Swordfighting: Not What You Think It Is (Medieval Swordfighting Much Different than in the Movies)

109.com ^ | June 12, 2012 | John Clements

[PJ-Comix]

To borrow a famous line, the problem with most people trying to understanding the true nature of historical sword combat is not that they're ignorant — it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

It's amazing, really, how a subject that so permeates our modern pop culture, and is so ubiquitous, is one which virtually no one any longer has any real world experience in, nor pursues for its original function. As a result, most all our conceptions of sword-fighting get it wrong. The reality of it is not what you think it is.

[Timber Rattler]

Well, considering that medieval broad swords (made of folded, carbonized steel) weighed between 10-15 pounds, sword fights didn't last very long before the opponents were worn out.

And yeah, it was brutal hack and slash stuff...very bloody and gruesome.

Japanese sword-fighting on the other hand was a little more refined (but still bloody and vicious) because quite simply their swordmaking was superior and the blades much lighter. The same for Damascus blades, which originated in India and Persia.

[Mad Dawgg]

I always thought that the Salkind Productions of the Three Musketeers and the Four musketeers were a lot closer to the truth. Especially Atho's technique: "Use whatever is at hand and beat the living shit out of your opponent until he dies."

Its one of the reason's I liked those movies, the combat looked real, not staged. And the behind the scenes interviews on my Special Edition DVD reveal it was close to real with many of the actors getting hurt. Though there was still an air of swashbuckling swordplay to it all.

[Mad Dawgg]

"Knock one down and he's not like a flipped turtle. He'll be back on his feet in a couple seconds."

IIRC that particular meme got started because of the gear Knights wore for a joust, not actual combat. Many did have to be helped onto their horses and if they got knocked down they couldn't get right back up. But the reason was you were trying to protect the knight from a head on collision with a total impact speed that could exceed 50 miles an hour (Two horses moving towards each other at around 25 miles an hour each at the gallop)

Jousting Armor over the years got bulkier and heavier to try and compensate for the hard knocks jousters took. But I doubt any would have worn such versions into battle. It would have put them at a great disadvantage.

[exDemMom]

If something is so obvious that it it goes without saying, please don't waste my time saying it.

Technically, he didn't *say* those things, he *wrote* them. ;-)

[will of the people]

“Technically, he didn’t *say* those things, he *wrote* them. ;-)”

Goes without writing. . .just sayin’

[sphinx]

"Medieval swordfighting" casts a pretty wide net. The elegant Hollywood style duels present one extreme; simple hack and slash butchery, the other. In actuality, I imagine a lot depended on variables like single combat vs. small groups vs. general melee; the weaponry being carried by participants on both sides (highly variable); the availability and quality of shields, helmet, and body armor (highly variable); troop quality (highly variable), individual weapons handling skill (highly variable); not to mention morale, leadership, terrain, etc.

Ultimately with edged weapons, combat must have devolved into one-on-one, one-on-two, or one-on-three matches. Most of these must have been very short, although I suppose that two skilled swordsmen, equally matched, could occasionally have had extended fights, assuming their comrades did not rush in to overpower the opponent. The individual challenge matches between champions that occured occasionally throughout history probably had some of this character. A general melee or small group fight would have been different affairs. One of the tests for any warrior would have been the ability to adapt to different circumstances.

I am not a reenactor, but I do respect the ability of reenactors to generate microhistory on interesting subjects. Perhaps a couple can pitch in on this thread. One thing we don't know nearly enough about is small unit tactics on ancient and medieval battlefields. Professional warriors would presumably have learned to fight in organized teams. (They weren't stupid; they wanted to survive; and combat is an fast and effective teacher.) We just don't have enough in the written record to picture it easily. I imagine serious reenactors have rediscovered some of these lessons.

We have probably better detail about the Romans in the heydey of the legions: they were disciplined and trained, which was important; they fought in formations that allowed for mutual support; they were armored, and therefore much more willing to close with often unarmored barbarian opponents; and their training, tactics, and formations were such that they could relieve the front ranks in combat, keep fresh men to the front, and pass wounded men to the rear. It's probably an error to assume that medieval warriors were incapable of the same things, at least as far as the professionals were concerned.

