Which of our ancestors made the most sturdy, and effective battle ready swords

They used to in actual sword fighting, but it favored the Spaniard style (boooo!) instead of the French who were standardizing the sport, and took up a lot more room. It works really well with swords and boxing, but if you take that space away, it necessitates more direct contact and forces the action more, turns it into more of a toe-to-toe jousting match, requires more athleticism and turns it into something closer to a brawl.

I think that there was never a Spanish vs French "argument" in fencing. But rather a Spanish vs Italian. And later one an Italian vs French.

The French only refined and built on what the Italians did. But it is the Italians that invented the linear approach with the rapier.
 
I think that there was never a Spanish vs French "argument" in fencing. But rather a Spanish vs Italian. And later one an Italian vs French.

The French only refined and built on what the Italians did. But it is the Italians that invented the linear approach with the rapier.

Not an argument, but a format. French didn't do the more Western/Spanish circular style of fencing. But they were the ones responsible for standardizing the sport of fencing.

Maybe its just an coincidence but the circular style really tended to kick the ass out of the linear style.
 
I would be interested in hearing your sources on this....

You can find them, but due to being on an archaic topic they aren't readily available for free online. These kind of accounts are found in old obscure books (appropriately so) in other languages. All I could find for now were mentions but not the actual text.

I will say this-- Western Boxing is based on European Swordsmanship and the linear type can work well at the lower levels (or not) but gets absolutely murked at the medium and high levels. It's the same exact principles at work. Circular beats direct. Try lunging or linear footwork in boxing and you'll be lucky to get away with it on anyone who's decent because most of the time you will get countered into a coma right there.

The lunge is a highly telegraphed (easy to see) move (whether holding a sword or not) and easy to defeat unless the opponent is sub-par or inexperienced (or crippled by ruleset to move laterally/circularly). Linear fighting is an aggressive, brawling style, whereas circular is a more difficult (and defensive/counter-oriented) but advanced style which relies more on sound mechanical principles rather than superior athletics and physical attributes. Counter-punching is much more difficult refined and efficient than brawling, which tends to be aggressive, linear.

I think knowing and using both together is the ultimate in ability, however measuring directly against each other circular is clearly the higher and more efficient art imo.

Feel free to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Not sure but I think this is spanish destreza rapier. I don't believe that any fencing method included 360s or fency things like what these guys or doing. So i doubt that it is historically accurate.

But in spirit it is correct : beautiful and fancy, but the Italian method established itself in Europe. IMO in part due to its superiority.

What be this Italian method?
 
What be this Italian method?

Italian method is linear (comes straight at you), aggressive (not defensive), and makes use of the "lunge" a lot.

The lunge is the thing you see that gets both people impaled. It was known as "the double widow maker" because of how often that happened.

It was much easier to teach than the types of swordwork which relied on more footwork (linear, circular) which is why it became more popular, imo. Then the French took that and added a lot of riposts, but kept the linear (straight forward) movement, because circular footwork just kind of defeats all that fancyness, literally sidesteps it.


In modern martial arts terms


Boxing : Spanish

TKD : Italian

Wing Chun : French
 
Last edited:
You can find them, but due to being on an archaic topic they aren't readily available for free online. These kind of accounts are found in old obscure books (appropriately so) in other languages. All I could find for now were mentions but not the actual text.

I will say this-- Western Boxing is based on European Swordsmanship and the linear type can work well at the lower levels (or not) but gets absolutely murked at the medium and high levels. It's the same exact principles at work. Circular beats direct. Try lunging or linear footwork in boxing and you'll be lucky to get away with it on anyone who's decent because most of the time you will get countered into a coma right there.

The lunge is a highly telegraphed (easy to see) move (whether holding a sword or not) and easy to defeat unless the opponent is sub-par or inexperienced (or crippled by ruleset to move laterally/circularly). Linear fighting is an aggressive, brawling style, whereas circular is a more difficult (and defensive/counter-oriented) but advanced style which relies more on sound mechanical principles rather than superior athletics and physical attributes. Counter-punching is much more difficult refined and efficient than brawling, which tends to be aggressive, linear.

I think knowing and using both together is the ultimate in ability, however measuring directly against each other circular is clearly the higher and more efficient art imo.

Feel free to disagree.

I think that there might be a slight misunderstanding : you are talking about swordmanship in general, while I am talking about sport fencing with the épée, or at the very least swordfighting with thrust-centric weapons such as the rapier.

I am not qualified to comment on circular movements in general and I am aware that many systems, namely longswords, sword and buckler, British military sabre and japanese kendo use circular movements at least to some extent.

However, I strongly disagree with you in the context of fencing (épée) or say, duelling with a smallsword (from which fencing is derived). How are circular movements supposed to be more efficient when using thrusting weapons which are "linear" in nature? It just doesn't work like that. Straight movements will always beat circular movements in this context.

