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

Just try it ? IMO you'll find out pretty quickly if you like it or not.

I know I was hooked instantly when I sparred for the first time.

Like you, I was also very reticent to start such a nich discipline at my age (36) and I gave it alot of thought.

We'll never become good fencers starting after 25/30, but IMO it is one of the very few combat sports where you can still have fun as a noob fighting against someone experienced. There are a bunch of old fucks around 35-45 that started late at my club. You hardly ever see that in judo. You can't learn to fall at 40.

There is no risk of injury in fencing, so you'll be surprised how uninhibited and shameless you will be trying to pierce the hell out of an experienced fencer. :)

Thanks for the information ... I am kind of bored at the moment and looking to try something new. Maybe I'll give it a go ... it's really the cost that is hard to stomach, it's no $25 a month judo situation.
 
Thanks for the information ... I am kind of bored at the moment and looking to try something new. Maybe I'll give it a go ... it's really the cost that is hard to stomach, it's no $25 a month judo situation.

Interested in hearing your impressions if you do try it.

It is this thread that got me into fencing btw.
 
Just thought I'd give an update, since I've been training épée once a week since exactly a year, now.

I have been mostly free fencing in the advanced group for the last 3 months or so.

These guys (and girls) are excellent, and I am often the only one there with my level of experience. It's pretty sobering. And it can get discouraging to lose like 3-15 (the 3 being doubles) against 3 opponents in a row.

But I am improving, I think. Learning from my mistakes and being more patient and less agressive. I still give a good 5 points away per match on average just closing in without my arm extended. My average score is going up, though, and I am more and more often around 10-15 points when I lose (average must have been around 5-15 when I started to attend that group 3 months ago).

I am transitioning to 2 x / week currently (couldn't do more due to swelling of the right knee, but I am getting this under control it seems) and am going to train the sabre as well (right before one of the épée class) if the club accepts it.

I am also doing the paperwork to start competing. Can't wait.

Lastly, I can only recommend this sport to anyone interested in a combat sport where you don't show up to work with your face wrecked. It's a f**k load of fun.

What I also love is that it's the only combat sport I can think of where experience and skill can trump youth, strength and fitness. There are 50-60 year old dudes at my club that hardly move but they are untouchable.
 
The mongols had a big succes thanks to horses.i learned that from history channel<45><45>:D
 
Sounds like you are landing toe first instead of heel first. To fix that try this trick when your knee heels. Find a hard wood or smooth floor surface, place a quarter on the ground. Now come on guard with your front heel on the quarter. Practice the lung by first lifting your toes and then kicking the heel forward, if you do this right the quarter will get launched across the floor with your heel leading the lunge. The leading heel should impact first and cause the impact shock to transfer through the leg with out stressing the knee as the foot rolls the shin forward in to the final lunge position. This also happens to be the fastest method for the lunge.

You have a slight miss understanding of RoW. It by the was originally implemented as a training technique in the small sword to promote learning to defended and counter. I trained epee, saber, foil, and coached foil.

Anyway the trick with right of way is to never let the opponent take it away. Sometimes this is easy some times it is hard. Ask your couch about the Remise, or continuation of the attack, it lets you follow the the first attack with another with out loosing right of way. If you lose RoW, you don't have to wait, just take it back. This can be done with either a parry-repost , beat, glissade, or if you are just flat faster recover and restrike before they can respond.

Interestingly, at the time I read this post last year, I hardly had any understanding of fencing.

Now, after a year of fencing épée and starting sabre as well, I think I can better grasp what you meant with regards to the RoW.

Even though it makes for ruleset which are unrealistic, I am starting to see how it makes sense to ingrain these reflexes, because it teaches :
- to parry and riposte (instead of just thrusting at the same time and hoping to land first)
- to get the opponent's blade out of the way before striking either by battuta or by binding

Now obviously this is valid when you don't have the RoW and may posibly teach you much better to hit without getting hit, which is closer to a duel.

On the other hand I have observed some anti-combative behaviour, like when one fencer has RoW and just advances towards his opponent while "hiding" his blade just because he has RoW and cannot lose a point if the opponent does not contact his blade.

Anyways, I am sure that even as an épée fencer, this mindset will improve my overall understanding of fencing.

BTW I am noticing that as I am improving and being more careful, I tend to search contact with the blade before striking (like battuta to the bottom followed up with a thrust on the forearm) anyways. So I guess that RoW makes more sense as you start refining your game.

