Historically Correct Swordfighting

People who study it say Hollywood gets it all wrong, which is no surprise, but nice to know how it really should go. 1.5 hours long. I'll watch it a bit later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmTi-NGQNh8&feature=youtu.be

I guess it's only natural they'd skew it to make it look good. That's the nature of the beast. (Hollywood.)

And make it more exciting!

This is actually a subject I've spent some time watching videos about and reading up on. Not that I really know the first thing about actual sword-fighting, I do at least have some common-sense ideas that I've seen in certain videos about melee combat concepts. Things like reach, speed, targeting, and so on.

What is this video you posted Halfwise? Can you give us a condensed review of its content?

It unfortunately is really a study of the community rather than the techniques. I watched it clear through and the only real information I picked up is that sharp sword edges will 'catch' each other while practice sword edges will slide off each other; so you really need to work with both. Also that any real sword fighter has to train in wrestling as well, as that is what a fight will often come down to. They didn't seem to be purists back then.

I was hoping for a treatise on how things in films are done wrong and the historical equivalents. Kept watching because there's a larger contingent of young women than one might expect, and was charmed. A Kiwi named Sarah Swords (real name) was featured prominently.

when you look at some of those weapons they used in the mediaeval period you wouldn't need to do too much fannying around, most of them were based on farming and butchery implements, I am thinking of halberds, they are basically meat cleavers on poles. the injuries must have been horrific.

except for bombs and machine guns I think all the old fighting tools would leave you more mangled than today's. I'd much rather be hit by a bullet than an arrow.

I did a little sword work when I trained all so briefly, in Ninjitsu. The biggest thing I've noticed that a sword fights should be incredibly short affairs. Unless the opponents are both highly skilled and experienced enough. Unfortunately I don't have footage of that. When using defending we were always taught not to aim our own swords at the others, but to aim at the hands and arms holding the sword. In other words, if our strike is good enough to hit a blade, it can also hit his person. If it can't then he too is out of range and not a danger. Very simple logic I grant you, but it worked.

I didn't watch the video but I did mess around with fencing lessons for a couple years and a little kendo too. In training they teach you to land the first blow at all costs, but the difference in real conflict is that the action doesn't stop after the first blow is landed. You can see that in the older training manuals, and also in the number of soldiers who were missing bits.

Like most hand to hand combat, the winner is often the one who can absorb a couple blows and still overwhelm his opponents. A lot of sword blows are not fatal, and war wounds were just part of a days work.

So maybe Monty Python got it right!

Interesting Its obvious when its laid out in plain English. "cat" fights are like that. Disable your opponent in any means, cutting palms, breaking fingers etc I think a hearty kick to the doughnuts helps

azriel wrote:Interesting  Its obvious when its laid out in plain English. "cat" fights are like that. Disable your opponent in any means, cutting palms, breaking fingers etc  I think a hearty kick to the doughnuts helps  

Yup, very much like that, a lot of the Ninjitsu style is based on very fast, decisive moves. Unlike Hollywood, it's not very showy and while there is a lot of history with black suits and what not, I've never saw any film that got "Ninjas" right.

I should imagine the first person to get tired wouldn't survive. I bet you could be a good swordsman but if you were puffed a less skilled person could worst you easily enough.