Also, contrary to boxing, which you like to mention, there is no room for error, because it takes 750g of pression to get the point in épée and and even less to puncture the lung or juggular of someone using a smallsword. So you can't evade lateraly a thrust. It's not like just slipping a jab because there is no room for error.

I also disagree that linear means brawling or that a lunge is inherently a telegraphed attack. The lunge is the most efficient way to cover the most distance in the smallest amount of time. There is a reason why it is used and trained so extensively and a properly executed (with the right timing) from a good fencer hits you before you even had time to react.

Lastly, I think that modern fencing would look pretty much the same even if circular movements were allowed. You can move to the side left and right all you want, but you still need to attack in front of you in the end.

Just my opinion, though.
 
Maybe you could have tried épée?

Many people start with foil, and end up in épée because they hated RoW.

Well at the time I had terrible point control and difficulty hitting the small targets of the hand and arm compared to the head in saber fencing, I was very uncoordinated.

In regard to circular vs linear footwork, there actually is a competitive format for rapier fencing with blunt swords. From what I can tell the people that do the best use more linear movement, and the most technical bouts resemble Olympic fencing more than what one might see in a movie.

I've been following these attempts by HEMA make fencing more historical and badass but over the years it seems to have become more like Olympic fencing not less.

I'm kind of interested in competing in it but its expensive and seems to be lower quality than Epee/ foil which I did compete in and did not like before.

There are other weapons too, but again the judging and training seem kind of amateur. Also If train lonsgsword or saber that's a day Im not training BJJ/ judo.
 
Last edited:
Incidentally there is a HEMA grappling format and I was invited to participate in it, but it looks like low level no gi judo.



I told one of the organizers on facebook for a USA event most of the matches looked like sloppy so he invited me! What's kind of funny is that he is a purple belt in BJJ and acts like that is the same thing as being a high level wrestler. I think BJJ comp was too difficult for him so he moved decided to crapple instead.

This is him.
 
Last edited:
Well at the time I had terrible point control and difficulty hitting the small targets of the hand and arm compared to the head in saber fencing, I was very uncoordinated.

In regard to circular vs linear footwork, there actually is a competitive format for rapier fencing with blunt swords. From what I can tell the people that do the best use more linear movement, and the most technical bouts resemble Olympic fencing more than what one might see in a movie.

I've been following these attempts by HEMA make fencing more historical and badass but over the years it seems to have become more like Olympic fencing not less.

I'm kind of interested in competing in it but its expensive and seems to be lower quality than Epee/ foil which I did compete in and did not like before.

There are other weapons too, but again the judging and training seem kind of amateur. Also If train lonsgsword or saber that's a day Im not training BJJ/ judo.


I share your opinion here. There is a reason why all épée fencers fight more or less the same. It's because they only do the most efficient movements to strike their opponent first and they weeded out the rest in the last centuries of evolution of the sport.

Any combat using a thrusting sword started from scratch will eventually end up looking alot like sport épée fencing.
 
I think that there might be a slight misunderstanding : you are talking about swordmanship in general, while I am talking about sport fencing with the épée, or at the very least swordfighting with thrust-centric weapons such as the rapier.

I am not qualified to comment on circular movements in general and I am aware that many systems, namely longswords, sword and buckler, British military sabre and japanese kendo use circular movements at least to some extent.

However, I strongly disagree with you in the context of fencing (épée) or say, duelling with a smallsword (from which fencing is derived). How are circular movements supposed to be more efficient when using thrusting weapons which are "linear" in nature? It just doesn't work like that. Straight movements will always beat circular movements in this context.

Also, contrary to boxing, which you like to mention, there is no room for error, because it takes 750g of pression to get the point in épée and and even less to puncture the lung or juggular of someone using a smallsword. So you can't evade lateraly a thrust. It's not like just slipping a jab because there is no room for error.

I also disagree that linear means brawling or that a lunge is inherently a telegraphed attack. The lunge is the most efficient way to cover the most distance in the smallest amount of time. There is a reason why it is used and trained so extensively and a properly executed (with the right timing) from a good fencer hits you before you even had time to react.

Lastly, I think that modern fencing would look pretty much the same even if circular movements were allowed. You can move to the side left and right all you want, but you still need to attack in front of you in the end.

Just my opinion, though.

I can mostly agree with this.

The part about boxing just shows that it takes more time and energy to defend against lunge in boxing (comparative to sword) yet it still is one of the worst things to do because it invites such a counter. A counter would be even easier in sword because you don't have to do anything except point the sword back at the lunger during the lunge.

Straight movements are still useful and efficient. A thrust is good, but a lunge is a different- that's a very committed thrust. It does take someone who is trained against it (not just allowed lateral/circular movement, but also trained in that style which isn't taught anymore) to beat it.

