|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I can't speak with any authority, but I'm under the impression that modern fencing originates from street-fighting tactics used during the Italian renaissance--how to fight with a good sword, no armor, and a cloak wrapped around your arm or a dagger for parrying with the off-hand. Bolding for emphasis. Part of what makes different schools of sword fighting is not just who lived and who died, but also in-fighting/dueling within a region. Different cultures come up with their own ways of waging warfare. I don't know the history, but I do know that in addition to French and Spanish, there are also Italian, German and Polish styles (schools) of fencing.
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
By 'german' fencing, do you mean Academic Fencing? Because that's a style where you stand stock-still and let the other guy whack you in the face with a sword so you get a neat scar. No, really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
dromer posted:Speaking of swords, I've noticed that a lot of posters reference different "schools" of swordfighting. Did these all branch from a main source or did they just appear as some people got inordinately good at killing people? there are several schools of sword fighting that we know of. as far as late middle ages goes the 2 biggies we have documentation for Whats refereed to as the German school seams to relate back to Liechtenauer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Liechtenauer The Italian school relates back to Fiore dei Liberi who seamed to influence latter masters or at least vocabulary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiore_dei_Liberi ounce we get in the renaissance there a a lot more schools as far as the death of armor a lot of that goes to the prevalence of pikes and artillery. Infact Agrippa laments that it is destroying martial and masculine values
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:By 'german' fencing, do you mean Academic Fencing? Because that's a style where you stand stock-still and let the other guy whack you in the face with a sword so you get a neat scar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Wait, they still fence to intentionally get scarred to this day?  I always thought Germany had mostly discarded the more militaristic aspects of its culture by now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Wait, they still fence to intentionally get scarred to this day?  ) on the wikipedia page is Polish, I think. Christ, that would own. I wonder, if I bribed someone to look the other way... And (in the 19th century at least) they didn't exactly think about it as "militaristic." It's violent, yes, and you're abandoning your self to danger and thus hopefully attaining some sort of transcendence, yes, but it's also entirely self-directed: the only person telling you that you have to do this is you. That's why it's the most perfect symbol not of their aristocracy, who were not the primary demographic for college, or therefore of their officer corps, but for 19th century liberal individualism. The nobles weren't the ones who were super into dueling, it was the bourgeoisie. Max Weber, for instance, was in a dueling frat in college and I think he wrote something about how rad it was. After all, the scar makes men more beautiful. (They literally believed this, which is why whenever I hear evopsych people talking about universal standards of beauty, I laugh and laugh. Sometimes they'd sew horsehair into the cut so it'd heal rougher.) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Sep 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
Since I been in to HEMAintrigued by Mensur here are the goggles if you want to give it a try. http://www.thatguysproducts.com/goggles.html here is a video of a match https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlf6i8_7UAU
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
quote:German Fencing stuff Every time I'd heard German fencing mentioned it was always in the context of making a joke about having a bitchin' fencing scar after someone had scored a point from a face hit. So yeah, I guess that's the one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Perhaps a bit off topic but while not strictly militaristic the Studentenverbindungs (the people who tend to do Mensur in Germany and somewhat equivalent to a much more serious version of American frats) do tend to be right-wing as gently caress. When I was in university there the only people who were in them were from upper-class conservative families and you needed to be a full-blood male German in order to be a member. No women or foreigners allowed, at least not in the town I was in. They were not looked upon kindly by the rest of the student population and were mostly seen as a stepping stones to patronage appointments in government or big business. There was a bit of a scandal while I was there when a Studentenverbindung in Mannheim was suspended from membership in the national organization of Studentenverbindungs for admitting a Chinese* student as a member. The fencing might be interesting but the culture that when with it was pretty poisonous in my limited experience. *Said Chinese student had been born in Germany and held German citizenship. Both his parents were also German citizens and had come to Germany long before he was born. At least one held a fairly high office in the German government. Still, he was not German enough for the Studentenverbindung!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:It's fast too, like you would not believe. I have a friend who carried water for those guys. They still don't let women fence so she doesn't have a bitching scar. Too bad--she's this pretty blond Quebecois chick who studies the Merovingians, one of two human beings I've ever met who looks good in a fedora. She would have rocked a fencing scar. EDIT: Answered by the post above.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
