real combat w/ arms and armor

[afro-elf]

They weren't often that sharp either. (That MUST have hurt

yes I recall something on TLC or discovery about knights and that they use to use one hand on the hilt and one on the blade to block over head strikes.


maximus did it in gladiator

They were often dented and (how do you say that the edge isn't smooth anymore) notched (?)

notched means a V- shaped cut

the word i believe you are looking for is dull

I also seem to remember the swords used in battles were different from your every day sword: Longer, better maintenanced and heavier.

yeah i was in kiev or toronto, i can't remember which because i was with the same girl at both museums and she's from kiev,
anyway i saw that some swords were hunting swords and not war blades

Dunno if this is any useful to you....

it was thanks

[spidersbane]

Man, I leave for awhile and you guys have a conversation that I LOVE to talk about. Anyway, if anyone is interested in having a "real" battle-ready sword, ColdSteel carries very good Katanas, Tanto's, etc. These would shear through about anything and have little or no damage to them. They run about $600-700 though.

[Twilight]

The oriental blades are in general much better made, so they stand up to combat better. The trick is knowing what things to do as to not cause damadge to the blade. People that are really good can use wooden swords interchangably with real ones, even against metal weapons. I use a staff when I fight. Not breaking it is imporntant. The trick is to never take a blow head on, but to deflect it off to the side kind of. That causes less damage to your blade, and it is easyer for a quick recovery so a counterstrike can be made.

[afro-elf]

what happens when two swords hit together with great force blade to blade?

[Blackheart]

Notches.

Try it, take two iron (because the only folks making steel in ME would be dwarves, and maybe some Noldor and sundry elves) blades and bang them together.

If they are similar in strength they will notch each other. Hit them together hard enough and they will break.

Thats why iron age swords are so GD heavy. They have to be thick, because otherwise they aren't going to last you in a heated battle.

The real advantage of steel was twofold- It was of a harder temper than iron, and was more likely to damage the other poor sap's equipment.

And because it was harder, you didn't need to make the weapons quite as heavy, and they could be weilded more lightly, and far longer without fatigue.

Our master smith just found a way to temper mild steel using soap and oil, so that it becomes harder upon quenching. Smiths spent quite a bit of time working on how to make the hardest iron or steel they could, without it becoming brittle. It was a bit of a mysterious art back in the day, so smiths were regarded as somewhat mystical, and good smiths were strategic assets of enormous importance.

I know a little bit about swordplay, but frankly, I like axes a lot more. Axes have more heft, and greater penetration, and they have a loverly habit of catching on a sheild when someone blocks you and you can rip the sheild down and smash their helm in with your other axe.

assuming you use an axe in each hand like me

[BeardofPants]

It would have been quite interesting to have been in the time of the overlap between bronze and iron age weapondry. Can you imagine what it must have been like, with this new, more resilient metal? There must have been some serious butt kicking before the rest of the known world caught on....

[Twilight]

That would be a slaughter. If two swords do hit head on, the vibrations will nearly nock it out of both peoples hands, and there is a significant chance of damadging the blade, depending on how well it was made. With fighting styles that involve just hacking at the oponent, this can be a concern, which is why the swords were made heavier and all that. Oriental weapons were designed to be lighter, yet still strong. It is a differant style, involving less ehad on sword colisions. Axes are good against untrained oponents, but they are slower if you are facing somebody that is skilled.

[Blackheart]

Yar, axes are slower, but with a long axe I get a fair amount of reach, and I use a short haft in my left hand for speed attacks and blocking.

Then I get some cool whip and smear it around my lips and open my eyes wide and yell real loud. Most folks get nervous enough, and besides, ifn youse die you got to valhalla anyway.

[Twilight]

If you want a longer reach, a pole-arm would be much better. Most of the traditional ones aren't the best because they are usually crudely made, but there are a few good ones. Any pole-arm that is relatively light and short, with a simple blade or point on the end is so much better. You can get more speed and fine control out of it. I have found that to be better in most situations. I liked your second comment though.

