| Author |
Message |
|
Michael MacLeod
Location: Regina Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 16
|
 Posted: Mon 06 Aug, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I have tried fencing with two sabers, in both single combat and against multiple opponents, utilizing both traditional fencing footwork and open. It works very well for both situations using one sword as a parrying blade and one as a offensive blade. This allowed many chances for putting your opponents off balance as well as quick ripostes. If you are ambidextrous (as I am) you can strike two parts of your opponents with two different styles of attack and on different targets simultaneously.
If you are in a thick melee it may provide less opportunities than a shield but if you get surrounded with any combination of weapons you are pretty much screwed. To add to my credentials for those who would nay-say me on my fencing only experience We have also been apart of renascence martial arts and studied the longsword techniques of Ringneck, Talhoffer, Guy Windsor and Fiore de liberi. We have also studied The scottish broadsword and claymore, the viking longsword, medieval sword and shield, kendo, and ninjitsu. I am also almost on the national fencing team.
I have tried two weapon fighting with other weapons than the saber as-well, the gladius and similar length swords are the preferred weapon for this kind of fighting but it works well with a viking sword or medieval arming sword. While less effective with two long swords, claymores or great-swords ( we even tried Flammenschwert swords). The last was reaally REALLY ineffective.
|
|
   |
 |
|
Charlee Garvin
|
| Posted: Tue 07 Aug, 2007 12:56 am Post subject: McCloud |
|
|
McLeod,
I fence sabre' also for the USFA Senior Men's Division age 20 to 40. I'm currently competing for a spot on the 2008 US team and will be in Chicago later this month. That said, I don't think there is any shame in crossing blades with an opponent any time, and in any fashion. Some of these kids are very ferocious. No doubt the only thing keeping me from killing my opponent is the mask and blunted tip.
Two days of the week, I fight with a German Longsword. I use a Kriegsmesser waster, a blunted Cold Steel Grosse Messer for steel on steel sparring--and am waiting on my Albion Knecht for bamboo and mat cutting. I also train in two-sword fashion using a 24inch Messer in my left hand. Feedback from opponents with a single sword informs me that this is terrifying and confusing to face, stating that it is difficult keeping track of the two swords in offence. However, to be good at this, you must be ambidextrous, as I am.
A man from Canada stated that he would not face a wall of shields with this----I agree totally. The two swords technique is only good against single opponents in duel like fashion. Any other time, I would sheath my Messer and use the Kriegsmesser.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Tue 07 Aug, 2007 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Lafayette C Curtis"] | Thomas Jason wrote: |
Ah, BTW, I'd also like to question the statement that Musashi fought with a katana and a wakizashi. The records of his duels seem to indicate that he fought most often with a single sword, not two (of any kind whatsoever). |
What he wrote and what he did is not necessarily the same 
Musashi's Book of five rings;
http://www.samurai.com/5rings/
| Quote: | Warriors, both commanders and troopers, carry two swords at their belt. In olden times these were called the long sword and the sword; nowadays they are known as the sword and the companion sword. Let it suffice to say that in our land, whatever the reason, a warrior carries two swords at his belt. It is the Way of the warrior.
"Nito Ichi Ryu" shows the advantage of using both swords.
The spear and halberd are weapons that are carried out of doors.
Students of the Ichi school Way of strategy should train from the start with the sword and long sword in either hand. This is the truth: when you sacrifice your life, you must make fullest use of your weaponry. It is false not to do so, and to die with a weapon yet undrawn.
If you hold a sword with both hands, it is difficult to wield it freely to left and right, so my method is to carry the sword in one hand. This does not apply to large weapons such as the spear or halberd, but swords and companion swords can be carried in one hand. It is encumbering to hold a sword in both hands when you are on horseback, when running on uneven roads, on swampy ground, muddy rice fields, stony ground, or in a crowd of people. To hold the long sword in both hands is not the true Way, for if you carry a bow or spear or other arms in your left hand you have only one hand free for the long sword. However, when it is difficult to cut an enemy down eith one hand, you must use both hands. It is not difficult to wield a sword in one hand; the Way to learn this is to train with two long swords, one in each hand. It will seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first. Bows are difficult to draw, halberds are difficult to wield; as you become accustomed to the bow so your pull will become stronger. When you become used to wielding the long sword, you will gain the power of the Way and wield the sword well.
As I will explain in the second book, the Water Book, there is no fast way of wielding the long sword. The long sword should be wielded broadly, and the companion sword closely. This is the first thing to realise.
According to this Ichi school, you can win with a long weapon, and yet you can also win with a short weapon. In short, the Way of the Ichi school is the spirit of winning, whatever the weapon and whatever its size.
