Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'll note that you didn't answer my question. I'm going to say 'internet commando' for this one.

Albatross wrote:I'll note that you didn't answer my question. I'm going to say 'internet commando' for this one.

Theres only one thing better than an underwater knife fighter, and thats an internet underwater knife fighter.

I had a mate got stabbed as well, he tried to fight two muggers and punctured a lung and he was proper fethed in hospital for a month, and even he said for the first minute he didn't realise he was stabbed. He said he thought he was breathless and had aches all over from punches and strikes, but its only after a minute when he took stock he realised he was proper fethed.

As you say, the bigger the better. If you say you prefer a knife over a sword, I say your nutso!

mattyrm wrote:

Albatross wrote:I'll note that you didn't answer my question. I'm going to say 'internet commando' for this one.

Theres only one thing better than an underwater knife fighter, and thats an internet underwater knife fighter.

I had a mate got stabbed as well, he tried to fight two muggers and punctured a lung and he was proper fethed in hospital for a month, and even he said for the first minute he didn't realise he was stabbed. He said he thought he was breathless and had aches all over from punches and strikes, but its only after a minute when he took stock he realised he was proper fethed.

As you say, the bigger the better. If you say you prefer a knife over a sword, I say your nutso!

The daft thing is though, I'm not saying that getting stabbed isn't a big deal, because it is. People die from stab wounds. What I am saying is that stabbing me once (because that's all you're realistically going to get in), even with a large kitchen knife, is not going to stop me hacking my opponent's head off with a claymore. You just wouldn't be able to stop a fully grown man in his tracks instantly with a knife in order to prevent him swinging. This isn't the movies.

Albatross wrote:
Oh, and 'knife fights' don't exist outside of the imaginations of teenage boys, incidentally.

Its doesn't play out like the Micheal Jackson video "Beat It" knife fight?

poda_t wrote:

Albatross wrote:Even without armour, there's nowhere (apart from my face) that anyone could stab me with a knife that would stop me hacking off their head with that sword. Knives just don't have that instant stopping power.

actually, they do. It's why knife fights have the highest instance of double-death; speed of reaction and the fact that you can go at someone like a sowing machine.

Poda has it right. In medieval parlance the smaller infighting weapons were considered deadlier, they relied on the swirft accurate kill. Take the annotations to Talhoffers techniques.

No comments on big stuff like poleaxes and zweihanders
"Here they fight with the sword, God help them."
"Here they fight with the knife, God help us all."

Paraphrased from Talhoffers Fechtbucher (1460's)



Dagger fights are nasty.


The Romans also knew this, they chose the Gladius as their standard weapon for this reason. It was a thrusting sword pure and simple, and a very effective weapon.

The gladius would penetrate the poor armour carried by most of Romes enemies, heavier armoured soldiers would be dealt with my other means, or 'critical strikes' with the gladius. What made the weapon so nasty was the type of wound it caused, the blade was fairly wide with a triangular tip thuis meant it made fairly broad and shallow cuts with a thrust, this would not instantly kill but would immediately debilitate, especially with an abdominal wound. Romans would stab to main and leave a wall of screaming mortally wounded barbarinas in front of their position. The famous Dying Gaul statue contenporary to this age (see below) shows the relative modesty of the wound.


The Dying Gaul


Had the wound been a few inches lower it would be considerably more debilitating (the casualty would not be able to sit up). Nasty thing is, wounds like that might cause the casualty to risk slow disembowelment and yet allow plenty of energy left to writhe and scream. This is just how the Romans wanted their enemies to face them and is a pointer as to how and why their army was so effective, and feared.

The second reason the gladius was chosen was because it was compact and therefore very useful in close engagements as well as being light enough to carry on long marches. Eventually the Romans developed a longer sword with a cutting edge and little or no point called the Spatha. This is the forerunner of the medieval longsword and was designed first for use on horseback taking advantage of the stirrup and the effectiveness of a slashing attack from horseback, second it helped cope with the more frequent and heavier armours encountered in the final centuries of the Empire.

The gladius had an edge and can be used to slash, however that was situational. Combat drill was all about the thrust, combined with the defence provided by a tower shield. However Hollywood is not entirely wrong, the fighting you see is most often dueling, and in a duel without the benefit of as formation , or even the rest of your wargear then you need to be able to fence with a gladius. Thrusting moves do not parry attacks and are reserved for the kill. Gladius vs gladius fencing is entirely feasible and documented and I suspect it went as well and any other type of fencing. Real get-at-'em swordfights tend not to last long, however if either combatant wants to fight defensively they can do so and hold off an opponent for a considerable while.
Roman legionaries would need to know the basics of duelling, not every enemy is met with a maniple of fellow pedes to back you up. If off a-scouting and a barbarinan gets the drop on you, you would be glad your sword had an edge as well as a tip. Swing to parry and slash with the opening, a gladius slash is not exactly heavy damage but it opens the opponent up fro the follow up thrust. Either the quick thrust for a debilitating wound as above, or a hard thrust for a quick kill.

Vulcan wrote:

Claymore isn't wide open to single sword (I presume one-handed battle sword) or spear. He has the power to blast straight through single sword's parry, and chop the point off the spear.

Sorry this is blatantly untrue.

Historical evidence.
Culloden 1746. Highlanders with claymores reached the English lines and died on bayonets, with a very great disparity in causalties suffered. And in case you are thinking gunfire killed them that would not be true, you cannot reload when facing melee combat.
Claymores also suffered in many of the incursions the Scots made against England in the middle ages. The bill proved a superior weapon on many occasions.