While my speed was good enough to beat other noobs when I started, I have had to evolve, because almost all the noobs quit and the couples ones remaining (like 2 out of 15) are already competing and training 4x / week, thereby becoming more proficient at a scary pace. The rest of the people I fence with all have years or decades of experience.So I can't pull off the sh1t I was pulling at first, that is relying overwhelmingly on speed and aggression.

Ok, / diary.
 
That's cool you are improving. I fenced foil and then saber for several years but quit because I got frustrated by my lack of progress or skill advancement. Also saber fencing felt very monotonous.
 
Why dont they allow lateral movement, and circling in modern day fencing? Why only back and forth?
 
Why dont they allow lateral movement, and circling in modern day fencing? Why only back and forth?

In my limited experience circular mouvements would never work because they are too slow.

That and it would be a poor use of the available training space. Less fencers could fight at the same time in the club.
 
In my limited experience circular mouvements would never work because they are too slow.

That and it would be a poor use of the available training space. Less fencers could fight at the same time in the club.

What if you parry, and then sidestep and step in, wont you have a clear shot?

Also where does this come from? I believe this is historically accurate

 
Also another thing I dont get about modern fencing is usually both players get hit, but they score the guy who lands first? If modern fencing is suppose to emphasize the most pertinent aspects of real sword dueling, then I think I rather be an archer.

That happens in boxing too, but at least there are times one boxer lands only.
 
Why dont they allow lateral movement, and circling in modern day fencing? Why only back and forth?

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.
 
They used to in actual sword fighting, but it favored the Spaniard style (boooo!) 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.

But they should have at least of buckler. If I in that situation, I need something to block.
 
But they should have at least of buckler. If I in that situation, I need something to block.

That would be nice. They could also use a dagger in the 2nd hand instead of a buckler, works similarly for defense and is a little more threatening offensively.

But think also-- a buckler would return to making it a more defensive minded sport, and they didn't want that which is why they removed the option of lateral/circular movement in the first place.
 
That would be nice. They could also use a dagger in the 2nd hand instead of a buckler, works similarly for defense and is a little more threatening offensively.

But think also-- a buckler would return to making it a more defensive minded sport, and they didn't want that which is why they removed the option of lateral/circular movement in the first place.

From matches I have seen both players actually get hit almost at the same time. Just who ever comes a fraction first gets the right of way points.

I just dont see how you can turn that into an interesting game.
 
From matches I have seen both players actually get hit almost at the same time. Just who ever comes a fraction first gets the right of way points.

I just dont see how you can turn that into an interesting game.

I feel ya. It probably works ok at the competitive lower levels but at the higher levels it falls apart like that. Kinda like BJJ. hmmmmm


I wish they had preserved the complete circular method (which also contained linearity within it, so it wasn't missing anything)
 
Which of our ancestors made the most sturdy, effective and battle ready swords? By sturdy, I mean wont break, and effective I mean can still deliver the power necessary to get through countermeasures and do damage.

Was it the Persians, Romans, Greeks, Franks, Vikings, Japanese, Chinese, Arabs, etc? Did I leave anyone out? I dont know how to post a poll. Feel free though.

I imagine in battle, your sword is going to smack into a lot of shields, armor, and other metal blades before you meet flesh. I would think that this will either render the sword dull, or shatter it. Both would make the sword pretty useless.

Therefore, I conclude that the most successful armies and empires had the ability to produce swords and metals that can withstand such punishment and still be effective, and at the same time be able to produce this in such quantity as to give yourself the advantage of superior numbers.

So who is it? Mongols, and Moslems conquer the largest land empires, but I find it hard to believe they had access to quality of blades. Of course the Mongols are famous for their bow and arrows but still, I am sure they had to have engaged up close every now and then.

Now this is not about aesthetics. This is purely about effectiveness.
Damascus steel is pretty well known for its strength and ability to hold an extremely sharp edge. It's distinctive for these strange swirling patterns in the metal. They still haven't really been able to determine how it was made.
 
That's cool you are improving. I fenced foil and then saber for several years but quit because I got frustrated by my lack of progress or skill advancement. Also saber fencing felt very monotonous.

Maybe you could have tried épée?

Many people start with foil, and end up in épée because they hated RoW.
 
What if you parry, and then sidestep and step in, wont you have a clear shot?

Also where does this come from? I believe this is historically accurate



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.
 
Back
Top