It is better to use two swords rather than one when you are fighting a crowd and especially if you want to take a prisoner.
These things cannot be explained in detail. From one thing, know ten thousand things. When you attain the Way of strategy there will not be one thing you cannot see. You must study hard.
|
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
 |
|
Gary A. Chelette
|
| Posted: Tue 07 Aug, 2007 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: | | Quote: | | Don't mistake your experiences with SCA fighting (which is essentially an untrained, made up style) with actual combat use of two blades. |
Made up? Largely, yes, and mostly irrelevant outside the sport, but untrained? That's pretty unfair. You might want to investigate a bit more... we're not knitting in full armor every Thursday night. |
I agree.
And no, it's every Weds nite!
Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Tue 07 Aug, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I'm quite familiar with that passage from the Book of Five Rings, and I see it as Musashi is advising the warrior to learn how to fight with the daito in one hand as well as two instead of restricting themselves to the two-handed techniques (which were/are easier to learn). At least that's how I'd reconcile it with the evidence from his duels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stuart Mackey
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Sep, 2007 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
And somehow it strikes me that WW2 might not exactly be a good example because most of the soldiers who fought in that war probably had rather poor hand-to-hand fighting skills, which means that they would have been vulnerable to a competent user of any hand-to-hand weapon if these hand-to-hand fighters could get close enough to negate the effect of firearms.
|
Just out of interest, what makes you think that soldiers of WW2 were poor at hand to hand? There is a large body of work from that era on close combat, a lot of which is still in current use and still being developed as required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charlee Garvin
|
| Posted: Sun 02 Sep, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: Poor hand to hand fighting |
|
|
Stuart ,
I'm kind of interested in that response from Lafayette also.
US. Marines are kind of addicted to hand to hand combat. Many have won Medals of Honor during WWII in hand to hand engagements with Japanese on island hopping campaigns. I think if you told a Marine Raider that he wasn't any good at hand to hand, he'd probably smile---then break your neck. These guys weren't video game heros. They killed people for a living.
Charlee
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stuart Mackey
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Sep, 2007 3:54 am Post subject: Re: Poor hand to hand fighting |
|
|
| Charlee Garvin wrote: | Stuart ,
I'm kind of interested in that response from Lafayette also.
US. Marines are kind of addicted to hand to hand combat. Many have won Medals of Honor during WWII in hand to hand engagements with Japanese on island hopping campaigns. I think if you told a Marine Raider that he wasn't any good at hand to hand, he'd probably smile---then break your neck. These guys weren't video game heros. They killed people for a living.
Charlee |
Indeed, a chap from New York by the name of Charlie Nelson was one of those instructors, unfortunately passed away a few years ago. There is also Fairbairn and Applegate and numerous others, and their works will undoubtedly be the equivalent of Talhoffer or Fiore in the future, some may argue that that is almost the case now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.T. Aliaga
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Sep, 2007 4:35 am Post subject: Re: Poor hand to hand fighting |
|
|
| Charlee Garvin wrote: | Stuart ,
I'm kind of interested in that response from Lafayette also.
US. Marines are kind of addicted to hand to hand combat. Many have won Medals of Honor during WWII in hand to hand engagements with Japanese on island hopping campaigns. I think if you told a Marine Raider that he wasn't any good at hand to hand, he'd probably smile---then break your neck. These guys weren't video game heros. They killed people for a living.
Charlee |
Lafayette said | Quote: | | " most of the soldiers who fought in that war probably had rather poor hand-to-hand fighting skills |
" . I think its reasonable to assume most soldiers/marines would have only received rudimentary H2H training for a short period of time. As today, the majority of time in training is spent on othre things such as marksmanship, battle drills, etc.
Using Marine Raiders is a bad example, as they would be considered a special/elite unit with special training and consisted of 2(?) battalions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charlee Garvin
|
| Posted: Mon 03 Sep, 2007 9:52 am Post subject: Army |
|
|
J.T.
You speak for the Army and I'll speak for the Marine Corps, soldier.
Carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 07 Sep, 2007 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well, I wanted to respond but I see that J.T. has done that first--and quite well at that. We should also take account of the fact that the mass armies employed in WW1 and WW2 were mostly composed of conscripts, who wouldn't have had the very comprehensive (some would even say "obsessive") training that the average soldier receives in today's all-volunteer U.S. armed forces. Note that most of the manuals from the WW2 and pre-WW2 era were mostly geared for Special Forces units, not the general run of soldiers. The latter generally had little more than rudimentary bayonet and knife drills, probably with a little wrestling put into the mix--more than enough to overwhelm the average civilian, but hardly enough for facing a really experienced hand-to-hand combatant (or a member of Special Forces units, for that matter).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic