Thanks for pointing this out - I've edited my new skill list accordingly.
CT+ Light and Medium Weapons and Skills
- Thread starter far-trader
- Start date
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
Actually, it means "I have done it with blunts and it works quite nicely, as long as you keep your nerve." </font>[/QUOTE]Done it against what and whom? Makes a world of difference.
The foil can be grabbed by your opponent's naked hand. The rapier cannot if he expects to use his fingers afterwards.
Yes, that would be the "bastard" sword. Yes, I've read some Silver, and practice his techniques in the only North American Chapter of the Company of Maisters.
Most smallswords did have sharp edges. Not enough to cut with, but enough to discourage blade grabbing.
I envie you your training. I pressume this is associated with Terry Browns British organization.
But Silver never uses the phrase "bastard sword", and the records of prize playing of the London Maisters frequently include the "two hand sword" by name. I remember the "long sword" but I can't remember if the term "bastard" is used or not. I took my description from Silver, slightly shaded to include all the surviving examples.
The bastard sword is normally interpreted as a 15th century weapon with a similar blade, but an 8-10" hand-and-a-half grip. To be considered a two-hander the grip should by about 16".
I envie you your training. I pressume this is associated with Terry Browns British organization.
But Silver never uses the phrase "bastard sword", and the records of prize playing of the London Maisters frequently include the "two hand sword" by name. I remember the "long sword" but I can't remember if the term "bastard" is used or not. I took my description from Silver, slightly shaded to include all the surviving examples.
The bastard sword is normally interpreted as a 15th century weapon with a similar blade, but an 8-10" hand-and-a-half grip. To be considered a two-hander the grip should by about 16".
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
Lost track of this thread or I'd have responded sooner. By "grabbing" I merely mean controlling and redirecting, not necessarily forcefully seizing, and that is the point. I don't have to forcefully hold the foil blade, only keep the pointy end off-line long enough for me to take a swing at his sword arm. But enough shop-talk.
I'm applying the term "bastard sword" for the modern D&D-addled audience.
As far as I know the term was invented in that context, and mainly serves to confuse everyone else. Any sword easily wielded in one hand but having a handle suited for two hands is a B-sword for gaming purposes.
The English two-handed sword blade is the same as a broadsword blade, with 8-12" handle. The Scots and continentals had 4'-5' blades, which made one-handed use impractical. Swordsmithy was such that 4' blades were by no means too heavy for one hand, just too unwieldy in combat for one hand.
My instructor, Chris Myers, has trained (in London as time and money permits, corresponding between visits) with Terry Brown since ~1998 and participated in the 2005 Cotswolds Games with the Company of Maisters.
Chris is preparing to play his prize for Provost, possibly next year. Until then we are technically a "club" and not a full-fledged Chapter. I'm his first serious full-time student/guinea-pig. It took a year for me to give him enough challenge in sparring to keep his skill levels up to par. If possible I'll accompany him to London and play my Free Schollar prize there.
Terry held two workshops at 2005 WMAW in Chicago. Their website has lots of pictures. Due to sciatica he was unable to travel south for a visit here.
I'm applying the term "bastard sword" for the modern D&D-addled audience.
As far as I know the term was invented in that context, and mainly serves to confuse everyone else. Any sword easily wielded in one hand but having a handle suited for two hands is a B-sword for gaming purposes.The English two-handed sword blade is the same as a broadsword blade, with 8-12" handle. The Scots and continentals had 4'-5' blades, which made one-handed use impractical. Swordsmithy was such that 4' blades were by no means too heavy for one hand, just too unwieldy in combat for one hand.
My instructor, Chris Myers, has trained (in London as time and money permits, corresponding between visits) with Terry Brown since ~1998 and participated in the 2005 Cotswolds Games with the Company of Maisters.
Chris is preparing to play his prize for Provost, possibly next year. Until then we are technically a "club" and not a full-fledged Chapter. I'm his first serious full-time student/guinea-pig. It took a year for me to give him enough challenge in sparring to keep his skill levels up to par. If possible I'll accompany him to London and play my Free Schollar prize there.
Terry held two workshops at 2005 WMAW in Chicago. Their website has lots of pictures. Due to sciatica he was unable to travel south for a visit here.
I think you mistook some of whqt you were told. Judgng from examples in museums, the Englsh, lowland, and highland scots all used swords with 3-3.5' blades and 1-1.5' hilts. Some imported blades are larger, but they were never common.
