Fencing with Sabers

[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.

[Zifir]

This is a short part from William Elton, esq., A Survey of the Turkish Empire, London, Printed for T. Cadell, jun. and W. Davies, 1799. on Turkish sabers. It might be for some interest.

The art of tempering their sabers is now lost, and all the blades of great value are ancient; however, their saber is superior to any of ours in its form and lightness. It is a great error in all the cavalry in Europe to have heavy sabers; I have often heard old German soldiers complain of it, and an old soldier is a good judge. It seems preposterous indeed to make all the sabers in a regiment of equal weight, without regard to the strength of the arm to use it; besides, a sharp light saber will make a deeper cut than our heavy sabers now in use. Among the Turks, every soldier chooses his own saber, and takes such a one as he cam manage with ease; thus, if he misses his stroke he can recover his guard, whilst a man with heavy saber is lost. The part grasped by the fingers in European sabers is much too thick, and weakens the hold. Much is talked in Europe of the balance of a saber by making it heavy in hand (The fulcrum is the fore-finger, and the back part of the hand presses down the pommel; but a man in battle does not keep his hand at one height; he lifts up his arm, and consequently has the weight of the handle of his saber to lift up, and the power is in the elbow and shoulder, not in the wrist alone. It cannot be expected that men in action, particularly new troops, will use their sabers in the same manner they do on field days.) ; this cannot be the case in any degree, except the knob or pommel project out of the hand towards the elbow, which will enable him raise up the point quick by the force of the wrist, after he has given a blow; but the weight of the fall of the blow is diminished in both cases. Let any man strike a blow with a saber heavy in the hand, and then take out the blade, and put on it a light small handle, and strike another blow with it, and he will find the difference. Let him strike with each fifty blows as quick as he can, and observe the difference in time, and the fatigue, and he will be convinced. The sharpness of the edge of the Turkish saber, and the velocity which the arm gives to a light weapon, compensates for the weight of the saber. All their attention has been paid to the saber for ages, with it they conquered their empire, and it certainly deserves some attention for cavalry. The edge of our sabers is never sharp enough, and the angle of the edge is too acute. In regard to its crookedness it has advantage, as a blow straight down gives a drawing cut; and it is a good defense, for the arm being held out horizontally with the saber upright in the hand, a small motion of the wrist turning the edge to the right or left, covers the body by the crook of the saber; the shoulder of the edge, not the edge itself, forms the parry. Fencing with crooked saber was formerly taught to the janissaries. The push with the saber only is preferred for cavalry, the lighter and longer the saber is better, and the nearer it is to a spear or lance. The blow upwards is esteemed the most dangerous by the Turks, as it is the most difficult to parry.

[Chris Evans]

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]

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?