I should be a bit more be fair; Studentenverbindung is a fairly large term and there is a gradation in their politics and culture. The Burschenschaft are a type of verbindung that is more right-wing and nationalist while I think some (not all) of the Catholic ones are more liberal (although still all-male and typically all-German). If I recall properly it was primarily Burschenschaft verbindungs that were involved in the scandal I mentioned. The town I was in seemed to have quite a large portion of Burschenschaft but none of the verbindungs had a particularly good reputation among the non-verbindung students who made up the majority of the student population.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Testikles posted:EDIT: Answered by the post above.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
dromer posted:Speaking of swords, I've noticed that a lot of posters reference different "schools" of swordfighting. Did these all branch from a main source or did they just appear as some people got inordinately good at killing people? Assuming you mean schools in a historical context rather than modern places to learn swordsmanship. There were influential sources but the traditions are most likely (semi-)parallel development. Surviving literature only goes back to about 1300 (I.33 was in 1299) but nothing in the literature seems to suggest the techniques were a new thing at this time. The Liechtenauer tradition seems to have been very influential in German fencing. Paulus Kal refers to the “Society of Liechtenauer” and fencing guilds refer to him (the Freifechter & Marxbruder), and later authors such as Talhoffer may have been associated with those groups. However, if I remember correctly Liechtenauer’s Nurnberger Handschrift (3227a) says he is teaching the same thing as has come before, and the I.33 is an earlier source strongly suggesting that there was at least some understanding of the same principles before Liechtenauer. That said, the Merkverse of Liechtenauer was a sort of code, partly mnemonic (using poetry to make it memorable) and partly so that the unfamiliar would struggle to understand it. This implies some secrecy, although I'm not sure how seriously to take that - Fiore claims to have studied with many masters, suggesting they were not too exclusive in their teachings. Fiore de’i Liberi wrote that he studied with ‘countless’ masters from both Italic & Germanic lands, which tells me there were differing schools by Fiore’s time. There seems to be a Fiore tradition, a Bolognese Tradition, then a later Florentine tradition etc. Some claim connections to each other, some don’t. In short, I do not think it all started with a single point, I think they came from a lot of different origins. EDIT: I found this link which gives an interesting interpretation on the Liechtenauer tradition vs Fiore. http://historical-academy.co.uk/blog/2013/01/25/for-beginners-fiore-or-liechtenauer/ Essentially it argues that Fiore's work is excellent for foundations, while Liechtenauer's system is a little more complex, uncommon, or even exotic - that maybe Liechtenauer's system is more a specialist system for fighting against swordsmen skilled in conventional systems. It might explain why Merkverse was used. I'm not entirely convinced by this but it certainly seems worth exploring. Railtus fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:So it wasn't about her fedora. OK. Sadly not. I was wondering how I could get in on some academic fencing action but it seems like I'm not the right kind of white to join.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
One of my favorite movies in the whole world is Sunshine (1999). It's got a great cast, amazing performances, everything that should have made it into a Big Deal. The problem, as I see it, is that Americans just do not care about a movie set in Hungary. However, that's not at all what my question is about. My question is, is the fencing shown in the middle part of the movie accurate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:One of my favorite movies in the whole world is Sunshine (1999). It's got a great cast, amazing performances, everything that should have made it into a Big Deal. The problem, as I see it, is that Americans just do not care about a movie set in Hungary. I have never seen it. Do you have any links at all to some of the fencing? I would actually really enjoy doing another fight analysis like I did with Rob Roy. On that note, if there any more movie swordfights anyone wants me to comment on. Link it up and I would be more than happy to do so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
Testikles posted:Sadly not. I was wondering how I could get in on some academic fencing action but it seems like I'm not the right kind of white to join. Also, not very much unlike American fraternities, where you can be treated as a servant for your first year, Studentenverbindungen make the 'Füchse'(the initiated, i.e. 'foxes') do lots of lovely jobs and challenge their manlyhood in excessive drinking games. But the drinking never really stops, it's just a part of the interfraternal competition as the fencing. So it's unlikely that you will get the academic fencing (as said is not much more than whacking each other in the few parts of the face that aren't covered by a mask) without excessive forced drinking and vomiting in buckets (for the honour of the Burschenschaft!) Here's a small clip from the German film 'Der Untertan' (engl. 