In MMA, people came straight at each other and went straight back when being attacked for DECADES. It's not a natural instinct to move circularly, which is why it has to be taught and drilled 1000's of times. The competitors are only now starting to come in and leave on circular/offline angles and they still make the straight back error sometimes when pressed. The competitors that know and utilize circular movement have the clear advantage, there's no controversy there.

There are still many good circumstances to use linear movement, I'm not saying you should never. It's not even wrong to use a lunge (when advantageous and from a safe angle/time). It's only substandard to rely on only linear movement (especially when defending) or ONLY circular movement (especially when attacking). The thing is, people who are schooled in circular movement for fighting are already familiar with using the more instinctive linear movement when they want to (which is why the circle diagram in spanish sword has straight lines drawn within it). People who rely on linear movements have a very difficult time understanding/gauging circular, which is why it is so useful.
 
Last edited:
I share your opinion here. There is a reason why all épée fencers fight more or less the same. It's because they only do the most efficient movements to strike their opponent first and they weeded out the rest in the last centuries of evolution of the sport.

Any combat using a thrusting sword started from scratch will eventually end up looking alot like sport épée fencing.


Yes, and using a cutting sword would resemble Olympic saber especially if there was a pause after each hit. Hema military saber often saber looks like less skilled less athletic Olympic saber for example. A similar dynamic is true for the long sword.

What is ironic is that a lot of hema people don't like how most tournament bouts look, but they insist on using the same point format as Olympic fencing. Which is odd because some historic rule sets allowed continuous contact. I kind of assume they don't want to be hit multiple times by a 2 pound blunt sword and are too embarrassed to say so.

Any way I know you are familiar with grappling, What do you think of the vids I posted?
 
Last edited:
Incidentally there is a HEMA grappling format and I was invited to participate in it, but it looks like low level no gi judo.

I told one of the organizers on facebook for a USA event most of the matches looked like sloppy so he invited me! What's kind of funny is that he is a purple belt in BJJ and acts like that is the same thing as being a high level wrestler. I think BJJ comp was too difficult for him so he moved decided to crapple instead.

Ringen is at low level..not many people do it as a specialty. The only school i know of that specialises in it is Poland. For most its an afterthought. The thing is, if you want to learn grappling seriously, you can take actual living grapplings arts like Judo, so ringen attracts only marginal interest.


 
Ringen is at low level..not many people do it as a specialty. The only school i know of that specialises in it is Poland. For most its an afterthought. The thing is, if you want to learn grappling seriously, you can take actual living grapplings arts like Judo, so ringen attracts only marginal interest.




It looks a lot like Russian Sambo, and other folk wrestling styles. Judo has its limitation too namely its gripping rules.
 
Yes, and using a cutting sword would resemble Olympic saber especially if there was a pause after each hit. Hema military saber often saber looks like less skilled less athletic Olympic saber for example. A similar dynamic is true for the long sword.

What is ironic is that a lot of hema people don't like how most tournament bouts look, but they insist on using the same point format as Olympic fencing. Which is odd because some historic rule sets allowed continuous contact. I kind of assume they don't want to be hit multiple times by a 2 pound blunt sword and are too embarrassed to say so.

Any way I know you are familiar with grappling, What do you think of the vids I posted?

First vid : blue guy is pretty good and with an obvious background in grappling (my best guess would be sambo but it could very well be judo and freestyle / folkstyle wrestling. It's hard to tell because he used moves associated with judo and moves associated with wrestling). His opponent didn't really know what he was doing but in any case that blue guy looked pretty legit to me.

Second vid : didn't really like it. Some okay techniques here and there but it seems like proper mechanics were often lacking. Also alot of aikido-style stuff which looks cool on a complying opponent but of which I am always skeptical. Even if they can work they are very low percentage stuff.

Third vid : didn't like it at all. IMO it's often hard to judge guys that big because they tend to look sloppy even if good. However it appeared to me that they had virtually no notion of gripping and seemed unbalanced with poor technique. Obviously out of shape too.

Let's just say that the first 2 vids were good, considering that grappling is not the primary focus. Third vid was bad.

Just my opinion, though.
 
Yes, and using a cutting sword would resemble Olympic saber especially if there was a pause after each hit. Hema military saber often saber looks like less skilled less athletic Olympic saber for example. A similar dynamic is true for the long sword.

What is ironic is that a lot of hema people don't like how most tournament bouts look, but they insist on using the same point format as Olympic fencing. Which is odd because some historic rule sets allowed continuous contact. I kind of assume they don't want to be hit multiple times by a 2 pound blunt sword and are too embarrassed to say so.

Any way I know you are familiar with grappling, What do you think of the vids I posted?

He he I am not sure that I agree with those statements.