Tactical evidence.
Claymores are slow, they do not blast through because a proper sword parry deflects rather than blocks energy, a sword arm gives under the blow but the blades slip down each other.
Secondly claymore cannot be effectively used to parry a spear, which has superior reach to a claymore and more importantly can be concentrated. At Culloden bayonets (inferior to spears by a considerable margin) killed claymore armed men because you would parry the scot facing and then stab the man to your left.

Take kingcrackers picture for example.


What is wrong with this image?

Answer: Look how kingcracker is holding the sword, its more or less correct for a claymore, but mores the problem, the hilt is not far from his opposite waist, in order to have control over the blade you need to keep it close to you, more like a polearm than a sword, yet a polearm is longer. This is the inherent flaw of the claymore, it may be meaty, it may roll d10 damage, but it has the disadvantages of a sword and a polearm while masquerading as having same advantages.

Compare that to a zwerch or a no-dachi. Those are much nastier greatswords because while as long as the claymore, or longer they were much lighter and thus could be used like an ordinary sword.


Use a claymore like this and you will likely drop it, or fall over. Notice the swordfighter on the right, he his holding his zwerch like a spear and his left hand is as far back (though higher) as kingcrackers. However the other fighter has his arms in front of him bearing the full weight of the weapon, the zwerch allows you do do either thus it has great reach. It also allows you to move and take up a different pose very swiftly, the poimnt of the Fechtbucher. You have to hold back the claymore to keep control of it, so you might as well have had a bastard sword instead and held it slighly further forward, in either case you get as much reach and as much power behind a blow, but the bastarded sword is faster will not tire you so quickly.

Vulcan wrote:
Greatswords of all sorts are a bit slower than single swords. They also greatly outreach single swords, so you only get to swing if you survive to get inside his swing. And unless he is dumb enough to baseball swing that thing (which proves he has no idea how to use it, congratulations, you just beat a newb), he's not going to have that much trouble recovering the swing and either blocking your shot, or counterattacking by powering through your shot.

No you do not outreach because the lunge of a lighter sword is longer and mobility is higher. Also recovering from a swing from a claymore is a problem, it is markedly slower and the move to recover is highly predicatable. Claymores leave you wide open. Again heavy two handed swords have their place, in the hands of people wearing full field plate. A zwerch on the other hand could be used in that or lighter armour, you could even field the zwerch with no armour at all, Of course any dopplersoldner worth his double pay would want full plate and a zwerch. No-dachi samurai also often deployed the same, mobility speed and reach making up for protection. Highlanders and gallowglasses may have been trying to mimic this, but the results were normally less than effective.

Now there are two weapons I can think of which took direct advantage of being very heavy and got away with it. the Daneaxe and the Espadon. Both worked on similar principles or maintained momentum. The Espadon is best described as an executioners sword but was also a field weapon, it concentrated its weight below the hilt and was used for short ranged heavy blows which were controllable because the weight was never far from the arms. Moreover the WEpadon was the exclusive use of heavily armoured swordsmen, unlike the claymore so it could survive its shortcomings. The Daneaxe had the weight concentrated on the head and was a very inflexible weapon, but that did not matter because the idea was to build up momentum normally in a figure of eight sweeping pattern and keep swinging, anything in the way had a problem. The claymore is not really designed for those type of move as the weight is more evenly distributed and is thus unfocused when in motion. Daneaxemen still also needed to be heavily armoured.


Tizona, the sword of El Cid

Vulcan wrote:
Give single sword/spear a shield, on the other hand, and now greatsword is in trouble.

Shields, with some notable exceptions are not for blocking large chopping melee weapons but thrusting weapons and missiles. Greatswordsmen were used to chop through shieldwalls, in fact its what they did best.

Vulcan wrote:
Knife is dead meat. Unless Greatsword is a newb and baseball swings, knife (even paired knives) will never get close enough to strike. Knife's only hope is in the throw.

Agreed, knives are for brutal infighting not field of battle. You (in medieval times) carried your knife or small sword with you. You never knew when you would use it. there are exceptions, the main gauche which is a parrying weapon with a counterattack built in,and the poniard which is used for dispatching fallen foes.
Apart from that you need to go back as far as Dark Ages and the scramseax to find an effective battlefield knife, or forward to the modern day.

Vulcan wrote:
Don't discount his close-combat capabilities either. He's got a good foot of blade below the riccasso to choke up on for midrange work. Get in closer and he'll just slug you one - that's not a skinny boy hefting the claymore there.

No however do close with a greatsword

mattyrm wrote:

Albatross wrote:I'll note that you didn't answer my question. I'm going to say 'internet commando' for this one.

Theres only one thing better than an underwater knife fighter, and thats an internet underwater knife fighter.

I had a mate got stabbed as well, he tried to fight two muggers and punctured a lung and he was proper fethed in hospital for a month, and even he said for the first minute he didn't realise he was stabbed. He said he thought he was breathless and had aches all over from punches and strikes, but its only after a minute when he took stock he realised he was proper fethed.

As you say, the bigger the better. If you say you prefer a knife over a sword, I say your nutso!

AND to add yet more knifing evidence to the mix. A buddy of mine had a girlfriend with one of those "movie crazy xboyfriend" types. and one night when he dropped her off, he turned to goto his car, and the X was right in his face. He THOUGHT the guy was punching at his face, and so slapped his hand away a few times and then shoved him over the car hood. He ran back into his girlfriends house and her and her folks just FREAKED out. Apparently the X boyfriend wasnt hitting him, he was slashing/stabbing him in the face. He has some pretty nasty scars down the sides of his face, and a nice dent in his neck/shoulder area, where the guy had stabbed him. He swore he was just sweating from the brief fight, didnt even THINK he was stabbed.

