My reflections on historical longsword sparring, After playing D&D as a kid, today I get to really swing a sword Options

[Wounded Ronin]

Back when I was in 4th grade I got the blue cover 1st edition D&D basic rules at a garage sale. It came with a few worn modules and some polyhedral dice. It was the first time I had been able to read about chainmail, longswords, and splint mail. At the time, even as a kid, I remember watching a documentary where they interviewed some guy named Robert McKenzie who at the time was manufacturing chainmail near Lake Tahoe and I wrote that guy's name down on a chessboard box because at the time I really wanted some chainmail. That was around the time I was reading Tolkein and really getting into the whole fantasy RPG thing.

Now it's probably over 2 decades later, and I've been able to practice historical longsword with all the great equipment that has been created for that hobby which is maturing, like kevlar reinforced sparring gloves, and high quality Albion blunt metal practice swords.

Recently, I put some of my most recent thoughts on longsword sparring down on a post on bullshido.net: http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=105803

Here's what I wrote.

Recently, I've been thinking about the role of the thrust in longsword fighting. In some ways it relates a bit to the jab in boxing, although there are important differences as well. I'm writing this post to help clarify my thoughts a bit.

I've been practicing with the local ARMA group for maybe a year or so, focusing on German longsword. For anyone not familiar we practice techniques taken from historical Renaissance manuscripts, some of which may be found here: http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Main_Page

Although fighting with armor is historically important, since none of us owns a suit of armor, we're focusing on the unarmored combat, also known as Bloßfechten.

The biggest difference between a longsword, and any other type of improvised weapon such as a pitchfork or makeshift spear, is that when used as a cutting weapon, the sword can be used to control the opponent's weapon as soon as it makes contact. You can hook the other guy's weapon on your crossguard, knock it offline, and since you've got two edges, flick your wrists and bash the opposite edge into his skull. Or, if the guy blocks you coming one way, flick, you whip around and hit him from the other direction, although you lose control of the other guy's weapon for an instant when you come off it, which is a risk. You've got a lot of agility and a lot of control over the other person's tool when you're the knight with the sword and the other guy is some angry peasant with a makeshift weapon.

When I first started out, unarmed striking combat, i.e. boxing, was the only mental frame of reference I had when I tried to understand the medieval longsword. As I gained more experience with the longsword, I began to feel like the differences between boxing and longsword use were more important than the similarities. But now as I gain yet more experience, I'm starting to see some big-picture similarities again.

Swordsmanship requires deep stances, like what you see in karate or kungfu. You need a really solid and stable base to swing it effectively. At the same time if your posture is too high, and you're more or less standing upright, it actually makes it easier for your opponent to bash you over the head with his sword, because of how the guards and postures work out. "Be small in body but big in sword" is what one of the old manuals says. So in this way it's different than boxing, where the opposite is true, and a guy in a horse stance is going to get jacked up by a guy in a boxing stance.

That being said, I know from some test cutting we have done on meat that the cuts from these swords tend to produce more blunt trauma and crush damage and broken bones, as opposed to clean and deep cuts. This is in part because of the geometry of the blade, being straight, and also because the European swords aren't razor sharp, nor are they really designed to be, since in some techniques you grab your sword by both the grip and the blade in order to ram it into your opponent, or pickaxe his skull with your crossguard.

But when you would thrust at a piece of meat with the sword, it would slide in so easy. It felt like pushing through warm butter. Schhlccck. It didn't matter if you covered the meat with leather, it would just sink in there with an oddly sensual feeling of only very light resistance. The blunt trauma from this kind of penetration, when the sword hit bone, could spinter the bone as well, if you did it with a lot of force.

So in many ways the thrust is actually more capable of causing an immediate lethal injury than a cut, especially when you think A-box thrusts where you're going to be driving a big metal thing into someone's lung or heart. If you think about a thrust to the head, even if you didn't get the point into an eye socket or anything, it's pretty grisly to think about how you might remove a strip of face-flesh from the guy's skull if the tip of your blade slides along the skull instead of penetrating.