While sport épée is rather similar to "real" smallsword techniques, I think that sport sabre is very far from techniques with a real sabre.

First of all edge alignment and proper cutting motion is very important with a real sabre, while in sport sabre the slightest contact of any portion of the blade with the opponent's upper body will be granted a point (if Right of Way is given, of course).

Second, while I am starting to believe that Right of Way is an interesting tool to develop combat notions such as parrying before counter-attacking, or beating the blade before attacking to get the opponent's blade out of the way, I still believe that it makes for fencing bouts that are very unrealistic.

Then the sport sabre is so light and flexible that you can often get a point just when the blade whips around when the opponent parries, which would not happen to the same extent with a real blade.

Lastly, the way sport sabre bouts go are nothing like a real swordfight. There are a bunch of subtilties obviously, but very often in essence it's 2 guys charging at each other right from the start and very often both get hit.

IMO real sabre fencing looks much more like this. BTW, to my untrained eye, Nick Thomas (the guy with red laces) is the best HEMA artist I have ever seen so far. He may not be the most athletic, but I think he is amazing with the sabre. Check out 1:30 of the first vid. He always pulls some dandy shit like that :



 
Last edited:
It looks a lot like Russian Sambo, and other folk wrestling styles. Judo has its limitation too namely its gripping rules.

Ringen has many styles. That one is more sport oriented. the Combat stuff is Kampfringen, and its for use in armour.
 
He he I am not sure that I agree with those statements.

While sport épée is rather similar to "real" smallsword techniques, I think that sport sabre is very far from techniques with a real sabre.

First of all edge alignment and proper cutting motion is very important with a real sabre, while in sport sabre the slightest contact of any portion of the blade with the opponent's upper body will be granted a point (if Right of Way is given, of course).

Second, while I am starting to believe that Right of Way is an interesting tool to develop combat notions such as parrying before counter-attacking, or beating the blade before attacking to get the opponent's blade out of the way, I still believe that it makes for fencing bouts that are very unrealistic.

Then the sport sabre is so light and flexible that you can often get a point just when the blade whips around when the opponent parries, which would not happen to the same extent with a real blade.

Lastly, the way sport sabre bouts go are nothing like a real swordfight. There are a bunch of subtilties obviously, but very often in essence it's 2 guys charging at each other right from the start and very often both get hit.

IMO real sabre fencing looks much more like this. BTW, to my untrained eye, Nick Thomas (the guy with red laces) is the best HEMA artist I have ever seen so far. He may not be the most athletic, but I think he is amazing with the sabre. Check out 1:30 of the first vid. He always pulls some dandy shit like that :

Have you seen many military saber bouts in a tournaments setting? Not many look like what you posted. A lot of them look like Olympic saber with two guys rushing at each other. Similar to the rapier video I posted. Or it looks more like Epee/ foil.

Here's one with Matt Easton

It doesn't look that much different than an electric fencing bout. The biggest difference is resembles more the slower pace of epee or foil than saber.



This one is more distinct and interesting, but it looks like competitors are almost intentionally fighting at a slow pace. They also miss a lot. The judges have a hard time awarding points. I think an E or a D sport saber player could walk all over these guys.

What I'm getting at is that hema saber competitions appear similar to Olympic counterpart and or/ have the added problem of being hard to score. All of this looks slow and uninteresting compared to the Sparring video you posted. Which is kind of funny.
 
Last edited:
Have you seen many military saber bouts in a tournaments setting? Not many look like what you posted.

I agree that using a heavier blade makes parrying a more useful strategy, but in practice a lot of people don't bother and charge at each like the Olympic counterpart.

They seem to encounter the same scoring problems Olympic fencing does.

Ok I was not aware of that.
 
Have you seen many military saber bouts in a tournaments setting? Not many look like what you posted. A lot of them look like Olympic saber with two guys rushing at each other. Similar to the rapier video I posted. Or it looks more like Epee/ foil.

Here's one with Matt Easton

It doesn't look that much different than an electric fencing bout. The biggest difference is resembles more the slower pace of epee or foil than saber.



This one is more distinct and interesting, but it looks like competitors are almost intentionally fighting at a slow pace. They also miss a lot. The judges have a hard time awarding points. I think an E or a D sport saber player could walk all over these guys.

What I'm getting at is that hema saber competitions appear similar to Olympic counterpart and or/ have the added problem of being hard to score. All of this looks slow and uninteresting compared to the Sparring video you posted. Which is kind of funny.


That s weird. I didn't see your video the first time I read your post.

I wonder where Matt Easton ranks in terms of actual competition result. He is a great authority and source of knowledge but I suspect that Nick Thomas is a much better fencer.

But I disagree that it looks like sport sabre. It s much slower and people really try to parry.
 
Back
Top