So yea, unless you somehow have a long enough knife blow, go strait into your heart, I dont see you dropping dead that fast. Not saying knives arnt deadly, as they can be, but normally, youd have to have some good training to be able to use one in any type of efficient way.

Orlanth wrote:
Dagger fights are nasty.

I recall that a friend of mine who was really into MMA worked with an Eskrima master for some time, and what he took away from it was something like "In a fight with swords, prepare to move. In a fight with knives, prepare for pain."

Orlanth wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Claymore isn't wide open to single sword (I presume one-handed battle sword) or spear. He has the power to blast straight through single sword's parry, and chop the point off the spear.

Sorry this is blatantly untrue.

Historical evidence.
Culloden 1746. Highlanders with claymores reached the English lines and died on bayonets, with a very great disparity in causalties suffered.

A bayonet is not a single sword, nor is it a spear. I have zero experience with greatsword vs. bayonet, so I can only assume that it would be similar to greatsword vs. battle sword wielded two handed, with some additional leverage (maybe greatsword vs. nagimaki?).

And in case you are thinking gunfire killed them that would not be true, you cannot reload when facing melee combat.
Claymores also suffered in many of the incursions the Scots made against England in the middle ages. The bill proved a superior weapon on many occasions.

Tactical evidence.
Claymores are slow, they do not blast through because a proper sword parry deflects rather than blocks energy, a sword arm gives under the blow but the blades slip down each other.

Assuming the single swordsman is more skilled than the greatswordsman. That trick is MUCH harder than you think.

Secondly claymore cannot be effectively used to parry a spear, which has superior reach to a claymore and more importantly can be concentrated. At Culloden bayonets (inferior to spears by a considerable margin) killed claymore armed men because you would parry the scot facing and then stab the man to your left.

That isn't 'bayonet beats claymore;' that's 'the English came up with a good tactic and had the discipline to make it work'. How would one guy with a bayonet fair against one guy with a claymore, hmmm?

Take kingcrackers picture for example.


What is wrong with this image?

He's indoors, under a low ceiling, and probably in a fairly small room which restricts the angles he can pose in? He's posing for a picture rather than being en guarde for an actual fight?

Answer: Look how kingcracker is holding the sword, its more or less correct for a claymore, but mores the problem, the hilt is not far from his opposite waist, in order to have control over the blade you need to keep it close to you, more like a polearm than a sword, yet a polearm is longer. This is the inherent flaw of the claymore, it may be meaty, it may roll d10 damage, but it has the disadvantages of a sword and a polearm while masquerading as having same advantages.

Compare that to a zwerch or a no-dachi. Those are much nastier greatswords because while as long as the claymore, or longer they were much lighter and thus could be used like an ordinary sword.


Use a claymore like this and you will likely drop it, or fall over. Notice the swordfighter on the right, he his holding his zwerch like a spear and his left hand is as far back (though higher) as kingcrackers. However the other fighter has his arms in front of him bearing the full weight of the weapon, the zwerch allows you do do either thus it has great reach. It also allows you to move and take up a different pose very swiftly, the poimnt of the Fechtbucher. You have to hold back the claymore to keep control of it, so you might as well have had a bastard sword instead and held it slighly further forward, in either case you get as much reach and as much power behind a blow, but the bastarded sword is faster will not tire you so quickly.

Vulcan wrote:
Greatswords of all sorts are a bit slower than single swords. They also greatly outreach single swords, so you only get to swing if you survive to get inside his swing. And unless he is dumb enough to baseball swing that thing (which proves he has no idea how to use it, congratulations, you just beat a newb), he's not going to have that much trouble recovering the swing and either blocking your shot, or counterattacking by powering through your shot.

No you do not outreach because the lunge of a lighter sword is longer and mobility is higher.

Having used rapier vs. greatsword and vice versa, I respectfully disagree. Yoru lunge is going to get batted aside as he chops your extended arm off.

Also recovering from a swing from a claymore is a problem, it is markedly slower and the move to recover is highly predicatable. Claymores leave you wide open.

Having used these weapons, again I respectfully disagree. They are a bit slower, true. They aren't THAT much heavier than a battle or long sword, and not that much slower. And if you are using the battle sword one-handed, it may well be slower because of your lesser leverage.

Again heavy two handed swords have their place, in the hands of people wearing full field plate. A zwerch on the other hand could be used in that or lighter armour, you could even field the zwerch with no armour at all, Of course any dopplersoldner worth his double pay would want full plate and a zwerch. No-dachi samurai also often deployed the same, mobility speed and reach making up for protection. Highlanders and gallowglasses may have been trying to mimic this, but the results were normally less than effective.

Now there are two weapons I can think of which took direct advantage of being very heavy and got away with it. the Daneaxe and the Espadon. Both worked on similar principles or maintained momentum. The Espadon is best described as an executioners sword but was also a field weapon, it concentrated its weight below the hilt and was used for short ranged heavy blows which were controllable because the weight was never far from the arms. Moreover the WEpadon was the exclusive use of heavily armoured swordsmen, unlike the claymore so it could survive its shortcomings. The Daneaxe had the weight concentrated on the head and was a very inflexible weapon, but that did not matter because the idea was to build up momentum normally in a figure of eight sweeping pattern and keep swinging, anything in the way had a problem. The claymore is not really designed for those type of move as the weight is more evenly distributed and is thus unfocused when in motion. Daneaxemen still also needed to be heavily armoured.