The problem with thrusting is that when it comes to this longsword fighting, based on your stance, you tend to be committed either to cutting and binding the other guy's weapon, or to thrusting and deflecting. This is basically because you're set up to cut when you are holding the sword high and pointing at the sky, or to counter-cut if you're holding the sword low and pointing at a diagonal towards the ground, which are two of the historical stances, or you're set to thrust when you're holding the sword high and pointing at the opponent, or low and pointing up at the opponent on a diagonal, which are two of the other historical stances.

So if you're standing in a thrusting position, you can't really cut without changing how you're holding the sword first, and likewise with the cutting position.

Since the cutting is so versatile I used to use it most of the time. I also tended to get countered when thrusting because I now realize I had the wrong mindset about thrusting.

Now, I use thrusting more often and switch to cutting when I feel on the defensive. The key to thrusting is to circle aggressively and use it like a jab. Feel the other guy out and/or frustrate him. So instead of just standing there and aggressively thrusting with lots of power, I focus on circling around the opponent as fast as I can in my super deep sword stance, and if I am too far to thrust at his face or chest, I will thrust at his hands. What I have found is that if you keep this pressure up on the opponent for long enough, there's a chance that he's going to try to cut at you, and at that point in time, you have a chance to land a solid A-box thrust on him as he's moving forward.

The textbook defense to a thrusting attack is to step offline and use a high cut onto the thruster's hands. But, if I am thrusting with the right agility and the right circle-stepping, that counter cut is more likely to miss, since it is coming from off to the side, due to the evasive step. If my opponent misses with his counter-cut, and I am keeping my sword pointed at him as I circle around him, there's a good chance that he's going to end up walking into or leaning into my sword and taking one hell of a thrust.

Basically you just need to make the opponent miss with a cut, and he can practically impale himself on your thrust. But to get to that point you use the thrust like the jab, by circling aggressively, keeping the pressure up, and going for the hands when you don't have a real chance of getting an A box hit.

It's so very rewarding to be able to go back and re-visit this stuff that fascinated me as a little kid, but get some actual experience with it and come to a mature personal understanding of the discipline. I understand historical battles and military tactics, and the historical dynamic between knights or noble and other elements of society so much better, as I come to understand the significance of the sword. I even feel like I understand contemporary combative sports and firearms better, in terms of understanding why things evolved the way they did, and how it all fits into history.


The other thing is that there's so much uncertainty and insanity in the world today. The small-minded men Confucious warned us all about seem to be everywhere but in the confusion and darkness all we can do is turn on each other while the (metaphorical) devil giggles and eats popcorn.

Therefore, I kind of feel like every able-bodied young man and woman of sound mind and non-disastrous morals should be skilled in firearms, contemporary hand to hand combat, and all the historical hand to hand combat so as to understand where it all came from.

[Kagetenshi]

Therefore, I kind of feel like every able-bodied young man and woman of sound mind and non-disastrous morals should be skilled in firearms, contemporary hand to hand combat, and all the historical hand to hand combat so as to understand where it all came from.

Just as long as they also make time for probability, statistics, linear algebra, analysis, proof theory, and combinatorics.

~J

[Wounded Ronin]

Just as long as they also make time for probability, statistics, linear algebra, analysis, proof theory, and combinatorics.

~J

Ha ha, can't they get that from first edition D&D?

Because I don't think they'll get that from the public education system. XD

[Critias]

Therefore, I kind of feel like every able-bodied young man and woman of sound mind and non-disastrous morals should be skilled in firearms, contemporary hand to hand combat, and all the historical hand to hand combat so as to understand where it all came from.

If everyone studied everything that some of us felt they should study, there wouldn't be time left over for eating, sleeping, or blinking. Everyone thinks their discipline is important (even if that discipline comes by way of a hobby instead of a career). There is a tendency, however, to ignore (purposefully or accidentally) the fact that not everyone else gives a damn about your favorite discipline, and especially that not everyone else will get whatever it is you get from that discipline.

