Fencing with Sabers

[LabanTayo]

I will have to start looking for it online. Do you know of anywhere in the states to buy it?

[ariel]

Ask Wolviex on this Forum. The best source by far!

[Rivkin]

Well, If one wishes, one can raise many counterpoints to this study, starting with the fact that he did not train with shamshir and therefore might have misundertood the nature of shamshir fencing. However since there is not a single person alive who "really" knows how to use shamshir (i.e. studied under Shah Abbas or something), I guess this comment can be applied to any study of shamshirs.

Attached are a few drawings (c) by Nakov - unsheathing shashka, circular cut, correct way to hold the grip.

[spiral]

So the Polish auther states...

That the Polish saber is "one of the best and most versatile sabers of the world."


mmmmmmm A Slight national pride involved in his oppinion perhaps?

Or with greater benifit of the doubt, perhaps familarity over many years with the style affecting his judgment slightly?

Sounds an intresting work though.

Spiral

[wolviex]

Thanks for the intrinsting thread Ariel!
There was a post started by me on Polish hussars sabre link
so if someone is interest just take a look here.

I'll pass comment now, because of hell I have around for the next few days, so I'll wait until I can take a breath.

The book by Zablocki mentioned by Ariel is quite rare and highly expensive even in Poland, with prices deffinietely over 40$, not mention shipment fees for overseas countries. But if someone really needs the book (which is full of pictures of sabres with measurements) just let me know, I'll do my best, thought it's not easy (I even stopped selling the title on ebay months ago).

Regards!
Michal

[S.Al-Anizi]

Very interesting ariel, thanks for the heads up, I always like the idea of comparing the different types of sabres in the world. Anyway, is there a place where I could buy that book?

As to the shamshir, I always thought that had too much of curve, to use for anything other than swinging cuts from horseback.

Also, if that's too much to ask, where did Mr. Zablocki place arabian swords, and what he commented about them?

[ariel]

Originally Posted by S.Al-Anizi

Very interesting ariel, thanks for the heads up, I always like the idea of comparing the different types of sabres in the world. Anyway, is there a place where I could buy that book?

As to the shamshir, I always thought that had too much of curve, to use for anything other than swinging cuts from horseback.

Also, if that's too much to ask, where did Mr. Zablocki place arabian swords, and what he commented about them?

Zablocki belongs to the Polish school and assigns a lot of importance to the handle. This element, in his opinion, determines the style of usage.He says that the Eastern Arabian (he calls them Damascus) were influenced by Turkish and Persian sabers and are good for swinging cuts from the horseback. Moroccan sabers are also suitable for swinging cuts from the elbow and he loves the support for the little finger.
Here we have a problem: there were so many different blade types used in Arabia that each had its own advantages and problems. My guess (and it is a very personal view) that the obtuse angle of the Arabia-proper sabers would not provide enough support for the hand.
He also does not say anything about Tulwars because he analyzed only sabers that had potential influence on Polish ones. I would love to know what he thought about the ( in my opinion, awful) disc pommel.
Generally, he does not rate them in any order. In his opinion, the Hussar Polish saber is the best (and I agree) and the Shamshir is the worst. Everything else has its own pluses and minuses. However, as you know, the arm attached to the handle is rather important, too
BTW, where did you get the shashka drawings? What is the difference between the two styles of gripping the handle( fist vs. pistol-like)? Which one is correct? I would guess the upper one is good for true swordplay, whereas the lower one mainly for swinging cuts.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Ariel,

Thank you for that terrific and informative post. It would be really nice if that book could be translated.

What I write here is an additional commentary intended to clarify the concept of `fencing' with heavy weapons, and in no way disputes anything in your post. In any event, I am not sure if this belong to this forum as it pertains more to martial arts rather than collecting.

MODERATORS PLEASE ADVISE.

OK. With those disclaimer out of the way, and acknowledging your loose definition of fencing, I'll move on.

Any discussion of so called `fencing' with weapons that had other primary applications is always a vexed one. Perhaps `sword usage' would be more appropriate , as after all, sabres were intended for a specific military application rather than one to one dueling, for which there were much better weapons in Europe.

The great demarcator of sword play is what is known technically single (ST) and double time (DT) fencing. In ST play, the opponents attacks are not parried but rather evaded and then counter attacked, at times with defensive opposition or coverage provided by one's own blade. In DT sword play the attack is first parried by the defender's blade and then a fast counter attack is launched, the riposte. All too often cover or oppostion by the blade in ST, as well as beats and other actions on the opponent's blade are confused with parry-riposte play (DT). I must add that some historical fencers extend the definition of DT to parries made with auxiliary implements such as shields or daggers; Whilst this is true, it is not a common understanding of the term and renders discussion difficult and all too often meaningless.