Tizona, the sword of El Cid

Vulcan wrote:
Give single sword/spear a shield, on the other hand, and now greatsword is in trouble.

Shields, with some notable exceptions are not for blocking large chopping melee weapons but thrusting weapons and missiles. Greatswordsmen were used to chop through shieldwalls, in fact its what they did best.

Vulcan wrote:
Knife is dead meat. Unless Greatsword is a newb and baseball swings, knife (even paired knives) will never get close enough to strike. Knife's only hope is in the throw.

Agreed, knives are for brutal infighting not field of battle. You (in medieval times) carried your knife or small sword with you. You never knew when you would use it. there are exceptions, the main gauche which is a parrying weapon with a counterattack built in,and the poniard which is used for dispatching fallen foes.
Apart from that you need to go back as far as Dark Ages and the scramseax to find an effective battlefield knife, or forward to the modern day.

Vulcan wrote:
Don't discount his close-combat capabilities either. He's got a good foot of blade below the riccasso to choke up on for midrange work. Get in closer and he'll just slug you one - that's not a skinny boy hefting the claymore there.

No however do close with a greatsword

I can't match your historical knowledge. However, I have done a great deal of simulated swordfighting using padded swords that, while similarly balaced to historical weapons, were usually slightly heavier (due to the structural limitaions of the materials we used) and had significantly more wind resistance than their live steel counterparts. I have fought both with and against greatswords, with single swords and sword&board. I am pretty darn familiar with the way different weapons work in a one-on-one situation. And my experience tells me you are dead wrong in most of your points.

I'll grant you that historically the claymore-wielding Scots got their heads handed back to them by the English. It wasn't because 'the claymore sucks!' like you claim; the English had better tactics, better discipline, and FAR better logistic support, and I think those things were much more decisive than the choice of melee weapons.

A note in passing: A proper claymore is in the 7-8 lb range, slightly less than the zweihander, a bit more than a no-dachi. If it weighs more than 10 lbs, it is a bearing sword meant only for display and parades, and most definitely NOT for the field of battle. So before decrying the claymore, make sure you are dealing with an actual claymore and not a bearing sword dressed up as a claymore.

My god i love all the history that's being discussed here, absolutely love it.

As to the original question, i have a replica Blade sword, a crescent shaped sci-fi / goth dagger that opens out in to 2 blades, and a hunting knife taht my sister brought back from bulgaria for me, the handle being made from deer horn, and that damn thing is SHARP! (The blade, not the horn, that would be stupid )

One day I'll have a house big enough for me to have an armoury with swords and other weapons from all over the world...

Vulcan wrote:
A bayonet is not a single sword, nor is it a spear. I have zero experience with greatsword vs. bayonet, so I can only assume that it would be similar to greatsword vs. battle sword wielded two handed, with some additional leverage (maybe greatsword vs. nagimaki?).

A bayonet, when fixed, is intended to grant the firearm characteristics of a spear, and an unfixed bayonet is essentially a thrusting dagger. Edged bayonets only served as cutting implements in a utility capacity, the one exception being larger sword bayonets.

Vulcan wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Vulcan wrote:

Claymore isn't wide open to single sword (I presume one-handed battle sword) or spear. He has the power to blast straight through single sword's parry, and chop the point off the spear.

Sorry this is blatantly untrue.

Historical evidence.
Culloden 1746. Highlanders with claymores reached the English lines and died on bayonets, with a very great disparity in causalties suffered.

A bayonet is not a single sword, nor is it a spear. I have zero experience with greatsword vs. bayonet, so I can only assume that it would be similar to greatsword vs. battle sword wielded two handed, with some additional leverage (maybe greatsword vs. nagimaki?).

A bayonet is a knife put on a gun, so its has an edge, but then not necessarily, as you do get spike bayonets, however it always has a tip. You can use a bayonet as a thrusting knife, but when on a gun its very clearly a form of spear.

Vulcan wrote:

And in case you are thinking gunfire killed them that would not be true, you cannot reload when facing melee combat.
Claymores also suffered in many of the incursions the Scots made against England in the middle ages. The bill proved a superior weapon on many occasions.

Tactical evidence.
Claymores are slow, they do not blast through because a proper sword parry deflects rather than blocks energy, a sword arm gives under the blow but the blades slip down each other.

Assuming the single swordsman is more skilled than the greatswordsman. That trick is MUCH harder than you think..

First not a swordsman, secondly its a mismatch, third individual skill comes into it less than discipline.
Most of all where is the MUCH from. You know more? I dont claim to, I havent personally sparred with greatsword vs spear or sword either. Though I do have some medieval martial training. I claim to have read historical reports though its well documented what happened at Culloden from numerous sources on both sides. Its a very well reported battle, and I see no reason not to accept the eyewitness testimonies.

The Duke of Cumberlands armies raised for Culloden were new recruits, most had been in the army less than six months. Enough to become a disciplined soldier, not enough to be a weaponmaster. Theclansmen they were facing fought as melee warriors by cultural tradition. They probably had moreskill with the weapons they held than their adversaries. However spears are weapons of discipline, not particularly good for duelling, perfect for line actions.

Vulcan wrote:

Secondly claymore cannot be effectively used to parry a spear, which has superior reach to a claymore and more importantly can be concentrated. At Culloden bayonets (inferior to spears by a considerable margin) killed claymore armed men because you would parry the scot facing and then stab the man to your left.