A broadsword blade with a 8-12" grip is a good description of a bastard sword. Unfortunately this does not describe the 16th century swords I have observed.
And a smallsword is not a foil, it has two or three edges. Not capable of a downright cut, but there are historical reports of duelists' hands maimed by smallswords.
And it is going to be a race between me finding an opening for my point and you finding an opening for your edge. I have speed and you have reach. I will give you an advantage, but it is not a slam-dunk, as is supported by McBride and Angelo. Silver never saw a smallsword and his criticism of the rapier is not relavent. At that, he never said that even a rapier was easy meat, only that the sword had advantage.
I studied Classical Fencing with Maestro Russell Wieder for three years. Since then I have been involved with Western Martial Arts for most of the last twenty years. I have studied foil, epee, dueling saber, military saber/backsword, sword and buckler, sword and target, Italian Rapier, short staff, spear/half pike, and bill.
A broadsword blade with a 8-12" grip is a good description of a bastard sword. Unfortunately this does not describe the 16th century swords I have observed.
And a smallsword is not a foil, it has two or three edges. Not capable of a downright cut, but there are historical reports of duelists' hands maimed by smallswords.
And it is going to be a race between me finding an opening for my point and you finding an opening for your edge. I have speed and you have reach. I will give you an advantage, but it is not a slam-dunk, as is supported by McBride and Angelo. Silver never saw a smallsword and his criticism of the rapier is not relavent. At that, he never said that even a rapier was easy meat, only that the sword had advantage.
I studied Classical Fencing with Maestro Russell Wieder for three years. Since then I have been involved with Western Martial Arts for most of the last twenty years. I have studied foil, epee, dueling saber, military saber/backsword, sword and buckler, sword and target, Italian Rapier, short staff, spear/half pike, and bill.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Bob, I will bow to your expertise, except to say that I have seen plenty of greatswords (those monstrous 2-handers) in museums in England - and the only people that would call them foreign imports were those fighting against the Scottish nationalists. 
I was talking about XVIth century swords. I freely admit there was no specific British styles of two-handers in the XIV-XVth century.
BTW 'Greatsword' is believed by many experts to refer to the 1 1/2 handed swords of war, Straybow's "bastard". I am not convinced either way.
BTW 'Greatsword' is believed by many experts to refer to the 1 1/2 handed swords of war, Straybow's "bastard". I am not convinced either way.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
Don't forget, Fritz, many of those fighting against the Scottish nationalists were French-speaking Normans who didn't yet have the whole picture of being English.
Bob, when you look at Oakeshott it's clear that there was nothing such as a "standard" or "typical" sword. There aren't even trends. These are all nominally single-handed broadswords. Some are clearly designed to make two-handed use both comfortable and advantageous, and a couple are perhaps more than 48" of blade.
No doubt you can find Englishmen who used all kinds of blades from everywhere west of India. Obviously in Silver's day there were many who liked the continental image and hired French and Italian swordsmen to teach rapier. Silver's primary message is that the rapier is really only good against the rapier. In battle you want something that has no glaring weaknesses, and that is what the Royalists found out in the ECW.
Smallsword and foil aren't the same at all. The foil is truly blunt-edged, as that is what "foil" means. I understood the smallsword to be single-edged, but I suppose a short rapier might also be called a smallsword.
I had a chance to swing some museum pieces at a Colonial re-enactment in October. They were from the private collection of the museum curator who shared our booth. We couldn't cross blades with them but we did compare them to some replica pieces we were using for fixed play.
They were all of Prussian make spanning most of the Colonial period:
Broadsword c. 1670
Lt Cav officer's saber, 1791
Lt Cav trooper's saber, Napoleonic
Infantry officer's sword, 1884
The last is a smallsword, the grip and blade design nearly unchanged from 1720 through 1890. It has a tapered, single-edged blade about 30" long, barely an inch wide at the hilt. The back was thicker than I expected.
The broadsword blade was only about 32" long and not much more than 2" wide at the base tapering to about ¾" just short of the tip. The sword was quite well balanced and the smallsword was neither much lighter nor much quicker (at least when it came to shadow play).
Only the trooper's saber was as heavy as the basket-hilted English backsword replica we used in our demos. Modern swordmakers are more concerned with liability for breakage than realistic weight. A more confident swordsmith could trim a pound off that backsword. But I digress.
Silver's criticism of the rapier applies equally to smallsword. It has all the limitations of the rapier's attack form without the reach advantage. It will be more useful in tight compared to the 3½' rapier blade.
In sparring, smallsword technique only succeeds when the back/broadsword doesn't take the initiative in exploiting the smallsword's narrow line of attack.
Bob, when you look at Oakeshott it's clear that there was nothing such as a "standard" or "typical" sword. There aren't even trends. These are all nominally single-handed broadswords. Some are clearly designed to make two-handed use both comfortable and advantageous, and a couple are perhaps more than 48" of blade.
No doubt you can find Englishmen who used all kinds of blades from everywhere west of India. Obviously in Silver's day there were many who liked the continental image and hired French and Italian swordsmen to teach rapier. Silver's primary message is that the rapier is really only good against the rapier. In battle you want something that has no glaring weaknesses, and that is what the Royalists found out in the ECW.
Smallsword and foil aren't the same at all. The foil is truly blunt-edged, as that is what "foil" means. I understood the smallsword to be single-edged, but I suppose a short rapier might also be called a smallsword.
I had a chance to swing some museum pieces at a Colonial re-enactment in October. They were from the private collection of the museum curator who shared our booth. We couldn't cross blades with them but we did compare them to some replica pieces we were using for fixed play.
They were all of Prussian make spanning most of the Colonial period:
Broadsword c. 1670
Lt Cav officer's saber, 1791
Lt Cav trooper's saber, Napoleonic
Infantry officer's sword, 1884
The last is a smallsword, the grip and blade design nearly unchanged from 1720 through 1890. It has a tapered, single-edged blade about 30" long, barely an inch wide at the hilt. The back was thicker than I expected.
The broadsword blade was only about 32" long and not much more than 2" wide at the base tapering to about ¾" just short of the tip. The sword was quite well balanced and the smallsword was neither much lighter nor much quicker (at least when it came to shadow play).
Only the trooper's saber was as heavy as the basket-hilted English backsword replica we used in our demos. Modern swordmakers are more concerned with liability for breakage than realistic weight. A more confident swordsmith could trim a pound off that backsword. But I digress.
Silver's criticism of the rapier applies equally to smallsword. It has all the limitations of the rapier's attack form without the reach advantage. It will be more useful in tight compared to the 3½' rapier blade.
In sparring, smallsword technique only succeeds when the back/broadsword doesn't take the initiative in exploiting the smallsword's narrow line of attack.
Straybo, what you describe as a smallsword is usually, in English called a "spadroon". A heavier but perhaps more effective weapon, much beloved of Sir William Hope. Although I don't believe the French differentiated.
If you have not trained with a smallsword or spadroon you cannot concieve of the advantages in speed and crossing/uncrossing. You can, for the first time, do effective dui tempi point attacks that will cut inside the action time of a sword or saber. It is completely different from a rapier.
I don't say that it had the advantage over the sword or saber, but many swordsmen of the late 17th - early 19th century did.
If you have not trained with a smallsword or spadroon you cannot concieve of the advantages in speed and crossing/uncrossing. You can, for the first time, do effective dui tempi point attacks that will cut inside the action time of a sword or saber. It is completely different from a rapier.
I don't say that it had the advantage over the sword or saber, but many swordsmen of the late 17th - early 19th century did.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
No doubt continental smallswordsmen, and those who followed continental fashion, did feel they had such an advantage. Against a poorly trained and armed mugger or highwayman any trained combatant should have an advantage with whatever weapon is fashionable. Smallsword represents a deadly sport rather than brutal combat. Officers and troopers continued to use sturdier edged swords (even so-called smallswords) in combat until the sword itself became ornamental.*
True, I haven't trained in smallsword. Yet every weapon, even an 8lb Wallace sword, when close enough to reach the opponent without moving the body, can strike "inside the action time" of the opponent's response. That is physiological fact. A dui tempi assumes your defense against an initial attack is competent enough to allow your follow-up attack, which is not a given against an edged weapon.
This is not an academic question. Terry has more than passing acquaintance with the smallsword, as you might well know. You might not know that Milo is a CofM member and frequently trains with Terry. There is one other expert modern fencer in Terry's school who is versed in Hope, Capo Ferro, Angelo, etc.
These two enjoy modern fencing as a sport but in combat a full-fledged sword has a clear advantage. All three frequently spar as smallsword against Terry's other students' broadsword techniques. First year students win when they follow the principles; it really is that way.
In an article reprinted on the Linacre site Terry explains how the same principles are applied differently and intelligently by Silver and Godfrey. Ultimately the more versatile edged weapon attack cannot be defended by smallsword technique.