'the man of straw') that illustrates the way of the 'mensur' (around 1900): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=sSyEwZ7Zg5c#t=86 expl.:  "You have insulted my friend." "But I don't even know your friend!" "No matter. You have insulted my friend and the honour of my fraternity. Will you give satisfaction....or are you a cowarrrd?!"It's very interesting to see that fencing was more used as an almost industrial tool for producing manly scars - scars that told everybody you were a member of a (then) prestigious fraternity. I'm not sure if the fraternities and 'burschenschaften' which still do it have freed up this way of academic fencing, but at least from this perspective it sure doesn't look like much fun. SavageGentleman fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Railtus posted:I have never seen it. Do you have any links at all to some of the fencing? I would actually really enjoy doing another fight analysis like I did with Rob Roy. Awesome. I don't think there are any better movie swordfights than the duel at the end of Rob Roy, but I thought this movie did Medieval violence pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxcIA5-kWvc Fighting starts at about 1:00. Also, question about a thing that happens in the movie (minor spoiler for Ironclad): To break the siege King John has them burrow a big tunnel under the castle and fills it with live pigs. He then traps the pigs inside and sets them on fire. The heat from their burning fat cracks the stone and collapses the main tower. Is that a thing that really happened? This is the climactic duel at the end of the film if you want to analyze a Templar vs Viking fight instead of the chaotic melee in the first video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhWM40bd-ac Fight starts at about 1:21
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
Sexgun Rasputin posted:Also, question about a thing that happens in the movie (minor spoiler for Ironclad): To break the siege King John has them burrow a big tunnel under the castle and fills it with live pigs. He then traps the pigs inside and sets them on fire. The heat from their burning fat cracks the stone and collapses the main tower.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Using pigs is probably much more impractical than say pine resin or even just tinder though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
veekie posted:Using pigs is probably much more impractical than say pine resin or even just tinder though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:I know; like, why the hell would you waste food like that? Not to mention that at the time this was set nobody kept the pigs they "raised," they let them run around in the woods and rounded them up for a few weeks every year in the fall. I mean, how would you even be sure you could get pigs if you relied on that strategy? Well in the context of the movie King John has all the resources and supplies he needs to build any kind of siege engine he can dream up to oust the scrappy band of freedom lovers from the castle they're holed up in. It's not explicitly stated in the movie but one advantage of using pigs instead of pine resin and tinder is that you can herd pigs where you want them to go. I guess they had to use some kind of flammable material to start the fire in the first place and keep it burning long enough to turn the pigs into candles though so... I guess they didn't need the pigs but it sure does make Paul Giamatti look like an rear end in a top hat for burning pigs alive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Railtus posted:I have never seen it. Do you have any links at all to some of the fencing? I would actually really enjoy doing another fight analysis like I did with Rob Roy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
Railtus posted:I have never seen it. Do you have any links at all to some of the fencing? I would actually really enjoy doing another fight analysis like I did with Rob Roy. Sure, I'll bite. Hector vs. Achilles in troy. Fight start at about 1:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1slkFc7YBkc
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
HEGEL CURES THESES posted:I know; like, why the hell would you waste food like that? Not to mention that at the time this was set nobody kept the pigs they "raised," they let them run around in the woods and rounded them up for a few weeks every year in the fall. I mean, how would you even be sure you could get pigs if you relied on that strategy? There was an episode of Time Team (UK tv archeology series) that mentioned pigs being used in that manner, they were dead pigs not live ones and they had a much higher proportion of fat on the carcass than you get nowadays giving you a better burn. When a king requests pigs, you get pigs. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 11:20
|
|
|
Sexgun Rasputin posted:Awesome. I don't think there are any better movie swordfights than the duel at the end of Rob Roy, but I thought this movie did Medieval violence pretty well: I love that movie. The fighting is fierce, it is mostly pragmatic without too many showy frills, and while it does not match the fechtbucher too closely (though does give some nice nods like half-swording) often a real fight does not match the textbooks too closely either. Overall I really enjoyed it. First thing, for the spoiler: Yes, it is a thing that really happened. It did happen at that specific siege: King John did write a letter requesting they be sent to him, and explaining why he wanted them (which does match up with the movie). Whether they were alive or not at the time I am not sure. To start with the first fight scene, the camera switches too much to see that much actual fighting going on. You see individual strikes connecting but not much more. There is perhaps too much fisticuffs going on at the start, and the punches seem a little too effective when they connect to gambeson-armoured bodies; I would have preferred to see a grappling hold or arm-break or something used to get their weapons off the mooks than a fist, but it’s a really small issue. Around 1:47 at least one Templar has his back and flank a little too exposed for him not to be attacked. The Danes are awfully obliging in waiting their turn. However, there are some neat techniques like striking with the haft/butt of the warhammer, which works very well because you are normally defending against swings from the head and that usually leaves you vulnerable to the other end. While Templars are admittedly awesome, there is a little too much ‘waiting-your-turn’ done by the Danes. However, one thing that becomes apparent through the film is that the Danish leader (Tiberius) has no real enthusiasm for King John’s cruelty, so it may be that he and his men were not too eager to risk their lives too much for the sake of torturing a priest. However, the slams and jabs with the butt or