[Tessar]

I would love to learn to pole fight and fence.

although when I pretend I am in a battle I usualy pretend I have mind powers and use karaty I'm so strange...

[Blackheart]

Polearms are rarely effective in a one on one or melee situation.

Soldiers using polearms depend on their neighbors for defense, and to keep people from getting inside their guard.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Polearms are rarely effective in a one on one or melee situation.

Soldiers using polearms depend on their neighbors for defense, and to keep people from getting inside their guard.

Yes, it relies on the greek invention of the phalanx, (sp?) whereby the soldiers are in one line, overlapping each other....

[Twilight]

That is true for standard ones used by mass infantry. I am talking about ones that are shorter, and lighter than usual. They would only be a foot or two longer than a staff. That way you don't have problems when somebody gets to close quarters. A staff is a type of pole-arm, and that is the best weapon for one on one

[Blackheart]

Long axes are pole arms...

About as close as you'll find in M.E. to a Zulu Short Spear.

Well, orcs might use a short spear...

[Twilight]

Axes are too heavy though. I can see their use agaist heavily armored oponents though. Especially the biger ones. Short spears are good as long as they have a thin shaft to keep the weight down.

[Blackheart]

Axes too heavy?

M not talkin about those big crawdad choppers-

The long axes usually have an open head, and are relatively light-

Lighter than a sword stuck on a pole

[afro-elf]

any thoughts on this statement?

Flicks, fleches, and pistol grips are disallowed (and ineffective) because they are suicidal in a true fencing bout, even in foil, which is maintained as a training ground for the more realistic forms.

[afro-elf]

should have added these


Generally, as classicists use the terms:

Olympic fencing is a sport that is the direct descendent of classical fencing. While it may share superficial similiarities with its parent, it is optimized around the demands of a competitive sport and technique is optimized around making the light go off. Thus, it has diverged from classical technique and will continue to diverge along its own lines away from classical technique.

Classical fencing is the martial art of the final phase of sword duelling in Europe. Like many weapon martial arts in the modern era, it is practiced with blunt weapons and under more controlled conditions than in an actual fight. It emphasizes personal control, poise, and commanding a situation more than it emphasizes scoring a point. Techniques are optimized for not getting hit and for hitting without being hit rather than for hitting first or hitting in such a way as to "play the rules". Furthermore, as an art rather than a sport, it often cultivates a certain aesthetic (although there is the inherent absurdity of "dying beautifully" to consider).

:

Classical fencing is a discussion that centers around the question, "What if they were sharp?"
We can elaborate on this, but this is the best, most concise definition I've come across. By way of contrast:
Modern sport fencing is a discussion that centers around the question, "How can I score points in a competition?"

This can be very satisfying to the people involved, but it's a fundamentally different from classical fencing, where we attempt to the best of our ability to simulate a serious fight with sharps. If my object is to wound or kill, I'm unlikely to fleche or flick (the first is near suicidal with sharp weapons, the second is wholly impossible and ineffective even if it were possible), and I will employ a very conservative strategy. If my object is to set off a light and sound a buzzer while remaining at least one point ahead, I can try all sorts of manuevers that would be anathema to classicists, and take risks that would be suicidally stupid in a serious fight.

The difference is that of a martial art and a game. They don't mix well on the strip becuse they are discussing different things. Given two fencers of similar talent, one a classical fencer and the other a sport fencer, the classical fencer will tend to win on the classical piste while the sport fencer will tend to win on the sport piste. There are no absolutes, of course.

[Twilight]

I thought this was the non fencing thread. Anyway, you don't stick the whole sword blade onto a pole. A foot is all that is needed tops. I aprove of open headed axes. They don't fit my fighting style, but they do have ther uses. They are very good with slashing, and I suppose it could produce a fairly substantial impact if needed. I prefer piercing weapons myself.

[afro-elf]

I thought this was the non fencing thread

that was concerning the type of weapon in maintence only


but as far as real combat it open to all