Main > The Courtyard

Longsword Demo Combat Technical Discussion

(1/7) > >>

Sir Edward:

Sir Brian, Sir Nathan, and myself have been having a discussion through private messages that started with our longsword demo, then moved into longsword combat in general. The discussion is quite interesting, so we thought others might like to read and chime in. So I'm quoting the discussion here to start the thread (omitting bits that were non-technical):


--- Quote from: Sir Brian on 2012-06-12, 13:36:02 ---I’m not sure if you’ve ever been to the MASHS website but Larry Tom has compiled some general longsword tactics that are good and sound principles of longsword combat.
[url=http://www.mashs.org/LongswordTactics.pdf]http://www.mashs.org/LongswordTactics.pdf[/url]

Rule: # 8 comes to mind when I reflect upon your duels this weekend with Sir Edward and I. If you recall me mentioning to you that the Longsword is an offensive weapon? – It is ok to be cautious but do not let it become habitual by persistently giving ground. Trust in your blade work and try to stay in the Vor more. One exercise we do at MASHS is to basically put our back foot about 12” away from a wall and then defend against attacks. It instills upon you to have more reliance in your blade work than just voiding attacks and giving ground.

You and Sir James really need to consider getting together more often to practice some of these two person drills which of course will require both of you getting some fencing masks in order for both of you getting the full benefit and feel your blade control. In fact if we have another gathering of our Order on some weekend we should do some of those two man drills.  :)

--- End quote ---



--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2012-06-12, 21:54:10 ---I'll also reiterate again about trying to carefully control power. We all hit hard accidentally from time to time. It happens. But it's worth keeping it in mind.

Sir Nathan, did I show you on Sunday that the crossguard got bent on the Fechterspiel, during your fight with Sir Brian? Ouch. Something hard happened close to your hands, and I'm not sure what exactly. Anyway, that shows that there was at least one potential finger-breaking moment this weekend, and the gauntlets can't be trusted to stop all of it (so thankfully the guard did! Though it doesn't indicate who hit who). I've taken some pretty hard hits right through steel gaunts, as they're great at protecting the back of your hand, but can only do so much for the fingers, so we need to be careful.

When we have our practices, I might recommend that we use the shinai and/or plastic trainers, since they're more forgiving and don't need as much gear. The lacrosse gloves and kevlar gloves do a pretty good job with those. I rigged up a second shinai "longsword" last time we had that workshop day over at Sir James' place, so we have that option.

....

I wanted to add some thoughts before I go off to dinner for the evening. :)

I mean it when I say it's not clear who hit who. I don't want it to sound like I'm pointing fingers, so don't take it that way.

In my experience, guard-bends seem to happen when both people step in and the hilts get close to each other. Either the crossguards hit each other, or the guard hit the "strong" of the other blade. The "weak" has the speed and momentum, but not really much leverage. So all it shows is that you guys probably brought your hands out at the same moment, within punching distance. I think I took a bend like that on the Meyer once, and then straightened it. But the Fechterspiel has a shorter and thicker guard, so it's actually a little scary.

But just like with the hard thrust against an opponent who stepped in, who is really to blame? Both guys did something the other didn't expect, in all likelihood. And I'd rather a crossguard take a pounding than someone's hand. That's what it's there for.

But I think these discussions and analysis of our accidents will help us be safer swordsmen.

--- End quote ---



--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2012-06-12, 23:55:51 ---Amen Sir Ed.
Concerning the bend in the Fechterspiel (Which I did see at VARF), I was pretty stunned seeing that, and my first thought was exactly "I'm glad I didn't take that one on the hand!" Knowing my over-reliance on thrusting, it probably was a situation where I received sir Brian's strong on the guard during one of his counters. Sir Brian, if you have any idea as to the specific exchange (which I don't) it probably could prove insightful to better understand what went on.

...

Concerning some technical stuff, I noticed that I scored a bunch of my points by voiding the attack and then countering, with a thrust or a strike to the hands or forearms. I know it's not good to get into the practice of constantly backing up, but I got many hits that way. Is there some validity to the practice, or were you guys giving me those?
I know it's better and much more proper to manipulate the opponent's blade, and control the vor, but when you guys increase the intensity I simply cannot keep up with the rapidity and skill of your cuts (by all means don't take down the intensity though, learning to deal with it makes me a better swordsman), and quite frankly, I find it much easier to manipulate your measure than your blade. My reasoning revealed, is it an effective strategy, perhaps against swordsmen who have faster cuts at least?

Also, I got many of my points through thrusts, or strikes evolving from thrusts. I observed in our duels and watching you two fight that you guys use thrusts rather sparingly, to the point of it being a rarity. Is there a specific reason for this, a preference or some type of advantage?

