[Chris Evans]

Hi Zifir,

Originally Posted by Zifir

The interest in swordplay with military weapons in general can sometimes be a childish fantasy of fencing enthusiasts.

All too true ,especially by many of the current generation of historical fencers who embrace this pursuit as a form of recreation according to personal fancy, rather than with academic integrity.

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.

European infantry abandoned the sword once the bayonet was invented, because it was a superior weapon. Rapiers and small swords were not military weapons, requiring level ground and plenty of space, and were only worn as status symbols by eccentric officers who did not expect to do any fighting. The nearest the military ever got to these weapons was by way of the spadroon, a heavy version of the edged smallsword, during the Napoleonic wars - Yet the officers who had to used them, regularly complained that they were inadequate to the task of fighting wars.

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.

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.

They were, but by the time troops closed in, one side or the other was in disarray. Where the Europeans gained the upper hand is that they had well disciplined and supplied national armies that could execute complex field manoeuvres whereas their opponents were far less organized, more like what Euro armies were like back in time, before the Renaissance. For example, disciplined and concerted use of Euro Cavalry emerged only in the late 1600s, as exemplified by Prince Ruperts troopers plundering, and thus losing a valuable military opportunity, during one of the battles of the English civil war. After that, cavalry became much better disciplined. Same for infantry - Look at Cromwell's reforms for the New Model Army.

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.

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