the horn of axes is something very much really done – because a big axe swing is telegraphed and the jab or hooking motion is often required to disrupt your foe enough for the major blow to connect. Now, the climactic duel! Tiberius = axeman = Dane leader. Thomas = swordsman = Templar. To start off, I will ignore the fact that Tiberius is not wearing armour despite having more access to it than anyone else. This is how I ignore things. The double-bladed axe is not the most realistic weapon either, but it’s done well enough to be overlooked. Anyway, starting from 1:12, when Thomas wakes up. First thing I see him doing is half-swording. I like him already. In an enclosed space with a Grete Sword of Werre (Great Sword of War) that makes a lot of sense. It gives him enough leverage to bind the axe the way he does, and while I cannot see clearly enough to view their respective weapon positions at 1:16, my guess is that while he had bound the axe he was not in a position to stab instead of kick. If someone is standing on a spiral staircase, kicking them down it wins the silver medal for me. Alright, the axeman kept his balance, but it was worth a try, especially if you had no guarantee of being able to stab him. Note the axeman does not stick around in the confined space. Very good move on his part considering his weapon. On that note, for the swordsman to step out might seem an unwise move. Then again, defeating the leader in single combat might convince the others to back off more than hiding in the stairwell would. The guard you see around 1:45 is a long point. The purpose is more or less what you see: the opponent needs to beat your point aside before he can reach you, especially since Thomas has the longer weapon. Tiberius makes sure not to telegraph his attempt to beat it aside, which is a good move, because of this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCzrZ9optXw – if Thomas saw the swing coming, he could just move his blade out the way and attack. Next swing, Thomas blocks in half-sword. A hard stop like that is not the ideal counter, but he was clearly reacting quickly and could not choose the perfect response. Works fine for me. Then they go into a bind, presumably Thomas does not want to be hooked with the axe. The spin at 1:48 looks overly flamboyant, but it’s probably an attempt to disarm Tiberius because the axe is hooked on his sword. You actually do see some spins like that in dagger play, as shown in the first 30 seconds of this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TzdtyMC7ek – the specific move with the spin is at 0:25 of that video but you really need to see the moves before that to understand why the spin makes sense. Immediately attempts to jab him once they escape the bind. The swing at 1:50 is a little too obvious and easy to avoid. The duck and spin was very risky, because the axeman could have just adjusted the angle of his cut and caught his head. Frankly I would have liked to see Thomas use his sword to cover his head while he dodged. The wide swing Thomas uses is not an advised move, but it certainly makes sense in that context: you are both unbalanced, this is your chance to kill him now. At 1:55 the big swing is again too exposed. Normally that would be the perfect time to stab him or cut him while covering high (a thrust from Ochs would be appropriate or maybe a zwerch at the arms) but Thomas did not react in time; he was in the wrong guard, probably a resting guard because he is tired, he is beaten down and he’d only recently regained consciousness. Instead, he deflects the force of the strike, which is preferable to trying to block a blow like that at least – in fact, one reason why he didn’t strike while covering high is that he might not have expected the cover to stop the blow. At 1:58, Tiberius uses the hook of his axe effectively to bind and force Thomas’s blade down, then jab him with the top of the axe. Really, Thomas was lucky only the blunt part hit him. Thomas recovers quickly – far faster than I would have if clubbed in the face with the top of an axe, but this was something people trained for, some fencing had a rule called the Afterblow to get fighters in the habit of still attacking once they have been hit. Also, I like that he struck with the crossguard. This was a good opening and he took it. Then Tiberius jabs back, regaining the initiative. I like it because it shows how attacking can function as a defence as well. You see this in German swordsmanship, the focus on forcing your enemy to defend. Weapons cross again, and at 2:04 Thomas had a good opportunity. When Thomas manages to wrestle with the sword so it is pointing up rather than down, look at the way Tiberius is pulling. If Thomas had not tried to keep his sword vertical, he would have had a good chance of cutting or thrusting Tiberius right then and there. My guess is he was struggling with the effort. The exchange around 2:07 is more or less a repeat of the first exchange of blows. However, it shows the problem with predictable attacks. This time Thomas shows a really effective counter, at 2:09 punches him in the gut with the crossguard, then immediately follows up by using the other end of the sword like a sharp staff to slice into his side. Normally spins like that are not used, but Tiberius already had his back to Thomas anyway and was recoiling from the sword cut he just received, so it makes a lot of sense. That blow actually made my day. The powerful axe blow slams into his side, and they do not shy away from showing that the impact was not fun. However, the armour worked. Yes, Thomas is in a lot of pain now, but without the armour that would have disembowelled him on the spot. The big thing I like about this is the fighters react when they get hit; they try to counterattack as though trying to stop the opponent from pressing their advantage. We get to 2:20 and I am a little confused. We see a nasty wound on Tiberius’s arm, but he seems to be swinging and then losing his balance as though it is his leg that is hurt. Wrong injury, dude. The dramatic swings make sense though with both fighters injured. Tiberius is too