--- End quote ---



--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2012-06-13, 03:05:19 ---
--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2012-06-12, 23:55:51 ---Concerning some technical stuff, I noticed that I scored a bunch of my points by voiding the attack and then countering, with a thrust or a strike to the hands or forearms. I know it's not good to get into the practice of constantly backing up, but I got many hits that way. Is there some validity to the practice, or were you guys giving me those?
I know it's better and much more proper to manipulate the opponent's blade, and control the vor, but when you guys increase the intensity I simply cannot keep up with the rapidity and skill of your cuts (by all means don't take down the intensity though, learning to deal with it makes me a better swordsman), and quite frankly, I find it much easier to manipulate your measure than your blade. My reasoning revealed, is it an effective strategy, perhaps against swordsmen who have faster cuts at least?

--- End quote ---

No, I don't think that's wrong, but it's good to recognize it as a launching point to work on the other things. Voiding an attack and then countering is very effective, and in fact is something we recently worked on specifically at VAF. It's something I need to work on, because my instinct is to suicidally rush in. So I'm making an active effort to do it more. Often I'm more likely to press in, unless we've exchanged 3 or 4 attacks each, then I'm going to probably try to back out (aggressively, with more attacks), which isn't the same thing. The important thing with a true "void" is to avoid the attack, just barely (and with your hands out of harm's way), so that you can come right back in. Backing away is a different matter. Maybe in the future, instead of backing up, if you're not comfortable with how close the opponent is, try using longenort, or throw a few thrusts out of measure. It's like Sir Brian says, "I have a longsword and I know how to use it!" :)

But yes, I see your point. If you think the other person is more skilled, playing a more defensive game might work to your advantage. But only as long as the other guy "respects" that and doesn't come charging into your space. At that point all you've done is let him get the Vor. You might be surprised how effective the Vor is. Your cuts don't even have to be that great, as long as you keep pressure on your opponent.


--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2012-06-12, 23:55:51 ---Also, I got many of my points through thrusts, or strikes evolving from thrusts. I observed in our duels and watching you two fight that you guys use thrusts rather sparingly, to the point of it being a rarity. Is there a specific reason for this, a preference or some type of advantage?

--- End quote ---

Thrusts are an important part of the art. It really depends on who I'm fighting as to whether I'll be able to land them. Sir Brian keeps his sword in motion a lot, so if I'm not thinking about where I need to defend, we'll get a double-kill, and that makes the thrusts risky against him. In that case I'm more likely to throw a one-handed thrust to make up for the fact that I couldn't close the distance safely, but in a way that's even riskier because you can quickly lose control of your weapon.

The amusing thing here is that when I was first getting started, that was often the best way for me to hit people that were better than me. As I got better, I found myself less likely to be in a good position to safely land one. :)

--- End quote ---



--- Quote from: Sir Brian on 2012-06-13, 15:54:04 ---Training with dueling weapons, dueling epees especially exposed to me the inherent weakness of the thrust attack insofar as it boils down to a matter of mere inches. If your opponent misses with the thrust and you can get past the point then you are much safer. Even with thrust and cut weapons like the longsword and sabre a thrust is effective but not the primary method of attack and even though you might be able to salvage a draw cut or schnitt from a missed thrust it still wouldn’t stop a heavy riposte cut from an opponent that got past your point.

You can also consider the reality aspect: If these were sharps and you thrust into a non-lethal area of your opponent's body you have then effectively ‘entrapped’ your blade and gave your opponent even if grievously wounded, the time necessary to cleave your head in two.  ;)

I find our private discussion very interesting and revealing and wonder if we should move it to the public forum or at least the order discussion so all may interject their thoughts, however I will leave it up to you fine gentlemen to deem it suitable or not to do so.  :-\


--- End quote ---



--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2012-06-13, 17:12:51 ---Ok, I'm glad to find I have validity with my void and counter. Doing that really feels natural to me, and almost instinctive. Concerning getting an opponent to "respect" your distance, when I was dueling you guys I tried to do that by throwing lots of thrust feints and probing actions. As far as getting someone to keep their distance, is that a good way of doing it?

Sir Brian, I see your point (pun unintended) concerning the vulnerability beyond the point. Although I do like them for their speed, and small profile. Though I did score a bunch of points my turning thrusts into strikes (especially oberhaus). Do you think that combined with a backstep could help minimize the vulnerability of an opponent getting past a thrusting sword's tip?  ???
Also, for purposes of realism, I do try to keep my thrusts aimed at the body or (especially the sword breaking ones) the throat.   ;)

--- End quote ---



--- Quote from: Sir Brian on 2012-06-13, 17:45:14 ---
--- Quote ---Concerning getting an opponent to "respect" your distance, when I was dueling you guys I tried to do that by throwing lots of thrust feints and probing actions. As far as getting someone to keep their distance, is that a good way of doing it?
--- End quote ---

The primary distance you need to be concerned with is your measure. If you possess a longer reach than your opponent then you want to keep them within YOUR measure and effectively out of theirs which is essentially the typical instance to give ground in order to maintain that advantage.