* After the machine gun made both sword and horseback cavalry truly obsolete, post-Victorian British light cavalry exchanged lance and saber for what amounts to a ~20", blunt-edged, triangular-section smallsword. It could have doubled as a bayonet except they were issued pistols rather than carbines. It all makes so much sense.
True, I haven't trained in smallsword. Yet every weapon, even an 8lb Wallace sword, when close enough to reach the opponent without moving the body, can strike "inside the action time" of the opponent's response. That is physiological fact. A dui tempi assumes your defense against an initial attack is competent enough to allow your follow-up attack, which is not a given against an edged weapon.
This is not an academic question. Terry has more than passing acquaintance with the smallsword, as you might well know. You might not know that Milo is a CofM member and frequently trains with Terry. There is one other expert modern fencer in Terry's school who is versed in Hope, Capo Ferro, Angelo, etc.
These two enjoy modern fencing as a sport but in combat a full-fledged sword has a clear advantage. All three frequently spar as smallsword against Terry's other students' broadsword techniques. First year students win when they follow the principles; it really is that way.
In an article reprinted on the Linacre site Terry explains how the same principles are applied differently and intelligently by Silver and Godfrey. Ultimately the more versatile edged weapon attack cannot be defended by smallsword technique.
* After the machine gun made both sword and horseback cavalry truly obsolete, post-Victorian British light cavalry exchanged lance and saber for what amounts to a ~20", blunt-edged, triangular-section smallsword. It could have doubled as a bayonet except they were issued pistols rather than carbines. It all makes so much sense.
McBane, Hope, and Angelo (at least Henry) are not continental authors. And they assume that they are fighting against trained swordsmen. But a footpad with a shillelegh would easily defeat the sword you imagine the smallsword to be.
Tne convenience of carrying is certainly a factor, but the smallsword would not have displaced all European swords except the hanger and cavalry broadsword without some capability.(OK, it replaced the rapier in southern Italy but not Spain and it coexisted with the claymore in Scotland.)
Have you vetted this thread with your instructor? I have trouble believing that anyone familiar with smallsword fighting would discount it as completely as you have.
Tne convenience of carrying is certainly a factor, but the smallsword would not have displaced all European swords except the hanger and cavalry broadsword without some capability.(OK, it replaced the rapier in southern Italy but not Spain and it coexisted with the claymore in Scotland.)
Have you vetted this thread with your instructor? I have trouble believing that anyone familiar with smallsword fighting would discount it as completely as you have.
McBane, Hope, and Angelo (at least Henry) are not continental authors. And they assume that they are fighting against trained swordsmen. But a footpad with a shillelegh would easily defeat the sword you imagine the smallsword to be.
Tne convenience of carrying is certainly a factor, but the smallsword would not have displaced all European swords except the hanger and cavalry broadsword without some capability.(OK, it replaced the rapier in southern Italy but not Spain and it coexisted with the claymore in Scotland.)
Have you vetted this thread with your instructor? I have trouble believing that anyone familiar with smallsword fighting would discount it as completely as you have.
Or,better, spar with one of your smallsword experts, sword vs epee. If he's any good he should win 1/3 of the time.
Tne convenience of carrying is certainly a factor, but the smallsword would not have displaced all European swords except the hanger and cavalry broadsword without some capability.(OK, it replaced the rapier in southern Italy but not Spain and it coexisted with the claymore in Scotland.)
Have you vetted this thread with your instructor? I have trouble believing that anyone familiar with smallsword fighting would discount it as completely as you have.
Or,better, spar with one of your smallsword experts, sword vs epee. If he's any good he should win 1/3 of the time.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
Milo and the other expert are over in England with Terry Brown. I don't know any fencers over here. I do spar with Chris playing smallsword, but he's no expert. It could be interesting training, though.
No need to vett this, the debate comes up often enough. One of the newbies over there talked himself into such a challenge. Terry was not pleased, partly because the guy really hadn't trained long at all, partly because it isn't good for the image of the Company. Nonetheless, Terry showed him the basics for sword v. smallsword. The guy came out of it 3-0.
In the real world stick v. smallsword might not do quite so well. In the real world it tends towards best out of one rather than best out of three. To hit hard enough to diminish the fencer's fight isn't so easy with a stick fast enough to match a smallsword, and the thrust is effective only in the face or a precision solar plexus hit (good luck).