hurt to truly press the assault, but does not want to give the Templar time to recover. At 2:58, all I can say is if you try to stop an axe like that, what else do you expect to happen? Bearing all your weight on the sword, edge-on-edge impact, and to make things even worse, the blow was not even going to hit him. I blame it on Thomas being exhausted. His recovery immediately afterwards I find a little too convenient. Suddenly he is able to immediately deflect properly, get up and counterattack. Maybe he was playing possum and was not as badly hurt as he looked? However, Tiberius was also badly hurt, so it would have made more sense if he recovered sooner to get up and press his own attack instead. Overall, though, a very fun fight to watch. It uses what I consider appropriate imperfections in technique that matches a real fight. It showed armour doing its job, it showed the fighters reacting quickly and having to make decisions in real-time, it showed half-swording, attacks made with intent (they go for where was undefended), and it highlights the importance of grappling and wrestling to medieval armed combat. The spins, while looking dramatic, were not out of place. It shows enough trickery, enough tactics, to add a little extra for those people with a working knowledge of swordsmanship. You can see principles of realistic fighting at work in the scene. Buried alive posted:Sure, I'll bite. Hector vs. Achilles in troy. Fight start at about 1:30 Will do yours next. The last analysis was about 1700 words so yours shall be tomorrow. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
Something I was always curious about, what is the main issues for stuff like dual wielding in the first place, in terms of something like two swords which seem popular in fantasy. I've heard things like it would he very hard to concentrate or that the sword on your weaker hand would just be a liability. Why is it generally considered a dumb thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:Something I was always curious about, what is the main issues for stuff like dual wielding in the first place, in terms of something like two swords which seem popular in fantasy. I've heard things like it would he very hard to concentrate or that the sword on your weaker hand would just be a liability. Why is it generally considered a dumb thing?  It's not, since you can parry with the off-hand weapon. It's just not used as much--or in the same way as--it gets used in D&D and fantasy novels. Railtus posted:First thing, for the spoiler: Yes, it is a thing that really happened. It did happen at that specific siege: King John did write a letter requesting they be sent to him, and explaining why he wanted them (which does match up with the movie). Whether they were alive or not at the time I am not sure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:Something I was always curious about, what is the main issues for stuff like dual wielding in the first place, in terms of something like two swords which seem popular in fantasy. I've heard things like it would he very hard to concentrate or that the sword on your weaker hand would just be a liability. Why is it generally considered a dumb thing? The use of left-handed weapons was quite common and arguably the norm, if you conceive of shields as a weapon. They were used to shove and bludgeon opponents, or to trap weapons. The small buckler type shield was particularly handy for this purpose, and sword-and-buckler fighting seems to have been popular throughout the period but especially so in the later middle ages and renaissance. Some contemporary illustrations show bucklers with large central spikes on their faces to improve their lethality as weapons. The sword-and-dagger style was also very significant during the renaissance, perhaps the main method of single combat and self defense, with the dagger held in the left or off hand to be used mostly for parrying but also to strike or to bind the opponent's weapon. These daggers were often specially designed for parrying, such as the main-gauche (literally meaning "left hand"). The realism issue with depictions of "dual wielding" in video games and fantasy is that they tend to show characters with something like a longsword in either hand. Ambidexterity is pretty rare so few people are going to be able to use either hand with equal effectiveness. With two full size weapons, you would most likely just get in your own way, particularly since your off hand is going to be clumsier and weaker. It's better to use something smaller and handier, like a main-gauche. Also, if you're going to have both your hands tied up holding a weapon, its arguably smarter to just carry a two-handed weapon, which would extend your reach and increase your striking force. Part of the reason that the sword-and-dagger or sword-and-buckler styles were popular for dueling and self-defense is that they were more convenient and less disruptive to carry around than a more lethal and bulkier weapon like a greatsword. You might compare it to the modern self-defense standard of carrying a concealed pistol--though a full-size rifle is vastly more effective, people tend to get antsy if you walk around town with one slung across your back. More on topic, this is also the likely reason that the common "walking around" sword kept getting smaller, going from the arming sword to the side sword, then to the rapier, then finally to the smallsword (the sequence might be inexact since I'm not a sword expert, but the trend is obvious). Over time the brute effectiveness of the weapon became less important and the convenience and fashionable appearance became more important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Railtus posted:[the greatest thing]  Reading this is more thrilling than watching the actual scene, my adrenaline is pumping. Have you considered writing historical fiction? There's an entire story being told in that duel that I completely missed because I know basically nothing about medieval fencing. EvanSchenck posted:The realism issue with depictions of "dual wielding" in video games and fantasy is that they tend to show characters with something like a longsword in either hand. Ambidexterity is pretty rare so few people are going to be able to use either hand with equal effectiveness. With two full size weapons, you would most likely just get in your own way, particularly since your off hand is going to be clumsier and weaker. Is there any good information out there about the Dimachaerus? They supposedly wielded two scimitars and were quite popular. They wore no or light armor and were pitted against opponents in heavy armor just like some kind of Role Playing rogue. Sexgun Rasputin fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Sep 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
