3 ms·

> For swords, I gather that key features are 1) notching or shattering other blades, and 2) resisting being notched or shattered by them. You're thinking of th

by pluma 8y ago

> For swords, I gather that key features are 1) notching or shattering other blades, and 2) resisting being notched or shattered by them. You're thinking of theatrical fencing. All that cling-clang-cling makes for great visuals and sound but is undesirable in real combat. Unless you have two knights in full armor clobbering each other over the head (at which point a mace is probably more efficient than a delicate sword) sword-on-sword contact is a means of last resort when you can't move out of the way. Although D&D may have taught you differently, a "sword block" is a wasted counter-attack. Why bother binding your sword if you could have used the opportunity to slip out of the way and catch the opponent off balance and end him? In fact, blocking is what sidearms are for. Grab a dagger or a buckler and take down the opponent's sword without binding yours. If swords do touch in combat it's usually at an angle and just enough to deflect the blow without overcommitting too much to risk wasting a the chance to get in a counter. (full disclosure: I'm talking about European medieval swords and from having watched experienced HEMA fighters)

mirimir 8y ago
Those are good points. From Stephenson's Mongoliad, I get that binding the opponent's sword, and closing, are key moves. But I'm most familiar with Japanese style, from studying Aikido. We sometimes practiced with wooden bokken. And yes, any blade-blade contact is glancing. But still, stuff happens.
- pluma 8y ago
  Yeah, I think point 2 is still relevant, but intentionally damaging the opponent's sword is pointless. Ideally the fight doesn't last long enough for the accumulated damage to matter and focusing on damaging the sword is a worse strategy than focusing on incapacitating the person holding the sword (who by the way might still be dangerous without the sword).
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Well, there is the move of capturing the opponent's blade against the guard, and then closing to stab with one's knife. The risk there is that your guard will fail. But if the opponent's blade breaks, they're likely in worse trouble.
dragontamer 8y ago
> Although D&D may have taught you differently, a "sword block" is a wasted counter-attack. Why bother binding your sword if you could have used the opportunity to slip out of the way and catch the opponent off balance and end him? I dunno, I did a bit of fencing and I know there are all sorts of ways to bind the blade and counterattack simultaneously. In fact, the a HUGE portion of the Die Blume des Kampfes (historical weapons manual) clearly includes a variety of sword-binding techniques. See the pictures yourself if you don't believe me: http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Die_Blume_des_Kampfes#Sword http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Die_Blume_des_Kampfes#Sword It would seem that binding, blocking, and counter-attacking is a fundamental skill of historical sword fighters. In my experience, it is virtually impossible to avoid the opponent's blade like a Hollywood sword master. Swords are surprisingly light when held with two hands (even a 5lb Claymore moves very quickly, even in the hands of a weakling!!), far faster than you can move your torso or even legs. EDIT: Lots of other stuff here, but I was ranting. So I deleted it.
- pluma 8y ago
  Sure, but how many of those techniques involve intentionally damaging the opponent's sword? The emphasis in what you said lies on "and counterattack simultaneously". If you overcommit into a block enough to damage the opponent's weapon, you won't be able to counterattack. The reason the 5lb sword still moves swiftly is that it's not used for a Hollywood cleave.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    I agree with you 100% that Hollywood-style direct blade-blade blocks are rare. At least, for skilled fighters. But they do happen, as a last resort. You get knocked down, say, and use your blade as a shield. But about those Claymores. You're right that they'd be slow for cleaves, with the huge rotational inertia. But in melee, it's my impression (perhaps colored by too much fiction) that one can make that an advantage. Basically, by never reversing direction, but rather by following 3D Lissajous curves. Which isn't really that different from Aikido.
    - 8y ago

by pluma 8y ago

mirimir 8y ago

Those are good points. From Stephenson's Mongoliad, I get that binding the opponent's sword, and closing, are key moves. But I'm most familiar with Japanese style, from studying Aikido. We sometimes practiced with wooden bokken. And yes, any blade-blade contact is glancing. But still, stuff happens.

pluma 8y ago
Yeah, I think point 2 is still relevant, but intentionally damaging the opponent's sword is pointless. Ideally the fight doesn't last long enough for the accumulated damage to matter and focusing on damaging the sword is a worse strategy than focusing on incapacitating the person holding the sword (who by the way might still be dangerous without the sword).
- mirimir 8y ago
  Well, there is the move of capturing the opponent's blade against the guard, and then closing to stab with one's knife. The risk there is that your guard will fail. But if the opponent's blade breaks, they're likely in worse trouble.

dragontamer 8y ago

> Although D&D may have taught you differently, a "sword block" is a wasted counter-attack. Why bother binding your sword if you could have used the opportunity to slip out of the way and catch the opponent off balance and end him? I dunno, I did a bit of fencing and I know there are all sorts of ways to bind the blade and counterattack simultaneously. In fact, the a HUGE portion of the Die Blume des Kampfes (historical weapons manual) clearly includes a variety of sword-binding techniques. See the pictures yourself if you don't believe me: http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Die_Blume_des_Kampfes#Sword http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Die_Blume_des_Kampfes#Sword It would seem that binding, blocking, and counter-attacking is a fundamental skill of historical sword fighters. In my experience, it is virtually impossible to avoid the opponent's blade like a Hollywood sword master. Swords are surprisingly light when held with two hands (even a 5lb Claymore moves very quickly, even in the hands of a weakling!!), far faster than you can move your torso or even legs. EDIT: Lots of other stuff here, but I was ranting. So I deleted it.

pluma 8y ago
Sure, but how many of those techniques involve intentionally damaging the opponent's sword? The emphasis in what you said lies on "and counterattack simultaneously". If you overcommit into a block enough to damage the opponent's weapon, you won't be able to counterattack. The reason the 5lb sword still moves swiftly is that it's not used for a Hollywood cleave.
- mirimir 8y ago
  I agree with you 100% that Hollywood-style direct blade-blade blocks are rare. At least, for skilled fighters. But they do happen, as a last resort. You get knocked down, say, and use your blade as a shield. But about those Claymores. You're right that they'd be slow for cleaves, with the huge rotational inertia. But in melee, it's my impression (perhaps colored by too much fiction) that one can make that an advantage. Basically, by never reversing direction, but rather by following 3D Lissajous curves. Which isn't really that different from Aikido.
  - 8y ago