[sphinx]

Re: small team combat. In our copybook ideas about medieval warfare, a proper knight had his squire(s) and men at arms, who were typically less well equipped; some knights commanded "lances." The duties of these troops presumably included direct combat support. That might involve stepping into the line and fighting alongside their leader. It would also have probably included covering a withdrawal if the team leader was beaten or wounded, as well as a rescue attempt if he went down. All that would of course depend on the broader circumstances. A swirling mass of thousands of bodies with everyone in a crush would degrade small group teamwork, but good warriors would presumably attempt to maintain order and position, and avoid overcrowding. It would have been the untrained levies who tended to flock together for the slaughter.

We don't even really know the typical spacing of medieval forces, or the depth of formations. Pikemen presumably stood should to shoulder, but swordsmen need more room.

[IncPen]

Off-topic, but since I teach writing and have awards for public speaking ...

If something is so obvious that it it goes without saying, please don't waste my time saying it.

If you teach writing and have awards for public speaking (?), please don't end sentences with prepositions.

[PapaBear3625]

One thing that I did learn from a History Channel show on medieval fighting was than men in armor were surprisingly nimble. Knock one down and he's not like a flipped turtle. He'll be back on his feet in a couple seconds.

Full plate armor was only around 50 pounds. Our troops are expected to run around in combat with more than that, when you add up body armor, weapons, ammo, water, radio, etc, etc.

A man in his prime, who works out every day practicing fighting in armor as the ancient knights did, would get to the point where he hardly noticed the weight of his armor.

And the way they fought bore no resemblance to Hollywood sword fighting, which was patterned on fencing (alias "playing tag with car antennas"). Real fighting is FIGHTING: you try to hack off hands, slash legs, knock his sword out of the way with your gauntlet-protected hand so you can smash him on the head with your sword hilt before chopping it off, etc.

[Tallguy]

The typical sword fight in the real world lasts less than 3 seconds. If it lasts longer than that, you're both probably going to bleed out. The way to win is to close, cut first, and cut brutally. Anything else is likely to end in a "you both die" tie...

Movie depictions of the use of the Japanese katana mostly focus on the "draw & quick strike" aspect of the brutal art, and are therefore much more representative. The Japanese through martial arts have preserved much of medieval swordplay, so perhaps it's understandable.

[Tallguy]

That training convinced me that medieval weapons were a good thing to have when and if the fighying gets up close and personal.

Some Vietnam infantry troops carried tomahawks. Saw that a guy was attempting to market an updated version to the military recently. Brutal weapon.

[SMARTY]

The best information is at: ‘The Book of the Sword’ by Sir Richard Francis Burton

A ripping good read it is, too!

[Turbo Pig]

That training convinced me that medieval weapons were a good thing to have when and if the fighying gets up close and personal.

Even today, in this high tech world, ANY type of weapon is a good thing when it's up close and personal. Reading accounts of SpecOps operations in Afghanistan, I found a recounting where an SF guy actually bludgeoned a Jihadi in to submission with his helmet, after turning a corner and literally bumping into him.

Kind of like a maul, without a handle, or maybe a high tech brick?

[Tallguy]

Ultimately with edged weapons, combat must have devolved into one-on-one, one-on-two, or one-on-three matches. Most of these must have been very short, although I suppose that two skilled swordsmen, equally matched, could occasionally have had extended fights, assuming their comrades did not rush in to overpower the opponent.

I would add to your excellent points that most medieval "infantry" were like pickup football squads -- improperly equipped, lightly trained, and to borrow a term form the gun-powder era -- "Cannon Fodder". Most of the carnage would have been an armored knight (and his skilled Men-at-Arms) plowing through groups of peasants in an attempt to get at an opposing group of armed & armored men. This is all AFTER clearing the killing zone created by your opponent's archers. Bloody stuff!

[Jemian]

I did not end any sentence in that post with a preposition. FWIW, “it” is a third-person, indefinite pronoun.

[PapaBear3625]

Youtube: sword against mail armor

[IronJack]

Agree. Long on self-congratulation, short on information. Reads like a windy promotional brochure.

[9422WMR]

Napoleon said “la pointe, la pointe”, was the key to sword play. He instructed his forces to use a jabing, penetrating stroke. So they went to straight blade weapons versus the curved saber. It was much more effective, and easier to pierce the body of the enemy with a straight jab than with a hacking swing to lop off an arm or leg. Once the body is pierced through the torso, they are unable to continue the battle.

[Houghton M.]

For the most part, peasants had no place in medieval armies. Fighting was for free men, not serfs.

[IMR 4350]

The katana puts to rest the theory swords were dull.

Nothing dull about a katana.

Go into battle with a dull blade against someone with a sharp blade, more than likely you will loose.