ChaseSP posted:Something I was always curious about, what is the main issues for stuff like dual wielding in the first place, in terms of something like two swords which seem popular in fantasy. I've heard things like it would he very hard to concentrate or that the sword on your weaker hand would just be a liability. Why is it generally considered a dumb thing? Fair question. Dual-wielding has been brought up before but I do not want to search through 34 pages, so I’m not going to expect you to either. Occasionally two swords used together were seen in historical sources, described as a case of rapiers - http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/XIVCase.htm - it seems to have been relatively rare (I interpret the source saying it is common in the schools and lists alike that many schools teach them, not that it has a large number of practitioners). The impression I get is that you need to be extremely skilled to get good results with it, and that means it was probably not that practical for most fighters. Di Grasse indicates you need to closer to ambidextrous with two swords. You can use a dagger in your off-hand easily enough, but apparently swords are a little more demanding. It does not really receive much more explanation than that – only that the art is really difficult, which I think is reason enough. I think people tend to prefer more immediate results, a style that you can see improving. My feeling is if you are going to use two weapons, asymmetry is best: you want the second weapon to give you an advantage that your first weapon does not. For instance, a long rapier has excellent reach but once your opponent gets past the point you are in trouble. A dagger in the off-hand can be useful up-close, compensating for the weakness of the rapier. However, using two rapiers means that if your opponent gets close then both of your weapons are unsuitable for the situation. Essentially, I think there is nothing two swords could do that a sword & something-else could not do better. Sword-and-dagger would be better for urban street fights where the enemy might get too close. A shield would be better in a battle where you need to worry about spears and arrows that you cannot really defend against with your sword. In fully armoured combat most anti-armour techniques are two-handed or involve grappling. HEGEL CURES THESES posted:No poo poo? I stand corrected then. Apparently animal fat was not uncommon. Doing a quick search, he also used a mix of sulphur, tallow, gum, pitch and quicksilver the previous year in France. Or French sortie-parties (bands charging out of the besieged castle, for the benefit of any readers who don’t know the term) would have animal fat, straw and flax to ignite siege engines. Apparently it burned really well, or at least extremely hot. Sexgun Rasputin posted:Reading this is more thrilling than watching the actual scene, my adrenaline is pumping. Have you considered writing historical fiction? There's an entire story being told in that duel that I completely missed because I know basically nothing about medieval fencing. Thank you! I am glad you enjoyed. Writing fiction is actually part of how I got into studying history: I first started writing fantasy maybe 10 years back and began doing research into knights for some characters – I tended to write a lot of paladin archetypes (the name Railtus comes from one of my old characters) – only to find the medieval world far more fascinating than your typical fantasy setting. When I write fight scenes I worry that too much of the technical aspects risks losing the pace of the scene. On that note, thanks for the feedback! It gives me an idea of how to combine the detail with pace and I will certainly try it out when next writing combat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Railtus posted:When I write fight scenes I worry that too much of the technical aspects risks losing the pace of the scene. On that note, thanks for the feedback! It gives me an idea of how to combine the detail with pace and I will certainly try it out when next writing combat. Write fight scenes? Do you do that professionally? It seems like you could, if there's a market for it. edit: Someone at my school is starting a fencing club. Which style (foil, epee, saber) is closest to useful for recronstructivist martial arts? I know that any form's gonna be pretty far removed. vvv: fair 'nuff. It's good exercise at least, right? Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Sep 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:edit: Someone at my school is starting a fencing club. Which style (foil, epee, saber) is closest to useful for recronstructivist martial arts? I know that any form's gonna be pretty far removed.  none of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 00:09
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Write fight scenes? Do you do that professionally? It seems like you could, if there's a market for it. Historical sources and training gear is available and there may be a hema club near you. as far as duel welding goes there is documentation in rapier and side sword but I find it supper awkward and you have to take extra care that you don't bind up the hilts. Agrippa suggests keeping your weapons separate and if you are going to attack with the other weapon to change up your footing and make the offensive weapon the side the lead foot. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Write fight scenes? Do you do that professionally? It seems like you could, if there's a market for it. Epee is closest because gently caress right-of-way. Speaking as someone who does both a martial art and fencing, I find sparring (even just for points) in martial arts to be a lot more physically demanding than fencing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