Whilst some DT moves are possible with heavy swords, they just cannot be moved around sufficiently quickly to reliably intercepts all incoming attacks. Even where a parry succeeds, the riposte may be too slow to reach the opponent, though this is more true of point than edge play. So the weight of the sword is a primary consideration.

In Western European late 18th and 19th century sabre play, high attacks were (at times) parried and low attacks avoided, but rarely, if ever, were both parried as a matter of course, except with the much lighter spadroon. This was because of the ever present threat that the low attack was a feint and once the defender was committed to its parry, the upper regions became irreversibly exposed.

Swordplay using numerous DT moves first became feasible with the lighter transition rapier of the mid 1600s ,that superseded its ponderous predecessor, and came of age with the arrival of the small sword, a much lighter and faster weapon. Fully evolved smallswords weighed around 1Lb, a third of earlier rapiers and about half of late 18th&19th century military sabres.

Military sabres, weighing in the 1.75Lb- 3Lb range are too heavy to allow much DT play and if used alone for dueling (without a parrying implement), deliver a rather uncertain fight, one that depends too much on luck for its outcome, as was the case with the early rapier and broadsword - As a secondary consideration, numerous edge parries result in the rapid destruction of the sword. Hence the constant search for lighter and faster dueling swords, as exemplified by the perfected 19th century weapons, the French epee and the very light Italian sabre.

The primary defensive usage of military sabres was by way of covering: The defender would interpose his blade between himself and his attacker with the result that any cut made and received would land on his sword - This was a favourite technique of cavalrymen, especially if attacked from the left side - Of course, poorly made weak cuts could be parried and riposted, much in the manner of transition rapier play, but the parrying of strong cuts was a very risky business. That very little parrying was expected from military sabres is attested by the sketchy handguards found on so many.

I'll end by adding that point usage with a sabre, whilst fencing, is a very difficult business. In part because, as you pointed out, many do not allow the necessary alignment of the point with that of the arm, and in part because of their poor balance (for this kind of play). Sabres tend to have their point of balance (BP) well forward from the hilt, so as to make them effective cutters. In contrast, fast point re-alignment requires a much more more rearward BP. As well, effective point play usually requires a `on guard' position that leaves the sword arm vulnerable (to `time-cuts') .

Nevertheless, experts endowed with unusually strong sword-arms and fingers, and being well versed in point play with foils could fence well with a sabre, as for example Sir Richard Burton ad Cptn Hutton, though this was the exception rather than the rule. The English fencing historian Egerton Castle devoted a fair bit of space to this topic in his book and to which I refer readers interested in this fascinating subject. Unfortunately, IMHO, Castle was not as clear as he could have been and failed to sufficiently distinguish between the various cutting weapons and as such must be read with care - Nevertheless, he is very informative and remains one of the best resources to date in English.

Cheers
Chris

[S.Al-Anizi]

Originally Posted by ariel

Zablocki belongs to the Polish school and assigns a lot of importance to the handle. This element, in his opinion, determines the style of usage.He says that the Eastern Arabian (he calls them Damascus) were influenced by Turkish and Persian sabers and are good for swinging cuts from the horseback. Moroccan sabers are also suitable for swinging cuts from the elbow and he loves the support for the little finger.
Here we have a problem: there were so many different blade types used in Arabia that each had its own advantages and problems. My guess (and it is a very personal view) that the obtuse angle of the Arabia-proper sabers would not provide enough support for the hand.
He also does not say anything about Tulwars because he analyzed only sabers that had potential influence on Polish ones. I would love to know what he thought about the ( in my opinion, awful) disc pommel.
Generally, he does not rate them in any order. In his opinion, the Hussar Polish saber is the best (and I agree) and the Shamshir is the worst. Everything else has its own pluses and minuses. However, as you know, the arm attached to the handle is rather important, too
BTW, where did you get the shashka drawings? What is the difference between the two styles of gripping the handle( fist vs. pistol-like)? Which one is correct? I would guess the upper one is good for true swordplay, whereas the lower one mainly for swinging cuts.

Thanks ariel. I would also have liked to see what he would have said about tulwars. Which polish sabre style is he referring to, there are many?

Excellent post Chris

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by S.Al-Anizi

As to the shamshir, I always thought that had too much of curve, to use for anything other than swinging cuts from horseback.

I disagree, Saqr. Certainly the extremely curved examples are nearly useless for a linear thrust, and far from optimal for any thrust, but a slash from an unmounted fighter would work just fine with those.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Andrew

I disagree, Saqr. Certainly the extremely curved examples are nearly useless for a linear thrust, and far from optimal for any thrust, but a slash from an unmounted fighter would work just fine with those.

My only hesitation is that the functional "uselessness" of the blade segment from the point of persussion to the very tip of the sword shortens its working span. I tried to wield some highly curved shamshirs and, just like with Black Sea Yataghans, it was quite difficult to judge the distance.
Surely, a well-placed slash with a shamshir would be highly efficacious, but to place it well while pretending to fight on foot presented a problem, at least for me. Must have required a different system of fencing.