That isn't 'bayonet beats claymore;' that's 'the English came up with a good tactic and had the discipline to make it work'. How would one guy with a bayonet fair against one guy with a claymore, hmmm?

True, however as stated above spearsare not duelling weapons, neither are claymores. You can fight duels with them, in fact if you are particularly skilled you can make good work of any weapon, to some extent the man trumps the weapon. Musashi is a case in point here, the legendary swordsman eventually hung up his sword and fought all (almost all?) his duels with bokken. Given equal or near equal skill I would not rate a claymore over most other battlefield melee weapons in a duel. Armour can make a big difference here, but then armour always makes a difference.

Vulcan wrote:
He's indoors, under a low ceiling, and probably in a fairly small room which restricts the angles he can pose in? He's posing for a picture rather than being en guarde for an actual fight?

Maybe kingcracker can confirm is the environment limited his pose. His opportunity to swing definately, but his pose? Lets find out.
He is 'en garde' or equivalent for the claymore. Accidental, possibly but I wont claim kingcracker doesnt know how to use his sword without evidence to back it up.

Albatross wrote:I'll note that you didn't answer my question. I'm going to say 'internet commando' for this one.

I assumed it was a rhetorical remark..
No i've not been in a knife fight, but i've trained with longer blades. Most european blades are optimally designed for thrusting action, from zeihander to short-sword, the thrust really is the most effective attack because of both speed and.. well, you can't risk getting your blade caught in something. Recovering from a thrust is much easier than recovering from a swing. It may be difficult to get a knife into reach, but the same difficulty is presented when a sword-bucklar tries to get inside of a longsword. It is possible, and it depends on knowing how your oponents weapons work.

As an aside, an example of strategy, (not miitary grade, this is street level), some would carry longer-reaching swords to encourage their opponent to close in past its effective range. Since the fellow with the longer sword fancies he's a better wrestler or brawler anyway, this is exactly what he wanted his opponent to do, and instead of backing out, uses the forward momentum of the opponent to close to fists.

I am however trusting that you too haven't been in a knife fight either.

Vulcan - Its a fairly large room, but you definitely got the low ceiling part right. Its about 8 foot, Im 6ft with my boots on, and the word is nearly as long as I am tall, so yea, you hit the nail on the head. Pretty hard to hold it properly in a house. And again as you stated, definitely just taking it for a picture.

Im surprised my being a master swordsmen even came into this debate (which has mostly been pretty informative TBH) as I know for a fact that when I posted that picture, I never stated I knew what I was doing with it

KingCracker wrote:Vulcan - Its a fairly large room, but you definitely got the low ceiling part right. Its about 8 foot, Im 6ft with my boots on, and the word is nearly as long as I am tall, so yea, you hit the nail on the head. Pretty hard to hold it properly in a house. And again as you stated, definitely just taking it for a picture.

Im surprised my being a master swordsmen even came into this debate (which has mostly been pretty informative TBH) as I know for a fact that when I posted that picture, I never stated I knew what I was doing with it

It's an awesome picture and very enlightening debate.

I'm not so much into swords as I am knives. In particular, I'm a big fan of knives that have been hand-crafted by individual amateur craftspeople. I'm especially fond of the hunting knife my great-grandfather made during his amateur blacksmithing days when he was still alive.

Good/fun info posted on all sides.

I did sport fencing for a number of years (foil primarily, a little epee and saber), and larp combat for several (fighting with padded equivalents of zweihander, paired long and short swords, paired long, and sword & board), and tried a little SCA-style fencing as well. I've done cross-style sparring too, fencing different style practitioners in the round in the backyard, or SCA heavy listers using larp weapons and allowing more and harder contact than is typically permitted in most LARPs (including headshots, but excluding the face unless we were wearing full helms).

Overall my experiences tend to line up more with Orlanth's info. A nice well-balanced zweihander-equivalent is much more dangerous to the guy with the rapier, saber or "longsword" (really broadsword, smallsword, or cut & thrust sword, depending on terminology/period in question) than a claymore, thanks to greater reach and speed. OTOH Vulcan is right that using a single-handed sword to deflect a blow from a skillfully-wielded twohander is a lot easier said than done. You're usually better off backpedaling or stepping out of reach, then stepping/lunging quickly back in on his backswing for the disabling strike to his arms or for the kill (depending on how much reach he has). Properly-used against a lightly-armored or unarmored opponent, the zweihander or claymore isn't just swung back and forth or up and down, either. It's wielded in some cases (much as pictured in those images Orlanth linked from the Fight Book) similarly to a spear, with the hilt uppermost and the length of the blade used to some extent as a shield. Or when used point-up, it's swung in conical sections while kept in FRONT of the wielder, thus building angular momentum while keeping it forward, rather than off to the side after a swing so your opponent can step in and kill you while you're recovering.

Heavier swords like the claymore are better used against heavily-armored foes, but against them you're probably better off with a poleaxe or similar. Swords are largely wasted battering against plate armor.

All that being said, bear in mind that I'm strictly an amateur and relatively unstudied compared to serious enthusiasts.

Orlanth wrote:I do not belittle your art, but I would try and get some steel weapon time in if you can and trust the Fechtbucher and similar documents to tell you what these weapons can actually do, backed up with historical reports.