To me, studying history is a means of sharpening research and writing skills, to understand the similarities between those who have come before and those who are currently living, to recognize the (often depressing, but often uplifting) patterns in behavior that appear throughout humanity's history, to gain a better understanding of how the world has come to be the way it is, and to better appreciate and remember the great deeds done by those who are gone. A mastery of history brings with it critical thinking, eloquence, and a different perspective on the everyday.

To others, history is being forced to memorize boring dates.

You get a lot out of the things you practice because you put a lot into them. You care about the discipline and focus that trained shooting and fighting bring you, and the greater understandings these disciplines grant you. Most people don't. Most people are scared of them, and when they read about the "oddly sensual" sensation you equate with stabbing a hunk of meat, you won't do your "everyone should study this!" campaign any favors. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Tiralee]

it would just sink in there with an oddly sensual feeling of only very light resistance. The blunt trauma from this kind of penetration, when the...

....Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand I'm done. Whew. You're ok? Would you like a towel?



During Highschool, a few of the revivalists (And it takes BIG ones to decide to dress in 2 layers of mail in Oz's summer sun) were holding an exhibition at the QLD Museum and as I've been 6'2 since I've been 12, they asked me to be the demonstratory target. I got the BIG sword (Greatsword) and had to fend off (briefly) some probing strikes (My mother, a teacher, cheering them on from the sidelines) that made some historical stuff pretty damn clear.

1: Big sword is HEAVY.
2: Big sword has REACH. (~ 2'6 handle, 4-5 foot of blade. You seriously needed the handle for leverage)
3: Over-the-head is great when you're using a smaller sword or are Ogami Ittō, not for mortals.
4: The nice and well-trained men (The smallest was 6'3) with shields were battered out of the way with a blunted Greatsword when the Greatsword is thrust by a 14-year old. (It was that or I'd have punched through their cross-ply wooden shields.)
5: Light fittings cannot withstand the might of He-Man.
6: Everyone had a good time (even the guy that fell over) and my arms ached like a mofo from holding that damn thing.
7: As a weapon, it was effective, horribly so if used with anything resembling skill and/or training (I have their card somewhere) but no matter how cool (and effective) the weapon, it doesn't help if you're surrounded.
7a: Unless it's a Nuke.
8: Maces rock ASS, Morningstars are scary and to be an effective shield, it's likely to be too heavy to carry, let alone hold.
9: Pike rock harder, but a Halberd PWNS. ("Ok, now, let's see if we can cut through, [THUNK]oh, looks like we can")

So, lesson for today?
A troll with Polearms is a very bad thing.

-Tir.

[nezumi]

Everyone thinks their discipline is important (even if that discipline comes by way of a hobby instead of a career).

I would tend to think most of those people are right (otherwise, why is someone paying so much for someone to perform that function?) The question is more one of depth than anything. Perhaps we don't need to learn the name of the emperor of Japan when Truman dropped the bomb, nor the date it was dropped, but the fact that it was used and its consequences on our modern life are probably required reading. Although I do think, to a degree, Kage was being obtuse, as he's apt to be (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

As to the actual topic at hand ... very cool. My boys and I have been running around with boffers (their both being no higher than my waist, and liable to cry if I hit them in the head greatly reduces my ability to seriously practice). I need to consider how to implement some sort of crossguard, since it seems to be pretty important with sword tactics.

[Kagetenshi]

3: Over-the-head is great when you're using a smaller sword or are Ogami Ittō, not for mortals.
[…]
6: Everyone had a good time (even the guy that fell over) and my arms ached like a mofo from holding that damn thing.

The second point here is very important, and should cause some questioning of the first—moving a sword around quickly involves muscles that most of us don't use extensively, and it can really be stunning how much of a difference training can make in the ability to easily move something around.

Just as long as they also make time for probability, statistics, linear algebra, analysis, proof theory, and combinatorics.

Ha ha, can't they get that from first edition D&D?

Because I don't think they'll get that from the public education system. XD

Nor from the private education system, quite frankly. Some of these topics could be legitimately argued to require mathematical maturity, but why combinatorics and elementary proof theory (especially basic mathematical logic) are relegated to university-level education is beyond me.