Let's not forget that Mr. Z. was a professional fencer and valued speed, economy of movements and precision very highly. I guess the ability to stop the blade, to turn it on a dime and to precisely assess the distance must have been highly valuable for him. I am unaware of any written contemporary manuals of shamshir fighting. Or Yataghan, in the same vein. In general, it was mainly Westerners who had the compulsion to classify, systematize and put on paper everyting. But, as they say " If you do not write it down, it does not exist"....

[ariel]

Originally Posted by spiral

So the Polish auther states...

That the Polish saber is "one of the best and most versatile sabers of the world."


mmmmmmm A Slight national pride involved in his oppinion perhaps?

Or with greater benifit of the doubt, perhaps familarity over many years with the style affecting his judgment slightly?

Sounds an intresting work though.

Spiral

Surely, there was a lot of national pride and there is, indeed, something to be proud of! However, he also values Swiss cavalry sabers very highly.
I handled a couple of Polish Hussar sabers and they are a dream! The balance is perfect, the thumb ring allows one an almost microscopic degree of blade control and thrusting is easily accomplished. Importantly, the limited curve allows one to use the very point of the blade and even a slight facial cut would disorient the opponent and allow the definitive movement to be made.
I also agree with him and Saqr about shamshirs: they are far too curved. What it means in practice, the percussion point is too far from the tip. It is ideally suited for mowing down fleeing infantry enemies from the horseback because the height of their heads and torsos will match perfectly the distance to the percussion point. However, the blade's point (tip) is so far behind that to use it one needs to overextend the arm and even twist the wrist down. In a one-on-one combat that would mean opening the head and the right arm completely with no possibility of quick recovery. Also, the thrust is virtually impossible, because the axis of the arm and that of the blade can not coincide under any circumstances.

[spiral]

Originally Posted by ariel

Surely, there was a lot of national pride and there is, indeed, something to be proud of! However, he also values Swiss cavalry sabers very highly.
I handled a couple of Polish Hussar sabers and they are a dream! The balance is perfect, the thumb ring allows one an almost microscopic degree of blade control and thrusting is easily accomplished. Importantly, the limited curve allows one to use the very point of the blade and even a slight facial cut would disorient the opponent and allow the definitive movement to be made.
I also agree with him and Saqr about shamshirs: they are far too curved. What it means in practice, the percussion point is too far from the tip. It is ideally suited for mowing down fleeing infantry enemies from the horseback because the height of their heads and torsos will match perfectly the distance to the percussion point. However, the blade's point (tip) is so far behind that to use it one needs to overextend the arm and even twist the wrist down. In a one-on-one combat that would mean opening the head and the right arm completely with no possibility of quick recovery. Also, the thrust is virtually impossible, because the axis of the arm and that of the blade can not coincide under any circumstances.

Thankyou, I must admit I havent handled a Polish Sabre, they do sound interesting from your discription.


I have a curved Afghan /uzbekistan sabre which while not as extreme of curve as some shamshir, but is still deafinatly heading for that catogary but Ive found if one turns it tip down instead of tip up it would thrust very well, & turning the wrist to turn the blade horizontal in a swing helps slow & allows me to redirect it. {Of ourse this implys no handgaurd parralel to the grip.}

Ive only had it a couple of months so I would guess people who grew up & trained using them may have other tecniques to minimise the percieved disadvatages some western trained swordsmen may percieve?

That said, it curve miust have been made for someone of the exact reach & movement as myself. Which Obviously doesnt always occur when we pick up old swords built for others.

Spiral

[katana]

Excellent thread guys...
....I too ....would have liked to see them test the Tulwar.

[ariel]

Spiral,
This is the exact problem with shamshirs: we are trying to reinvent the wheel!
Unless Persians were complete dolts who created their national weapon for purely esthetic reasons and then suffered its awkward shape, they must have known something that we do not.
Seriously, they must have had a system to handle shamshirs with extremely curved blades! But unless they codified this system in a written form, we will never understand how to wield this darn sword! As I said before, "If you did not write it down, it never happened". Very frustrating....
On the other hand, we may be imposing different standards: we are authomatically assuming that every sword should be fit for an intricate and controlled swordplay. Perhaps, Persians did not give a fig about "fencing" and used shamshirs as pure slashers....
Nothing "Eurocentric" about it: Westerners fell in love with Japanese or Chinese swordplay head over heels. They are foreign and exotic, for sure, but there is obviously a System. Western mind loves order and control and is ready to accept a different way of expression as long as it is codified. Perhaps, "Islamic" swordplay was not rigid enough and that what baffles us.
Where are all those art and arms historians when you need one?
The same pertains to the Yataghan.