--- Quote ---Do you think that combined with a backstep could help minimize the vulnerability of an opponent getting past a thrusting sword's tip?
--- End quote ---
In longsword this particular combination would actually be counterproductive as it restricts the effective penetration of your point unless it is well timed and aimed for a vital area (i.e. throat or face). I assure you I am not opposed to using the thrust; it’s just that I find a cut is much harder to be voided than a thrust but will use a thrust as it is one of the more intimidating attacks, most especially if aimed for the eyes. – It typically gets a reflexive action which can mean the difference of your secondary attack being successful or not.  ;)

--- End quote ---



--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2012-06-13, 18:06:54 ---
--- Quote from: Sir Brian on 2012-06-13, 17:45:14 ---
--- Quote ---Concerning getting an opponent to "respect" your distance, when I was dueling you guys I tried to do that by throwing lots of thrust feints and probing actions. As far as getting someone to keep their distance, is that a good way of doing it?
--- End quote ---

The primary distance you need to be concerned with is your measure. If you possess a longer reach than your opponent then you want to keep them within YOUR measure and effectively out of theirs which is essentially the typical instance to give ground in order to maintain that advantage.

--- End quote ---

I'll also add that the feints and probes are fine as long as you are prepared to turn them into real attacks if the need arises, otherwise you'll be taken off guard when the other guy responds. It's like we've said before, the ideal feint is one that will successfully hit if the other guy does nothing.

--- End quote ---

Sir William:
Ahh, homework!  I'm not skilled or learned enough to offer anything in the way of advice, so I'll sit back with a tall lager and absorb the discussion.

Sir Brian:

--- Quote from: Sir Edward on 2012-06-13, 18:59:04 ---But yes, I see your point. If you think the other person is more skilled, playing a more defensive game might work to your advantage. But only as long as the other guy "respects" that and doesn't come charging into your space. At that point all you've done is let him get the Vor. You might be surprised how effective the Vor is. Your cuts don't even have to be that great, as long as you keep pressure on your opponent.
--- End quote ---

My fighting style is a bit more reactive. If my opponent is aggressive then I'll react by being just as or more aggressive. I don't mind going on the offensive with a few combinations but I usually struggle with the more laid back opponents as I typically would rather conserve energy and not constantly pursue them, after all I'm more accustom to dueling MASHS students who generally seem to rely upon a flurry of attacks instead of fewer technically precise ones.  ;)

SirNathanQ:
Sir Brian, I think you may be misreading my message on the thrust. You mentioned that a thrust is weaker because your opponent is more dangerous inside the point. I was not referring to a backstep during the initial thrust, but against an opponent who has stepped beyond the point, and that backstep would be giving power to a backcut. While there's really no defense against letting your opponent an entire step inside your measure, a backcut would at least give the other swordsman something to worry about, and not make a failed thrust so vulnerable. Is there any merit to this line of thinking?  ???

Well I'm still in the process of formulating an effective fighting style, I would say that my preferred style of fighting is primarily defensive, and uses lots of feints, thrusts, and probes into forcing the opponent to perform a move I can exploit.
Anything I should add to that blurb? You guys can probably analyze my fighting better than I can...

Sir Edward:

--- Quote from: SirNathanQ on 2012-06-14, 01:13:15 ---Sir Brian, I think you may be misreading my message on the thrust. You mentioned that a thrust is weaker because your opponent is more dangerous inside the point. I was not referring to a backstep during the initial thrust, but against an opponent who has stepped beyond the point, and that backstep would be giving power to a backcut. While there's really no defense against letting your opponent an entire step inside your measure, a backcut would at least give the other swordsman something to worry about, and not make a failed thrust so vulnerable. Is there any merit to this line of thinking?  ???

--- End quote ---

I'm trying to picture what you're asking. So you mean after you've made a thrust that failed, you want to step back to regain a comfortable measure while making a back-edge cut? If I'm not understanding that correctly, let me know.

I'll make a few observations in general about this sort of thing:

If you're going to step back, yes, please attack while doing so! That's something that Bill drills into us at VAF as well. Always withdraw with attacks and guards, because you're in danger any time you're within measure. Even if you've already hit the person three times. (in a life-and-death duel, you can't count on any of them being fight-stopping for sure, and in a tournament you can't count on the judges seeing them)

If you're at the position where your thrust fell short, you're technically still too far away to hit well. If your thrust missed, you're either at the right distance or too close. If you're too close, then you either need to grapple, or move back some. Of course we downplay the grappling, since it's hard to do safely, and we're here to play with swords.

If your thrust just missed by a little, simply pressing the sword's edge into the person isn't really a cut. You might only have a swing that covers a couple of inches. I think the better move, strategically, is to pull back into Ochs or Pflug (or parry or whatever), since you can bet the other guy's sword is coming at you. From there you can thrust again or do a cut.

Remember, at the end of a thrust, you're essentially in some variant of Longenort. You have great parrying options from there, but not much in the way of good attacks.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page