Fencing with Sabers

[Zifir]

Emanuel, it's probably out of the topic but you may wanna check this out.

http://www.thehaca.com/Videos/NTCvid...dmaterials.htm

[Emanuel]

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

[Chris Evans]

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

[Chris Evans]

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

[ariel]

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!

[Zifir]

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.

[The Double D]

Originally Posted by Yustas

Thank's Zifir,
Can i find this book on the web?

If you need a book the first place to look is www.abebooks.com.

Here is the link to the hit list.A survey of The Turkish Empire by William Eton

[Chris Evans]

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.

Originally Posted by ariel

Chris,
The latter placed heavy weigth on " swordplay" and that might not have been true for the "Oriental" usage.

This whole question of what constitutes swordplay IMHO is much misunderstood. Back in the 60s I talked to a number of Eastern Euro regimental sword masters and they all said that military use of the sabre was extremely basic - This is reflected even in Patton's system. There just was no time and facilities to turn out highly skilled swordsmen in conscript armies. What counted was basic dexterity and not complex techniques. Apropos to which I recall being told that when Hungarian cavalry took part in the Invasion of Denmark in the 19th century, a military observer remarked that the highly trained Hungarians could dispense a number of cuts for every one handed out by the Danes and who were thus overwhelmed.

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.

I think that the Euros had always a tendency to impute some supranormal abilities to races other than their own. I hasten to add that this is not entirely without foundation because from what I know of Japanese sword play, they spent enormous amounts of time and energy in developing said supranormal abilities to compensate for what they lacked by way of technique. As an aside, this is where I think that oriental swordsmanship can be very badly underestimated - Technically they may have been backward, but the psychological aspects of their training, at least for the accomplished ones gave them a huge invisible advantage.

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.

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.

I totally agree with you. What we call fencing almost completely came out of smallsword usage. This is readily seen when we examine the direction that even military sword usage took after around 1700 and what inspired the changes. For example the system devised by Angelo for broadsword usage, or Radaelli's system for the sabre, which was derived from the foil. As to how much of this type of fencing was and could be put into practice, except for a few very highly motivated and trained officers, I remain unconvinced.

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!

In the absence of anything better, perhaps you may care to read something on Japanese swordsmanship, at least to get an idea of how the Oriental mind approached the problem. I say forget the junk literature written by the enthusiasts, but concentrate instead on the works of serious academics. I can recommend some good titles if you are interested.

Cheer
Chris

[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

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

Here is an interesting link:


http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/zabl...breFencing.htm

Cheers

Chris

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi Folks,

Here is an interesting link:


http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/zabl...breFencing.htm

Cheers

Chris

Chris,
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