pulphero posted:Historical sources and training gear is available and there may be a hema club near you. Looks like another good reason to go for asymmetry. Two weapons of equal length would tend to interfere with each others' threat ranges as their arcs overlap. Two weapons of different reach would have independent zones of operation, so you don't have to spend half your attention keeping your weapons out of each others' way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 10:38
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Write fight scenes? Do you do that professionally? It seems like you could, if there's a market for it. Not professionally, creative writing is a hobby of mine - mostly just play-by-post RP or AAR since it is easier to keep up motivation by having some interaction rather than supplying the whole story myself. Thank you for the compliment though. I do not know much about fencing clubs in this context: I would suggest pick a style that allows off-hand use and sidestepping. I’m guessing Buried Alive has got it right: right-of-way is for driving, not hacking people to death with sharp objects. Buried alive posted:Sure, I'll bite. Hector vs. Achilles in troy. Fight start at about 1:30 Brad Pitt = Achilles. Bearded Dude = Hector. First thought, the gear mentioned in the Iliad does not necessarily look or perform realistic, so most liberties here get a pass. In Hector’s place, if Achilles was refusing such basic courtesy I would have stepped back and let the archers shoot him to death rather than duel him. I am such a jerk sometimes. My first thought is hoplite warfare is not particularly well-suited to the dancing around, but the darting left and right certainly creates a sense of pace. First thrust at around 1:42 – Hector’s shield just hangs by his side, why would you want to do that? This gives Achilles the opportunity to do a shield strike when Hector’s shield could have bound Achilles’ spear and struck him and closed off the line of attack from Achilles’ shield in one go. Great leaping strike at 1:50. Totally telegraphed, Hector can see it coming, with Achilles in mid-air he can’t change direction, shield is high. Achilles is wide open. For some reason Hector blocks the stab directly rather than crouching enough to give him Achilles a bad angle (likely to glance off his shield covering high) and stab underneath. Shield blocks spear at 1:55, even an attempt to counterattack, though Hector moves his own shield out the way for that attack. The way Achilles changes to using overarm thrusts is completely plausible: the Greek Dory has a spike on the back end. At 1:57 the way he uses both ends of the spear is certainly impressive, I’m not sure how practical it is with a one-handed dory in that specific fashion but the basic principle is in place (apparently thrusting high with the spear and then striking low with the butt-spike apparently was a thing). Finally! 1:59, Hector attempts a strike, lashing out with the spear. A swing rather than a thrust will certainly hurt someone if catching their unarmoured face, and he is off-balance trying to fend off Achilles rather than go for the kill. The strike is appropriate for what is intended. However, why Achilles’ shield is not covering that is a mystery for the ages. Let’s assume arrogance. The powerful low thrust at 2:02 makes sense: greaves were important in Greek warfare, implying that the legs were a common target. Then followed up by sensible use of the shield by Achilles, but again Hector’s shield hangs limply by his side. Does Hector have some kind of left-arm defect? Why he then swings his spear to knock Achilles aside is unknown because this would be a good moment to counter with the shield and thrust with the spear. Generally they should be presenting the shield side far more than they are doing. Achilles shield swing makes sense, though punching/lunging forward with the edge of the shield would have worked just as well and been harder to avoid. What the hell kind of pose is that at 2:08? Using the notch in your shield makes sense, jousting shields did it all the time, but across the back of your neck? That just limits the angles of attack. Hector backs away rather than slamming forward with his shield and stabbing around for Achilles’ rear. Three spear strikes and Hector essentially stopped two of them just by holding his shield in front of him. This highlights why so much time with his shield dangling by his side was not the best idea. The third defence around 2:12 looks like an attempt to trap or break Achilles spear. The counter by Achilles makes a lot of sense: if it did not break Hector’s spear then it would have at least ruined the angle enough for Achilles to free his own spear from the trap. Achilles ducks under Hector’s shield lunge, wasting the force of Hector’s push, then shoves back from below using the power of his legs. That is why Achilles’ shield push works but Hector’s fails. At 2:18, Hector sure delays drawing his sword in favour of two-handed swings of his shield. One thing that shows is that a shield is really unsuitable for this kind of use. Move it around, certainly, but swinging across individual attacks is very risky. For one thing, Achilles’ spear thrusts could have been a lot faster than Hector could reasonably react to by regaining control of his swung shield. At least if Achilles was willing to sacrifice power. One reason not to sacrifice power, however, is armour – the Iliad, Odyssey & Aeneid to tend to show spears penetrating armour under some circumstances (not realistic but true to the source material). A jab would not do much, but a spear-blade across the arm or leg can still slice very effectively. The spear broke at 2:22 a little too easily, but I notice a major