Interesting you should say that. While I don't have access to authentic period weapons, I do have some decent replicas, and my friends have more (some of them quite nice indeed). We're not big on swinging them at each other (too much risk of harm), but we do practice swinging them around to get a good feel for the weapons. Sort of a swordfighting version of shadow-boxing, if you will. One of the big things this shows us is which replicas swing well, which swing poorly, and which swing 'sweetly,' which usually tells us which weapons we want to duplicate for our version of combat, and in a more general sense what a 'sweet' weapon would feel like.

Then, when it comes time to build the padded weapons, we take the time to balance and weight them appropriate to the original. As I mentioned, weight rarely matchs up exactly, and padded swords have a vastly greater surface area, but balance we can match up exactly. And then we can really put these things through their paces. I'd hesitate to call it a martial art, it's really more for fun, but we do go out of our way to make this as real as possible... minus the blood and death, anyway.


I'd wouldn't call kingcracker's pose anything close to an 'en garde' position. With the pommel tucked in that close, he is limited to VERY short, clumsy strokes with that sword. Either that, or he has to lfit the whole sword up and out to clear the pommel, and then he can bring the tip overhead to the left, and then he can finally bring the sword down in a power stroke that will end with his arms crossed most awkardly with his left hand pretty much on his right elbow. Not as slow as a baseball swing, but not the ideal, and leaves him in an even more awkward position - although he does have a single fast block option by stepping back, dropping the tip, and bending his right arm to bring the guard back to his left shoulder. From the position in the pciture he'd be better off choking up to the ricasso, dropping the tip to the level of his opponent's gut, and delivering much more measured short strikes, thrusts, and parries while backing up to clear for a power stroke.

We generally found that large two-handers like claymores and zweihanders worked better from a mid-high guard position - right hand about a foot in front of the right shoulder, left hand on the pommel directly below. By pulling the left hand left and up, the right hand can power the blade down into a strong attack on your opponent's left which will tend to go low, but a skilled swordsman can pop high. Alternately, you power the right hand down while rolling the left hand under the right elbow gives you a rolling strike high to the opponent's right. Better yet, both of these grant a very fast recovery by simply reversing the motion for a parry, or stepping back for at least a partial reset.

(I say generally because one of my friends is absolutely devastating with a reverse grip low-guard; he makes quick sweeping strikes at the legs which are very hard to avoid or block, and incidentally brings the whole guard and ricasso into prime defensive position across the torso.)

Against single sword, well... it's pretty rough for single sword. Even a 44" basket-hilted broadsword surrenders 4-6" of reach at full extension lunge vs. power stroke. While that may not seem like much, it is the difference between life and 'death' in our experience. You need a full-size battle sword to close that gap, and if you are using a battle-sword one-handed great sword is going to power straight through with it's extra mass and leverage. If you've set up your lunge to defend against it, you can block it, but at the very least he's going to knock you out of position long enough for him to recover his stroke as well. Personally I found it easier to use the battle sword two-handed and surrender the length advantage to be able to parry that first shot effectively and get into my own range while he is recovering...

But that is technically two-hander on two-hander, not two-hander vs. single sword.

We also discovered that 'high guard' a al the movie The Kingdom of Heaven works much better with battle swords than true two-handers. This is one where the slight difference in speed counts heavily against the greatswords.

I always wanted to try SCA combat, Mannahnin, but I never had the money for the armor. Pity, it looks like it would be a blast!

Vulcan wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I do not belittle your art, but I would try and get some steel weapon time in if you can and trust the Fechtbucher and similar documents to tell you what these weapons can actually do, backed up with historical reports.

Interesting you should say that. While I don't have access to authentic period weapons, I do have some decent replicas, and my friends have more (some of them quite nice indeed). We're not big on swinging them at each other (too much risk of harm), but we do practice swinging them around to get a good feel for the weapons.

That is wise, while broken and splintered weapons is very authentic, it doesnt do much for safety. If you want a weapon for reenactment you need a one eighth thick rounded edge,
and a blade made of high quality sprung steel. Sprung steel will not easily break, in fact if you made a fighting blade this way it would be a kingly blade. When all are outfitted this way there is an authenticity problem, but the differences are of note only to a metallurgist. Sprung steel should not reverberate or bounce on the parry if made well. Sprung steel is not necessarily made with the same degree of fortification as tuning forks, make sure your metalsmith realises this.

When you get to make a play with steel blunt or live you will find an immediate difference in how the blades meet. Padding absorbs padding and thus turns a sword into a blocking weapon. Through this you gain the impression that parrying a greatsword means having to absord a blow. This could not be further from the truth. Shields block blows and greatsword trumps shield, later medieval armies increasingly replied on parrying daggers, two handed weapons or simply good plate. Would the late medieval staples of mace/rapier and dagger/main gauche be so popular if it could not stop a large weapon.

When sword parries it gives, not the blade itself but the grasp. This is why a blade should never be held tightly, it removes the give and ironically means you can lose the blade in shock of the parry. Padding 'sticks' to padding, latex very literally is sticky, but steel slides on steel. Swords are better at parrying melee weapons than most shields, because the blow is deflected not blocked. Shields, buckler excepted, are superior at absorbing missile weapons and thrusting attacks, not swings from blunt or bladed weapons.

If this is incredulous to you look at the main gauche, the principle dedicated parrying tool of the late medieval fighting man. Its a short sword, more or less with a heavy hilt. Yet it can stop a greatsword or dagger both. Large weapons are allowed to slip down towards the tip the energy deflected, smaller weapons may be dealt with similarly or deflected in towards the hilt. The heavy hilt can absorb a blow directly and can catch a weapon in a sword catcher to further grapple the sword my the tip, or even shear the tip entirely. Oh and by the way, its still got a pointy bit of its own. Ask yourself this, would such a weapon be developed on the continent for field use if so very often you would meet a greatsword or poleaxe, both common knightly weapons, could bypass it so easily.

