten about them. I think only places to find it are libraries or some rare book dealers if they have any copy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manolo

Wasn't the kilij also used by infantry among the Ottoman/Turkish troups? This would inply a far more complex system of sword-play than simply slashing from horse-back.

I believe so. We have to be careful not to subscribe to the views of the European traveller/spy? accounts too readily. This guy was writing in a time when the superiority of Western military over Ottomans was already proven. His approach and views inescapably carry that self-confidence and also negligence over what he regarded as backward. But as long as we don't have a manuscript or a manual about such techniques, we can only speculate about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manolo

Zifir, this quote
"Their best Turkish sabers have one great defect, brittleness; they are apt to fly like glass by a blow given injudiciously, though a person used to cut with them will, without any danger of breaking saber or turning its edge, cut through an iron nail as thick as a man’s finger."
relates well to the True Combat Value of Wootz thread...I assume a perfect draw cut would be needed to cut through the nail rather than a simple edge-on hack as that would shatter the blade?
What I mean is, would the cut nail be a result of a drawing motion or simply due to the impact of the edge?
Emanuel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Zifir,

Again many thanks for your extremely informative quotes from that book.

I believe that this material is highly relevant to another concurrent thread, "True Combat Value of Wootz", and I think that you or the moderators should cross-post it there as well.

Cheers
Chris

We cannot be completely sure but I think he refers to wootz blades. I don't know if cutting through an iron nail thick as a man's finger thing is true. We might need mythbusters to prove or disprove such a thing.

Maybe there are some members who knows more about this, or came across such references.

Emanuel · 29th November 2006, 03:10 AM

Hi Zifir,

Thanks for the clarification! I can put into better words my confusion so far, and I can ask my question to the experienced metallurgists as well.
When hitting the iron chain/nail/armour/whatever, does the blade cut through the material or just break through it? Will the perfectly-forged wootz blade cut into the iron as it would cut into the wooden block, or does it split the iron from shear force?

Many thanks,
Emanuel

The Double D · 29th November 2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yustas

Thank's Zifir,
Can i find this book on the web?

If you need a book the first place to look is www.abebooks.com.

Here is the link to the hit list.A survey of The Turkish Empire by William Eton

29th November 2006, 05:51 AM	#7
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Hi Folks, 1. I still have trouble understanding why we are so infatuated with one to one sword play with military weapons. For one, we all know that military weapons evolved to do one job well and every other application was secondary - The curved sabre was the weapon of the light cavalry. For an infantryman a sword without a shield can only be a secondary weapon and even then a short sword is more useful - Long blades are very encumbering, just think of that equally long scabbard dangling at one's side, never mind the unfavourable leverage of a lengthy sword with a short handle and the ensuing tiredness. 2. We also know that excepting the bronze age ,`heroic' (in the classical Homerian sense) battle-field duels were fairly rare - Simply not enough time and above all, efficient warfare demands team work and not opportunity wasting displays of prowess by individuals. Also, we have to remember that dueling was a particularly European social phenomena, a by product of the emergence of a bourgeois Renaissance middle-class. This kind of dueling was not widely found in other cultures, and even where it was present, as in Japan, it did not take on the same formalized intensity that would demand the technical refinenement of specialized dueling swords, as in Europe. 3. We have to keep in mind that the concept of using a sword alone for both defending and offending is something that evolved from the advent of the rapier in Europe. Up to that time swords were seen primarily as weapons of offence and this is reflected in the simplicity of their hilts, something paralleled by all Eastern swords, except the Indian gauntlet sword. For defence there were shields, left hand daggers, capes, armour, or all else failing, the left hand. Egerton Castle wrote extensively on this theme and his book is worth a read; This, because blade on blade actions are fundamental and largely indispensable to the very concept of `fencing' and demand a very special sword: Light and fast! Used in this way, even the very best sabres are poor performers. It was only after Radaelli, in the second half of the 19th century that a refined and complex methodology for the sabre emerged - Up to this time the sabre was seen as a coarse tool for the military and its wileding not much of an attainment. 3.1 It is precisely because of the inability of heavy swords to afford reliable defence (even the early rapier was best used with a parrying dagger or cape) that specialized single combat swords evolved, such as the epee, and with it the art of fencing. 3.2 Something that we also have to factor into our thinking is that edge parries, even with all the care in the world, quickly destroy a sword and could only be practiced once steel production reached such quantities that swords could be treated as disposable items. 4. I find it quite ironical that the we , perhaps unconsciously, start out with the paradigm established by the fully evolved dueling sword and then retrospectively try to project it onto to all kinds of weapons that were simply never intended for that kind of usage. To be sure there always was skill in using weapons, but systematized and technically complex fencing, that is, beyond the obviously correct (smart as opposed to dumb and adroit vs clumsy) ways to use them, was the product later ages. Even in Japan, fencing was only perfected during the peaceful centuries the Tokugawas and not during the era of continuous warfare. 5. I include some historical engravings that illustrate how curved swords were used in India. I think that it is safe to extrapolate that they were used in much the same way elsewhere. These pictures demonstrate that shields were considered the way to go and not even the courageous Englishman, Mr Shore armed with a stirrup hilted sabre, thought of indulging in a sabre alone fencing match against someone with better defences. That shields later became obsolete simply indicates that the nature of the encounters fought in war changed as the deployment of cavalry changed. Cheers Chris Last edited by Chris Evans; 29th November 2006 at 11:58 AM.

28th November 2006, 07:40 AM	#1
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Hi Zifir, Many thanks for that most informative post. I wonder what was the weight of those Turkish sabres. Were they ever used with a shield, or always alone? Cheers Chris

28th November 2006, 12:10 PM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Zifir, Great quote! I just wonder whether the author referred to Turkish kilijes that are highly esteemed by Mr. Z., to modestly curved sabers ( same) or to highly curved shamshirs. The statement that " ... the nearer it is to spear or lance...the better" is enigmatic: are we talking about length ( cavalry estoc?) or to limited curvature? I have never seen a saber that would be as long as a spear Also, the author says that "the push with saber only is preferred for cavalry" which supports the idea that it was a primarily " one slash" cavalry weapon rather than an instrument suitable for swordplay. Not so?

28th November 2006, 03:38 PM	#4
Yustas Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 40	Thank's Zifir, Can i find this book on the web?

28th November 2006, 08:18 PM	#5
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Wasn't the kilij also used by infantry among the Ottoman/Turkish troups? This would inply a far more complex system of sword-play than simply slashing from horse-back. Zifir, this quote "Their best Turkish sabers have one great defect, brittleness; they are apt to fly like glass by a blow given injudiciously, though a person used to cut with them will, without any danger of breaking saber or turning its edge, cut through an iron nail as thick as a man’s finger." relates well to the True Combat Value of Wootz thread...I assume a perfect draw cut would be needed to cut through the nail rather than a simple edge-on hack as that would shatter the blade? What I mean is, would the cut nail be a result of a drawing motion or simply due to the impact of the edge? Emanuel

29th November 2006, 02:21 AM	#6
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Hi Zifir, Again many thanks for your extremely informative quotes from that book. I believe that this material is highly relevant to another concurrent thread, "True Combat Value of Wootz", and I think that you or the moderators should cross-post it there as well. Cheers Chris

29th November 2006, 03:10 AM	#9
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Hi Zifir, Thanks for the clarification! I can put into better words my confusion so far, and I can ask my question to the experienced metallurgists as well. When hitting the iron chain/nail/armour/whatever, does the blade cut through the material or just break through it? Will the perfectly-forged wootz blade cut into the iron as it would cut into the wooden block, or does it split the iron from shear force? Many thanks, Emanuel