![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 228
|
![]()
Emanuel, it's probably out of the topic but you may wanna check this out.
http://www.thehaca.com/Videos/NTCvid...dmaterials.htm |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,242
|
![]()
Excellent site Zifir!
Good demonstrations of cutting techniques. Too bad they only cover European straight swords and not curved sabres as well. Among the last clips, there is one in which the swordsman hacks into a tree (bamboo) and eventually snaps the blade in half...I think it perfectly shows a break from lateral stress as the blade bit into the wood and was pulled sideways. Thanks! Emanuel |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 675
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 675
|
![]()
Here are the pics.
Unfortunately, because of the file size limit, the captions cannot be read. In the one of single combat we see an Englishman fighting with an Indian and both are armed with a curved sabre and shield. In the other, an English officer is rescued by an armoured Indian ally armed with curved sabre and shield. Note how on the left plate, another Englishman intervenes in the fight with a pistol - No sense of fair play! ![]() Cheers Chris Last edited by Chris Evans; 29th November 2006 at 12:01 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]()
Chris,
I think you are correct and that is exactly what I was saying: in the absense of original codified manuals on how to use the "Oriental " saber ( sorry for the term, but it is just a matter of convenience), we resort to European sources. The latter placed heavy weigth on " swordplay" and that might not have been true for the "Oriental" usage. We know from contemporary travelers that "Orientals" often astonished them by their feats of whole body evasion ( jumping, shifting etc) and we also know that shields were in use in the "Orient" until very recently. This would suggest that fencing as we understand it was not developed; the techniques were reliant on one slashing cut rather than on sophisticated array of parries, ripostes, lunges etc. what we need is a reliable description of the "Oriental" saber use, akin to multiple European manuals. Even gleaning a snippet of info here and a hint there would not be enough: too much will be filled by the compiler's bias, enthusiasm and imagination. We need to see a Rosetta Stone of Oriental fencing: a true manual! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 228
|
![]()
Hi,
The interest in swordplay with military weapons in general can sometimes be a childish fantasy of fencing enthusiasts. If you visit the fencing forums, you would come across many topics and pages of speculations on encounters of different type of swords. But I think such curiosity has a firm basis beyond a fantastic side. In Eastern European battlefields it would not be an impossible situation that someone with kilij or yatagan faced with someone with rapier or small sword. I agree that warfare in early modern age required team work and formations but still until the early nineteenth century battles were fought in very close quarters, thus close encounters with swords must have been possible. The question comes to my mind is that what were the possible results of such encounters. I do not mean necessarily who won or who had the superior techniques, but the possible results of such experiences in knowledge basis. For example did Ottomans develop some methods on how to deal with someone using rapier, or Austrians vice versa? If we consider that these people had been dealing with each other in warfare since the sixteenth century, unlike Indian-English encounters which only took place in the late eighteenth century, it is possible to speculate there must have been interesting results of such interaction. In that sense, my interest in a fencing manual on West Asian swords (whether it be for a kilij or a yatagan) has such concerns. But I agree that until the existence of such material is proven, it does not exist. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: On the banks of Cut Bank Creek, Montana
Posts: 189
|
![]() Quote:
Here is the link to the hit list.A survey of The Turkish Empire by William Eton |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 | ||||
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 675
|
![]()
Hi Ariel,
We are in total agreement. My verbiage is simply meant as an elaboration, and perhaps a general adverse reaction to the current interpretations of historical swordsmanship. Quote:
Quote:
I personally know of an Asian gentleman, now in his 70s, who is a genuine master of a martial art and he showed me some truly mind boggling displays of what he was capable by way of judging timing and distance. Not much by way of technique, but more like greatly diminished reaction time and very high quality, yet simple movements. Quote:
Quote:
Cheer Chris Last edited by Chris Evans; 30th November 2006 at 09:25 AM. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 | ||||
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 675
|
![]()
Hi Zifir,
Quote:
Quote:
Something else that is worth bearing in mind is that infantry did not attack infantry until their formation was broken by either artillery, cavalry or musket fire and started to retreat - Otherwise, the outcome was unpredictable. Same for cavalry. In such encounters the exact nature of the weapon in hand counted for far less than discipline in making an orderly, as opposed to panic driven retreat. In cavalry melees, horsemanship and team work, and the odd pistol shot, carried the encounter. Patton made it clear that the first task in such instances was to kill the opposition's officers so that the troopers would lose leadership. He id not spell out that they were to be run through from behind, but that was the clear implication. Chivalric combat has no place alongside team work. Quote:
Quote:
There there always outstanding swordsmen in the ranks of all sides and these men, despite their side fleeing the field in disarray after a defat, managed to best their otherwise victors. One example that comes to mind is how Musashi managed to survive the terrible slaughter that followed the defeat of his side at the battle of Sekigahara. But these were the exceptions and did nothing to turn the tide of a battle. In war, very rarely does a specific variation on a weapon make much of a difference, supply (for one) being far more important - There were exceptions, of course, such as the advent of the flintlock and the bayonet, when opposed to the primitive matchlock musket and later the invention of the rifled musket, but not much else. Most of the real damage was done by artillery fire. Read Tolstoy's account of the battle of Borodino, and also his accounts of the irregular warfare in the Caucasus. As a final comment, encounters with dissimilar weapons are always decided by tactics and strategy and which side did his homework better. Read Hutton's writings on sabre vs smallsword, or those of Angelo. He who knows his opponent's weapon better and has practiced for it has a huge advantage. Cheers Chris Last edited by Chris Evans; 30th November 2006 at 09:29 AM. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 675
|
![]()
Hi Folks,
Here is an interesting link: http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/zabl...breFencing.htm Cheers Chris |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#41 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]() Quote:
This is a much, much better summary of Mr. Z.'s book than I attempted to provide. Many thanks. Folks, now you can get it straight from the horse's mouth. BTW, I got several rather nasty e-mails accusing me of anti-Persian propaganda, Shamshir-hatred, ethnic prejudice, lying, ignorance etc. I would like to point out to these anonymous correspondents that I just cited ( and rather accurately, as the above link proves) Mr. Z.'s evaluation. He is a professional swordsman and did an extensive work comparing various designs of sabers. Whatever one thinks, please do not shoot me: I am just a messenger ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|