Modern Fencing: Any translation to Reality?

[Permalost]

I have Cold Steel's Fighting with the Saber and Cutlass, and parrying with the tip facing your opponent was a key component.

[odysseus_dallas]

I have Cold Steel's Fighting with the Saber and Cutlass, and parrying with the tip facing your opponent was a key component.

From what I've seen over at youtube, it reminds me (even the guy showing it!) the fencing manual of the same name (Cold Steel by Hutton). Which is 19th century and advocates a lot of edge-parrying and a few more rather classical-fencing-like trivia.

[Permalost]

I guess Anthony DeLongis does look like Hutton. I never really made that connection.

[omoplatypus]

so from this thread, i'm gathering that modern epee and foil fencing is the TKD of pointy weapon fighting?

[DdlR]

From what I've seen over at youtube, it reminds me (even the guy showing it!) the fencing manual of the same name (Cold Steel by Hutton). Which is 19th century and advocates a lot of edge-parrying and a few more rather classical-fencing-like trivia.

Captain Alfred Hutton's system was perfectly well adapted to his weapon (the 19th century military sabre, in this case).

The modern HEMA objection was to the assumption that classical fencing techniques (such as default edge-parrying) translated directly to earlier styles, i.e. the great "flat vs. edge" debate of the late 1990s, which was in fact an almost complete waste of time and a classic case of two "camps" talking past each other via the Internet.

[odysseus_dallas]

Captain Alfred Hutton's system was perfectly well adapted to his weapon (the 19th century military sabre, in this case).

The modern HEMA objection was to the assumption that classical fencing techniques (such as default edge-parrying) translated directly to earlier styles, i.e. the great "flat vs. edge" debate of the late 1990s, which was in fact an almost complete waste of time and a classic case of two "camps" talking past each other via the Internet.

And we all know how that ended.

The only historical case of edge parrying in actual combat (not the 19th century fencing, by which swords were already obsolete) was with rapiers, in which it did not matter much since they had no edges to begin with.

So it did translate to classical fencing, but somehow saber technique (by virtue of using almost the same weapon as foil and epee) was adapted from smallsword techniques (something that Hutton not only does not deny but vehemently supports) instead of actual saber technique.

@white_kimbo: Yep, pretty much.

[DdlR]

I'd be interested to hear how you think it ended. I was there at the ground level all the way through that debate, trying to get both sides to understand the degree to which they were talking past each other. It more or less evened out, but it took a couple of years.

Swords were largely obsolete as battlefield weapons by the early 1800s, but they were still assiduously practiced and used (in duels) until the early 20th century. The idea that "19th century fencing was mere sport" is a modern fallacy, just as mistaken as some of the assumptions the Victorian fencing antiquarians made about Renaissance-era swordplay.

[odysseus_dallas]

I'd be interested to hear how you think it ended. I was there at the ground level all the way through that debate, trying to get both sides to understand the degree to which they were talking past each other. It more or less evened out, but it took a couple of years.

Swords were largely obsolete as battlefield weapons by the early 1800s, but they were still assiduously practiced and used (in duels) until the early 20th century. The idea that "19th century fencing was mere sport" is a modern fallacy, just as mistaken as some of the assumptions the Victorian fencing antiquarians made about Renaissance-era swordplay.

Perhaps by the simple physics that two sharp blades hitting each other head-on edge on edge would nick and damage both? Thus rendering a valuable weapon useless in a very short time? Edge parrying was a late rennaissance trend, and appeared along with the rapier's eventual supplication of the sidesword- and even then it was hardly parrying. Edge-to-edge rapier contact came mostly in two situations- when you beat the other bloke's sword aside, and when the two swords slid on one another during thrusting. There's also a third situation, parrying a cut to the face, but that was not used very often (except by the Spanish, if I recall correctly).

The swords in the 1800s used in duels were but smallswords, at best. A smallsword is, by its nature, a very fast weapon, fast enough to operate on two times- something that no other sword before did. Thus, its very technique is much different, and it also happens to be a duelling weapon rather than a wartime weapon- which the saber pretty much was, considering its use up to and including the first half of the 19th century, when (and where) flintlocks were still common.