Vulcan wrote:I'd wouldn't call kingcracker's pose anything close to an 'en garde' position. With the pommel tucked in that close, he is limited to VERY short, clumsy strokes with that sword. Either that, or he has to lfit the whole sword up and out to clear the pommel, and then he can bring the tip overhead to the left, and then he can finally bring the sword down in a power stroke that will end with his arms crossed most awkardly with his left hand pretty much on his right elbow.

Here I respectfully disagree. Not due to the 'inadequacy' of the pose but because of the nature of 'en garde'. En garde is as you will know a sustained defensive stance allowing multiple defensive moves, and counterattacks to be launched. The trouble is what you might consider the en garde stances for a greatsword, arms out in front bent or straight, as not sustainable. To be literally en garde with a greatsword is a fools game, you are tiring constantly, its not sustainable, and thus its not really en garde. For a sustained defensive stance you need to be an extra move away from the parry. Normally this happens two ways. First and more commonly you form a forward pose but rest your blade back rather than forward, either vertically or easier yet resting on ones shoulders. From this position one may with a strong wrist move bring the sword into position to attack or defend. The extra reach of the greatsword buys you time to adjust to the active not not sustainable fighting pose from the passive. The second way is to hold your arms close centering the weight as kingcracker demonstrates, this means you have the blade pointing the right way and can even deal with a short ranged attack with some measure of success, however you are not resting the blade on the shoulders, merely centering the weight, and it is a bigger move to swing to the active defensive position. On the other hand that could also be the first part of a nasty attack swing based on the power in the hips rather than the arms.

Going back to previous conversations this is a good reason why a zwerch and claymore are so different. The superior balance of the weapon really comes into play in those moves, the zwerch can be held easy, without tiring the wielder and brought into play swiftly from the passive position. The claymore is considerably more clumsy and basically requires a lot of brute strength to make good play with. Scots in particular have many arts that emphasise feats of strength, tossing the caber for example. This should give you a clue in the doctrines behind their weapons of choice.

Something else that is apparent from looking at the greatsword, it is not a weapon that can control the initiative. And no that doesnt mean 'strikes last' it means that wirth a sword, you can remain en garde and choose your moves as you will. The greatsword cannot remain en garde, to bring the greatsword into an active position means you must use it or return to a passive position shortly. Thus while having a weapon of greater reach normally means you can dictate the pace of the engagement, e.g. bring a poleaxe to a swordsman and the swordman must close to attack or retreat; a greatsword is an exception to this rule. If a swordsman approaches within the reach of the greatsword, even if not in his own reach the greatswordsman must switch to an active unsustainable pose and thus must press the attack or risk being tired by the swordsman without even crossing blades.

Historical accounts back this up, the greatsword was considered an attackers weapon. Greatswordsman coming to the front meant the enemy was about to press the attack hard, they are not for holding the line, for that you want to use poleaxe or halberd.

poda_t wrote:
I am however trusting that you too haven't been in a knife fight either.

No, I haven't. I have been in more than enough actual fights to know that, almost without exception, they are nasty, brutal and short. The same is true of incidents involving blades - the idea of two opponents circling and dancing around each other, looking for an opening is, as I said earlier, a fantasy. Someone has a blade, they run up to you, you get stabbed. That's usually the way it goes. Take a look at the Daniel Pollen cctv video - there's nothing 'West Side Story' about that. And actually the thing that puts him down is broken jaw he got from being punched in the face, not the stab-wounds. They don't actually appear to have an immediate effect, though (iirc) he died from a stab-wound to the heart.

Incidentally, my dad got stabbed once. He was pretty seriously wounded and had a huge scar from belly-button to solar plexus. He didn't just drop dead there and then - he walked back into the other room, poured himself a drink, then sat down to call an ambulance. My guess would be that, had he had a large sword or axe, he would have had the time to hack his assailant's head off. Just saying.

To yet again add to albatross's story. My dads Cousin James had a seriously bad knife experience. He walked out of a corner store and was gutted for the smokes and beer he bought, literally. He caught his intestines as he dropped to his knees from the attack, and the guy ran off with his stuff. He then walked a block down the street to his house, and called the police.


And thats definitely it for the knife experiences I know of

Albatross wrote:

poda_t wrote:
I am however trusting that you too haven't been in a knife fight either.

No, I haven't. I have been in more than enough actual fights to know that, almost without exception, they are nasty, brutal and short. The same is true of incidents involving blades - the idea of two opponents circling and dancing around each other, looking for an opening is, as I said earlier, a fantasy. Someone has a blade, they run up to you, you get stabbed. That's usually the way it goes. Take a look at the Daniel Pollen cctv video - there's nothing 'West Side Story' about that. And actually the thing that puts him down is broken jaw he got from being punched in the face, not the stab-wounds. They don't actually appear to have an immediate effect, though (iirc) he died from a stab-wound to the heart.

Incidentally, my dad got stabbed once. He was pretty seriously wounded and had a huge scar from belly-button to solar plexus. He didn't just drop dead there and then - he walked back into the other room, poured himself a drink, then sat down to call an ambulance. My guess would be that, had he had a large sword or axe, he would have had the time to hack his assailant's head off. Just saying.