I think convenience and fashion have everything to do with smallsword. Hand weapons ceased to be the primary instruments of war, and that means function is no longer paramount. I point again to the ECW, where the backsword was "rediscovered" by the upper classes. Early in the XVIII. the bayonet was invented, supplanting hand weapons for regular troop issue.
IIRC the Scots clans, on the other hand, didn't use bayonets. Their non-military muskets weren't fitted for them. In H2H they relied on swords. The smallsword was popular among the upper classes (a la Rob Roy). Again, fashion and convenience come into play, as they had soldiers and retainers to do the heavy fighting.
No need to vett this, the debate comes up often enough. One of the newbies over there talked himself into such a challenge. Terry was not pleased, partly because the guy really hadn't trained long at all, partly because it isn't good for the image of the Company. Nonetheless, Terry showed him the basics for sword v. smallsword. The guy came out of it 3-0.
In the real world stick v. smallsword might not do quite so well. In the real world it tends towards best out of one rather than best out of three. To hit hard enough to diminish the fencer's fight isn't so easy with a stick fast enough to match a smallsword, and the thrust is effective only in the face or a precision solar plexus hit (good luck).
I think convenience and fashion have everything to do with smallsword. Hand weapons ceased to be the primary instruments of war, and that means function is no longer paramount. I point again to the ECW, where the backsword was "rediscovered" by the upper classes. Early in the XVIII. the bayonet was invented, supplanting hand weapons for regular troop issue.
IIRC the Scots clans, on the other hand, didn't use bayonets. Their non-military muskets weren't fitted for them. In H2H they relied on swords. The smallsword was popular among the upper classes (a la Rob Roy). Again, fashion and convenience come into play, as they had soldiers and retainers to do the heavy fighting.
Every time you say "Milo" I think Milo Thurston (the smallsword expert of Linacre School of Defense) and wonder why we're having this arguement.
It is the man and the system more than the weapon. Which is why I am unhappy spreading the to-hit of any weapon in reach by more than 2. I once saw an accomplished and supremely confident man take two knives against sword and target, and win. Even he didn't think he'd try it with sharps.
I would never have suggested such a mismatched contest, except you have been at this a while and seem comfortable with your weapon. And I assumedyou could find a smallsword man of similar skill.
As for the Scots, I think you over simplify. Donald McBane was a soldier, apparently of no rank or distinction. He fought several duels with his smallsword against broadswords and was badly injured, although not fatally. Then he learned a bit of fencing and stopped losing to broadswords, without giving up the smallsword. Eventually he opened a fencing school (reportedly in a brothel),and wrote a book.
McBane was not a dirt scratch heiland teuchter, but he was along way from an aristocrat and fought his own fights. He was literate, but I am not sure he even counts as a gentleman.
Convenience is certainly a factor, as wearing a rapier or even a broadsword all day, even to a Renfaire, makes you appreciate the smallsword.
It is the man and the system more than the weapon. Which is why I am unhappy spreading the to-hit of any weapon in reach by more than 2. I once saw an accomplished and supremely confident man take two knives against sword and target, and win. Even he didn't think he'd try it with sharps.
I would never have suggested such a mismatched contest, except you have been at this a while and seem comfortable with your weapon. And I assumedyou could find a smallsword man of similar skill.
As for the Scots, I think you over simplify. Donald McBane was a soldier, apparently of no rank or distinction. He fought several duels with his smallsword against broadswords and was badly injured, although not fatally. Then he learned a bit of fencing and stopped losing to broadswords, without giving up the smallsword. Eventually he opened a fencing school (reportedly in a brothel),and wrote a book.
McBane was not a dirt scratch heiland teuchter, but he was along way from an aristocrat and fought his own fights. He was literate, but I am not sure he even counts as a gentleman.
Convenience is certainly a factor, as wearing a rapier or even a broadsword all day, even to a Renfaire, makes you appreciate the smallsword.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
I should be specific in that I haven't seen Milo comment about this topic on the Maisters board. If he demurs from Terry's position on smallsword he does so privately. Also, I'm not sure that he frequently demonstrates smallsword technique against broadsword students.
The other fencer agrees on broadsword but is more interested in beating the fencers at their own game than proving broadsword better. For broadsword he has taken up full contact combat (rebated metal on full armor) in the last year or so. I am Officially Jealous.
The other fencer agrees on broadsword but is more interested in beating the fencers at their own game than proving broadsword better. For broadsword he has taken up full contact combat (rebated metal on full armor) in the last year or so. I am Officially Jealous.
Similar threads