[DdlR]

Perhaps by the simple physics that two sharp blades hitting each other head-on edge on edge would nick and damage both? Thus rendering a valuable weapon useless in a very short time? Edge parrying was a late rennaissance trend, and appeared along with the rapier's eventual supplication of the sidesword- and even then it was hardly parrying. Edge-to-edge rapier contact came mostly in two situations- when you beat the other bloke's sword aside, and when the two swords slid on one another during thrusting. There's also a third situation, parrying a cut to the face, but that was not used very often (except by the Spanish, if I recall correctly).

As I said, I was in the trenches of this debate during the late '90s and I don't propose to get into it again now.

The swords in the 1800s used in duels were but smallswords, at best. A smallsword is, by its nature, a very fast weapon, fast enough to operate on two times- something that no other sword before did. Thus, its very technique is much different, and it also happens to be a duelling weapon rather than a wartime weapon- which the saber pretty much was, considering its use up to and including the first half of the 19th century, when (and where) flintlocks were still common.

Sabres were used in innumerable duels throughout the 1800s. In point of fact, they were still used on the battlefield as well, before being rendered more-or-less obsolete by the much simpler (and faster/easier to drill en masse) techniques of bayonet fighting.

The main problem with military swordplay during the early-mid 19th century was that it required more individual skill, and thus training time, than the brass was willing to devote to it. Circa 1800, the "official" conception of battle could be summarized as "our lot over here, their lot over there, lots of cannons, battery of rifle fire, repeat until many dead". That model was severely challenged once European armies started taking on tribal warriors in colonial Africa, India, New Zealand and elsewhere; the traditional patterns didn't apply because the "natives" didn't play by the same rules.

The fact that the supposedly naturally superior European soldiers kept losing in hand to hand skirmishes with warriors of the "subject races" actually led to a revival of interest and effort applied to military fencing. For example, the English army instituted the "Grand Assault at Arms", a serious national-level competition in all manner of fencing and similar skills, partly so that their soldiers stood a better chance in close-combat against Zulus, Sikhs and Maori warriors.

Hutton and others hoped to expand that new interest into a general renaissance of swordsmanship within the British armed forces, including lessons drawn from earlier forms of combat-oriented swordplay (especially Silver and Marozzo). However, by the turn of the 20th century the writing was really on the wall, and the Army threw its resources behind bayonet fighting; post-WWI, the sword was increasingly relegated to ceremonial and sporting use.

[odysseus_dallas]

As I said, I was in the trenches of this debate during the late '90s and I don't propose to get into it again now.

Understood.

Sabres were used in innumerable duels throughout the 1800s. In point of fact, they were still used on the battlefield as well, before being rendered more-or-less obsolete by the much simpler (and faster/easier to drill en masse) techniques of bayonet fighting.

The main problem with military swordplay during the early-mid 19th century was that it required more individual skill, and thus training time, than the brass was willing to devote to it. Circa 1800, the "official" conception of battle could be summarized as "our lot over here, their lot over there, lots of cannons, battery of rifle fire, repeat until many dead". That model was severely challenged once European armies started taking on tribal warriors in colonial Africa, India, New Zealand and elsewhere; the traditional patterns didn't apply because the "natives" didn't play by the same rules.

The fact that the supposedly naturally superior European soldiers kept losing in hand to hand skirmishes with warriors of the "subject races" actually led to a revival of interest and effort applied to military fencing. For example, the English army instituted the "Grand Assault at Arms", a serious national-level competition in all manner of fencing and similar skills, partly so that their soldiers stood a better chance in close-combat against Zulus, Sikhs and Maori warriors.

Hutton and others hoped to expand that new interest into a general renaissance of swordsmanship within the British armed forces, including lessons drawn from earlier forms of combat-oriented swordplay (especially Silver and Marozzo). However, by the turn of the 20th century the writing was really on the wall, and the Army threw its resources behind bayonet fighting; post-WWI, the sword was increasingly relegated to ceremonial and sporting use.

I'll have to admit I didn't know such details or that the colonial wars would actually cause a resurrection of hand-to-hand training... Thanks for the info.

I was aware like I said of 1850's military use of swords (mainly by hussars and other heavy cavalry, as well as Greek revolutionaries fighting against the turks), but I haven't studied colonial history as excruciatingly.