Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

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

29th November 2006, 05:51 AM	#33
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.