design flaw in Hector’s armour at this point. It exposes the belly. Most cuirasses (torso armour) tended to be a little longer or at least not expose the belly so much - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PuaUR3cFps – bronze cuirasses were probably less flexible, but maybe an armoured apron at the bottom would be good? Now the swords come out, and again Hector struggles to understand the use of his shield. If his shield had been ready at all, Achilles’ spin at 2:25 would have been a perfect opportunity to slam the shield into his back. For the record, nothing would make me happier than to see someone try that spin cut and get slammed in the back with that shield. Blade lock at 2:26 and again Hector shows no awareness of how to bring his shield across. Hit him with it! HIT HIM! OK, just bring it across to force Achilles’ sword-arm aside so you can introduce him to stabby goodness. DO SOMETHING! *deep breaths* I feel better now. 2:28, by Zeus & Apollo, Hector is obliging moving his shield out of Achilles’ way so he can swordfight him. However, one detail I notice is Achilles is aiming for the unarmoured portions. Once again, Achilles is using his shield and Hector is not, and Hector pays for it. At 2:32, Hector has a good opportunity to bind Achilles shield high and check his shoulder, but does not take it again. He has only just figured out basic moving-your-shield-in-the-way-of-an-attack, we do not expect him to know the next stage of Shields 101 yet. 2:40, random two-handed shield swing that leaves Hector’s ride side completely exposed. Achilles could have simply pulled his sword back out of the way of the swing and then stabbed, or if that failed could have struck with the shield from the left. Aiming for the centre-mass (main body) would make ducking harder. Instead he twists the other way contorting his shield at a ridiculous angle. Achilles is literally fighting with one hand behind his back! The pose as a brief move might have made sense covering high, but holding that position is frankly ridiculous. I guess he’s trying to give Hector a fair chance because Hector is clearly unable to use a shield? At 2:45, when Achilles steps over the sword thrust, Hector pulls the blade back without attempting to cut Achilles’ legs. Strange choice. I would have slashed across with the edge. Maybe he is enamoured with Brad Pitt’s legs? We shall never know. There is one shield block, but Achilles throws 2-3 more strikes without Hector using his shield at all, when he could have slammed it into Achilles’ back (I like that move, you might notice…). It really looks like Achilles is playing with Hector now. The wild swing at 2:50 left Hector’s right side completely exposed and Achilles’ sword was not doing anything. The fight could have ended right there and then easily. Instead, Achilles goes for the signature leaping thrust. For the record, allow me to emphasise how being in mid-air is never good in a fight, because you are ruled entirely by inertia. Lots of fast sword slashes but again Hector makes no attempt to defend with his shield. Achilles does, and it gives him a clear advantage. The transition from thrust to slash at 3:02 is nice, but at 3:05 Achilles stops using his shield and gets scratched on his armour for it. I think this is when Achilles starts taking Hector seriously. The lunge at 3:11 is Hector overcommitting, and the grapple around 3:15 did not need to take as long as it did – Achilles could have just pulled the edge of his blade across Hector’s arm right then while it was trapped rather than go for the dramatic thrust-over. The wild swing at 3:40 is again completely exposed. Generally speaking, if you duck a swing like that, you should already be counterattacking. We do not see the move Achilles does next to graze Hector’s leg. But at 3:43, Hector has his back exposed, and really Achilles could have just grabbed him from behind and pulled him off balance or stabbed him in the kidneys or otherwise finished him right there. The strange leg motion at 3:47 is Achilles pulling his leg up over Hector’s low cut. At 3:55 there is another swing that gets ducked, yet no counterattack. In the exchange, Hector did not use his off-hand weapon at all. The shove works as a way to break Hector’s attack, though I’m surprised Hector didn’t at least slash at his arm at the time. Then at 4:08, Achilles effortlessly disarms Hector in a way that strongly suggests that the past few minutes of fighting were completely unnecessary. All he does is grab the weapon off him and there is not even a struggle or attempt for leverage. Then some unnecessary spins while Hector does… what exactly? Then the spearhead goes straight through Hector’s armour. I guess the spins were generating power to go through? Next a thrust through his armoured chest (rather than the fleshy neck). All in all, the fight is clearly a mismatch that frankly looked like Achilles could have killed Hector a lot sooner if he wanted to. The shield use was very poor because frankly blocking individual blows is the wrong way to use the shield: ideally you want to close off a line of attack in advance and use the shield in straightforward slams whenever your foe is vulnerable to it. It is Greek hoplite combat trying to be Kung Fu Theatre.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 11:37
|
|
|
Oh, oh! My turn! Speaking of Kung Fu Theater, here's one of my favorite sword fighting scenes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la-rGNmpbQc&t=60s (skip to 1:00 if it doesn't put you there automatically) It's pretty short, almost exactly a minute long, but it's got a lot going on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:49 |
|
|
Railtus posted:
I don't know about other people, but in a real fight with pointy objects I'd go for the right-of-way parry-riposte instead of the gently caress everything counter attack that ends in everyone getting stabbed. But yeah, sport fencing is probably not the closest approximation to medieval combat. edit: Actually in a real fight with pointy objects I'd run the gently caress away
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 03:03
|
|