I never said it was a dance, if a blaes fight goes past 5 cuts/strokes, that fight has already lasted too long. It is actually one of the litany of litanous litany of litanies ( ) why I simply don't watch, and at times will go as fat as saying that I even hate, movies.

poda_t wrote:Now the other question: does anyone actually know how to use said weapon?

Yes. As of January 1st of 2012 I will have been training in the use of various weapons and martial arts for 32 years.

I've owned quite a few weapons but they always seem to come and go. Eventually I will start collecting again and keep them this time.

Albatross wrote:
No, I haven't. I have been in more than enough actual fights to know that, almost without exception, they are nasty, brutal and short. The same is true of incidents involving blades - the idea of two opponents circling and dancing around each other, looking for an opening is, as I said earlier, a fantasy.

Not a fantasy, a street fantasy.
It is somewhat distasteful to write off accounts of how dueling is done just because tanked up chavs with switchblades or kitchen knives do not circle and look for an opening.
For a start not thinking defensively first but just rushing in with a blade is indicative that knife use is all thuggery and little or no training. Real martial artists of all stripes think defensively first.

Albatross wrote:
Someone has a blade, they run up to you, you get stabbed. That's usually the way it goes.

A mugger who cant be bothered to ask yes. Someone who really wants you will pause after drawing the knife, people freeze when a blade is drawn in front of them, and it is often the case that these sorts of scum want pause and savour the moment.
Another think to look for is a quiet person amidst a number of in your face blathering people. That is often the one to make a move.
There is a lot you can tell by ethnic profiling, if you are open minded enough. A black or white attacker is likely to come straight for you and get the job done, asians tend to play on your fear first, and are more likely to finish the job.

Albatross wrote:
Incidentally, my dad got stabbed once. He was pretty seriously wounded and had a huge scar from belly-button to solar plexus. He didn't just drop dead there and then - he walked back into the other room, poured himself a drink, then sat down to call an ambulance. My guess would be that, had he had a large sword or axe, he would have had the time to hack his assailant's head off. Just saying.

Dont count on that. Had your dad been armed with an axe the knife would have been twisted heavily before withdrawing. Twisting the blade greatly magnifies the move, and withdrawal of the blade does more damage than the stab. We can be grateful that most chavs et al dont know this. Besides if anyone had a knife in an armed opponent first, it will pay to complete the job. No daddy doesnt get to swing.

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:
No, I haven't. I have been in more than enough actual fights to know that, almost without exception, they are nasty, brutal and short. The same is true of incidents involving blades - the idea of two opponents circling and dancing around each other, looking for an opening is, as I said earlier, a fantasy.

Not a fantasy, a street fantasy.
It is somewhat distasteful to write off accounts of how dueling is done just because tanked up chavs with switchblades or kitchen knives do not circle and look for an opening.
For a start not thinking defensively first but just rushing in with a blade is indicative that knife use is all thuggery and little or no training. Real martial artists of all stripes think defensively first.

I think I see the problem we're having - my imagined encounter takes place in a world roughly similar to the one we currently inhabit, and not renaissance Florence. Knife 'duels' are not commonplace.

Or duels of any sort, for that matter.

We've long since learned that killing people should be done when the target is unaware.

dogma wrote:Or duels of any sort, for that matter.

We've long since learned that killing people should be done when the target is unaware.

Yeah i must concur. I mean, im hard as nails and if i had to kill someone with my commando dagger i'd wait until they left a pub at night, creep up behind them and then smash it into their neck before they even knew i was there, let alone going for them. I think in this day and age we might be more selfish, but common sense has won the day. Winning comes before savoring moments or chivalry.

And rightly so.

If you really want to kill a man and you warn him your coming.. your a fething idiot.

Oh and also.. this is the worst thread ever. I feel like im back in primary school.

Albatross wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:
No, I haven't. I have been in more than enough actual fights to know that, almost without exception, they are nasty, brutal and short. The same is true of incidents involving blades - the idea of two opponents circling and dancing around each other, looking for an opening is, as I said earlier, a fantasy.

Not a fantasy, a street fantasy.
It is somewhat distasteful to write off accounts of how dueling is done just because tanked up chavs with switchblades or kitchen knives do not circle and look for an opening.
For a start not thinking defensively first but just rushing in with a blade is indicative that knife use is all thuggery and little or no training. Real martial artists of all stripes think defensively first.

I think I see the problem we're having - my imagined encounter takes place in a world roughly similar to the one we currently inhabit, and not renaissance Florence. Knife 'duels' are not commonplace.

"Sword collectors" is the name of the thread, expanded onto collections of historical melee weapons.
"Kitchen knives you take to the boozer on Friday nights with your mates" is probably on another thread.

mattyrm wrote:
Yeah i must concur. I mean, im hard as nails and if i had to kill someone with my commando dagger i'd wait until they left a pub at night, creep up behind them and then smash it into their neck before they even knew i was there, let alone going for them. I think in this day and age we might be more selfish, but common sense has won the day. Winning comes before savoring moments or chivalry.

And rightly so.

If you really want to kill a man and you warn him your coming.. your a fething idiot.

Oh and also.. this is the worst thread ever. I feel like im back in primary school.

Adhemar: And how would you beat him?
Fence: With a stick. While he slept.

This thread is getting rather odd. Im still wondering why a few people mentioned how wrong my usage of the sword was. It was for a picture.....and Im not a swordsman!!!!!! Doesnt anyone remember the thread in which I shared with the world of DAKKA the super secret KCs art of self defense?!?!? You just fething shoot em!