Although I do think, to a degree, Kage was being obtuse, as he's apt to be (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Ish. I was largely making the same point Critias did later in a more backhanded way, but I do legitimately believe that the list I gave contains basic requirements for intelligently operating in the universe. On further consideration I might be persuaded to trim linear algebra and analysis down to survey-level introductions (or maybe drop them), but it's hard to imagine lacking the rest and being able to rigorously approach non-trivial scenarios.

The catch, of course, comes from lots of people not seeing sufficient value (or in some cases, any value) in a rigorous approach.

~J

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

Just as long as they also make time for probability, statistics, linear algebra, analysis, proof theory, and combinatorics.

~J

And when you combine both you become Renaissance Man™.

[Epicedion]

Nor from the private education system, quite frankly. Some of these topics could be legitimately argued to require mathematical maturity, but why combinatorics and elementary proof theory (especially basic mathematical logic) are relegated to university-level education is beyond me.

They're not taught combinatorics, etc, because most students can barely make it through algebra and trigonometry. Introducing actual logic would merely increase the drop-out rate.

Also some public education systems are being supplemented by the state lottery system. If you taught combinatorics, probability would subsequently be easier for most to grasp, and fewer students would go on to purchase lottery tickets in their semi-productive adult lives. The resulting loss of funding due to the under-utilized lottery system would require budget cuts, inevitably leading to the removal of combinatorics from the curriculum.

[X-Kalibur]

They're not taught combinatorics, etc, because most students can barely make it through algebra and trigonometry. Introducing actual logic would merely increase the drop-out rate.

Also some public education systems are being supplemented by the state lottery system. If you taught combinatorics, probability would subsequently be easier for most to grasp, and fewer students would go on to purchase lottery tickets in their semi-productive adult lives. The resulting loss of funding due to the under-utilized lottery system would require budget cuts, inevitably leading to the removal of combinatorics from the curriculum.

I laugh because it's true.

That said, I should find classes for swordplay other than fencing. I've got a nice cut and thrust sword as part of my ren-faire outfit (combat ready, of course, I took the extra time to sharpen in myself) and I've got a family cavalry sabre from the American Civil war, would be nice to have some training, because you can't fence with those bastards. Actually, a bastard sword would be nice too, might put some meat on me, though I'm surprisingly strong for my weight. (especially when compared with my tall height).

Finally, on pikes, Landsknechts knew what was up.

[Kagetenshi]

They're not taught combinatorics, etc, because most students can barely make it through algebra and trigonometry. Introducing actual logic would merely increase the drop-out rate.

I really don't think I believe this. High School trigonometry, if I remember correctly, consisted substantially of committing to memory a big list of identities and then applying them to answer questions about triangles; a student who is not highly effective at memorizing the identities is likely to become and then remain utterly lost, and will probably also be made to feel justified in leaving identities unmemorized due to our recent trend towards condemning memorization coupled with the fact that, at least in my experience, no one at that level can effectively articulate the real value of memorization of these sorts of things.

Elementary algebra is a little closer, but again my impression is that issues chiefly arise from pervasively-used basic concepts that weren't properly learned, such as the behaviour of fractions (especially fractions with sums in the denominator), or from unmemorized identities or properties. I'll grant that the abstraction hurdle also appears to be an issue; I recently found a stack of course materials from high school or middle school, so I'll have to dig through to try to find out why I was so mathematically inept at the time.

I'm not sure I could argue that combinatorics and mathematical logic would be easier than algebra—I have no particular reason to believe that a student stuck on multiplication of polynomials would have an easier time with De Morgan's laws—but I think I can at least argue that it's no harder. I also think students might then be better prepared for further mathematics. Though actually, I think De Morgan's laws would be significantly more easily spot-derivable for students who've forgotten them.

~J

[nezumi]

At the danger of going grossly off-topic, my son is now teaching himself fractions (yes, he's in first grade, yes, the geek in him is strong). Any recommendations on what I should pull for a seven-year-old, so as to 'teach him correctly'? Pies have never been my forte.

Also, Lofwyr.

[X-Kalibur]

At the danger of going grossly off-topic, my son is now teaching himself fractions (yes, he's in first grade, yes, the geek in him is strong). Any recommendations on what I should pull for a seven-year-old, so as to 'teach him correctly'? Pies have never been my forte.

Also, Lofwyr.

Dice odds. What???

[Faraday]

Dice odds. What???

I agree. Having a knack for dice odds could well be a useful skill to certain folk.

[X-Kalibur]

I agree. Having a knack for dice odds could well be a useful skill to certain folk.

And it teaches fractions... of a sort.

[ravensmuse]

Whereas for me, I couldn't give two tosses about mathematics and odds and probabilities and all of that. Just not my game.

English is my game, literature and histories and mythologies and people studies. It's why I kevetch around here sometimes that not enough focus is being paid to the culture of the Sixth World, not just the bits and pieces where you shoot people in the face for money. I was raised by two generations of history and military nerds (though they'd never admit to being as much) who taught me just how important it was to know who was fighting who and for what reason.

I have also watched more movies on the American Civil War than I think I will ever need to ever again.

In my time since high school and further trawlings around the internet, I've learned just how much I love to study cultures and subcultures and the people and reasonings behind them. I think it's important for kids to have that kind of training too. Psychology and behavioral studies and all of that. It's important to me to understand what makes people tick (though I'm terrible at applying it to myself).

At the baseline of it though, the most important thing I think that kids have to be taught from a young age is critical thinking. Not accepting something because they're told to, but looking at it and thinking about it and considering it before they do. If more people had those skills, I don't think we'd see the kind of misunderstandings we do now.

I'll fully admit though: I was a terrible student. I should have applied myself more. Ah well.

[Warlordtheft]

That said, I should find classes for swordplay other than fencing.

I did fencing in college back in the early 90's. Had fun with it, it was more structured than Boffo's (did that in High school for a bit). In the end, I think the basics of any melee combat is to watch your distance, and unless you are good at it---avoid grappling/wrestling. Everything else is secondary.

[Sixgun_Sage]

Distance, Timing, Angle and Balance, arguably some overlap between the four but you want to have the right Distance and Angle to employ a technique effectively without exposing yourself to undue risk of a counter, the Balance to move effectively and transition from offense to defense or defense to offense, and the Timing to coordinate your techniques and footwork effectively.

[Wounded Ronin]

Plus, grappling is awesome. It becomes much more fast paced, hilarious, and fun when both you and your sparring partner have training knives tucked into the waistband. We fight with swords, start to grapple, and then pull the knives and surprise-stab each other. It really changes the game.

Ha ha, one time, my training partner mischieviously hid a training knife on his person and when we clenched started stabbing me with it. I couldn't see his arm and didn't see the training knife, so I just assumed he was punching me in the torso. So I thought, "okay, now we're boxing from the clinch", and uppercutted him in the diaphram, and I heard him go ooof.

Afterwards I found out that he had theoretically stabbed the shit out of me and had a good laugh.

[Adarael]

As a side note, something that I feel D&D does well - shocking, I know - is that it represents a fundamental truth about "Fighter" class people. Once someone learns to fight with a melee weapon, and gets decent with it, they've mastered the basics of those timing, distance, balance, etc type skills. And that means that they are dangerous with ANY melee weapon, because those fundamentals hold true, even if they're not as familiar with the specifics of a given polearm over their favorite sword.

[Warlordtheft]

Same holds true for fire arms, once you understand the core concepts shooting a pistol, rifle, smg, proficiently means going out and putting a few rounds down range (by few I mean like maybe a box or two of ammo (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ).

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

Same holds true for fire arms, once you understand the core concepts shooting a pistol, rifle, smg, proficiently means going out and putting a few rounds down range (by few I mean like maybe a box or two of ammo (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ).

GURPS uses 100 hours of training to familiarize yourself with a variant of a weapon (or vehicle) that you are skilled with to ignore the penalty.

[Wordman]

If you use Netflix, stream Reclaiming the Blade, which details attempts at rediscovering European sword martial arts.