Sidesword and Dagger Sparring - Malcolm vs Nick 

Excellent, good luck with it!

R.B. , he's fast and focused.

Red is Nick, the guy who operates the Academy of Historical Fencing, and is a basically a master in the majority of the weapons. Malcolm is one of his students, and I think he does a lot of saber, so he's not as accustomed to handling two weapons.

Yeah those leg strikes eh? You can tell hes the head of the school cause when you a teacher you never stop teaching lol

I teach Capo Ferro, where the right foot always leads, and the dagger is most commonly in a fairly withdrawn stance. Though it can sometimes be more advanced, that would be better suited to a long rapier fight, and not this sidesword one. The dagger is also not as useful to a sidesword fight as a rapier one, but despite this, it still has extensive usage throughout the fight. CF's right foot forward stance is efficient, effective, and allows a range of the single sword techniques to still be used without hindrance. We also train Meyer rapier (sidesword), which in fact works much the same way. Watch more of our videos and you will see extensive dagger usage. Left foot forward stance is indeed used in other treatise, but not what we work from, or what we find most effective. As with many things in martial arts though, you must find what works best for you, as there is rarely 'one true way'.

Yes, just not often. One example of that would be one historical account I read of a British navy crew going in to battle with bayonets lashed to their offhand, to pair with their cutlass. (British navy cutlass was the same length as many infantry sabres). Military dussacks/tessacks were carried at a time when daggers were also worn and used offhand, hard to imagine those never paired up.

I was discussing why there weren't any sources for medieval arming sword and dagger/large knife (they surely must have been combined sometimes?) with Matt Easton a little while ago and he was saying that he tried unsuccessfully to make a sabre and bowie knife system when he was younger. I guess that improvised combinations (i.e. whatever you had to hand) probably happened all the time, but manuals and treatises come out with specific purposes in mind so might well not cover such approaches.

I think the simple answer is that a dagger isn't a great offhand weapon to pair with a sword with no hand protection, and also against an opponent using a lot of powerful cuts. Daggers are best suited to defending against thrusts and light cuts. The popularity of the dagger as an offhand weapon, and the decline of the buckler run near perfectly in line with the development and popularity of long rapiers. I don't think this was purely coincidental. The buckler is a much better offhand weapon than a dagger is for those earlier swords. Of course they must have been paired occasionally, all manner of match ups have happened, but I just don';t think it would have been common enough, or considered particularly effective enough, to create a system for.

Thanks - that makes a lot of sense. Silver still rated the buckler over the dagger in his day but Swetnam takes almost the opposite view to him in everything 20 years later. BTW- I recently acquired a Light AP jacket (as my Black Armoury one is too hot for summer). I have an LP titan mask, like you - do you wear a gorget under your jacket as well, and which do you use? I note you didn't like the LP gorget in your review. I've not needed one with my older jacket but am a bit concern about not having one with the AP light

My mask is the LP Coaching Contour mask, not the Titan. I far prefer it. Sadly they are ceasing production as they move towards more the more X-change masks, which is an awful decision. I don't use a gorget no. It's a good idea, I've just not found any that I find remotely acceptable to use yet.

No, I have handled and fought against one though. Overall I would say they are good. I don't like them as much as our old club spec Regenyei sabre, but way better than any Regenyei sabre made now, or any other bowl hilt sabre on the market. Hard to compare them to the BF synthetic, different material, but also a completely different kind of sabre. Both are good, the choice there would come down to what period you want to practice for. Napoleonic era, BF is great. Victorian sabre, Kvetun is the best option currently.

Thanks for the info! I'm at a point where I want to practice sabre but not sure which period to emulate. I'm thinking about starting with Roworth and I like reading about the Napoleonic era, but I like the mid-19th century swords more. I might just have to get both swords.

The rapier was sometimes paired with a shield called the rotella. A medium size steel round shield. Often used in war, but also in some civilian contexts, such as by militia, bodyguards (common in rapier period), and others. Below is a video of us using with with rapier against rapier and dagger. The dagger is usually the best thing to pair with rapier because they usually face other rapiers. Daggers are great at defending against thrusts and light cuts, but not so good against attackers who cut a lot more and/or more powerfully. The problem of using a very long rapier and shield against a shorter sword and shield is that they could swap you when your reach is an encumbrance. If sideswords like in the video above, I'd definitely want the shield against sabre/sword and shield. If long rapier, probably a dagger, so to be able to strike well both at distance, and when they close to narrow measure. But if the situation was then a melee, shield again becomes more useful. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-14F6yeepmh0.html

Academy of Historical Fencing Interesting, thank you very much. Fascinating as always.

Black Fencer. We have at least 150 of them, and you will find reviews for many of their training swords on our channel. www.blackfencer.com/en/

The swords he shows don't have protection forward of the quillon, so not safe to. It may also have been to keep consistency with the other weapon styles he taught.

A little less reach and hand protection, but more cutting power. The dividing line between sidesword and rapier can sometimes become blurred, but if you compare these to what we use for rapier and dagger, the reach, hand protection and cutting power is significant. These factors also effect the dagger, as it is not so well suited to defending against more powerful, and also more deceptive cuts of the shorter, stouter blade.

Unlikely. Unless you're a professional soldier, you're not going to have the strength to use a spear one-handed for an extended period of time. Even in ancient times, the spear was used linearly to stab, while a shield was used to defend. Using a dagger to defend is not as effective, and forces the wielder to be more mobile on defense, which can be tiring as you're trying to also keep your spear in line with one hand.

If I was in a situation with a spear and dagger, I'd option for the dagger to stay in the sheath and two hand the spear.

+Johny Ricco +PresidentWordSalad You could hold the dagger in your front hand whilst holding the spear in the same hand. That way when the enemy gets past your spear tip, you already have your dagger in hand, just let go of the spear in that hand (sure it'll drop, but you won't get anywhere using the spear when the enemy is close anyway). Of course you lose the defensive advantage of a shield, but at least you're holding the spear with both hands.

Or the sword and spear done by the tuareg.

Seem like you would lose the reach advantage of the spear by going one-handed. Point work would likely also be hindered with not much of a gain from the dagger.

Nyda sometimes yes, sometimes no. A person's ability/motivation to continue a fight injured has a legion of variables. I myself do train in continuous rounds a lot and enjoy it, but it is also important to train in this manner shown to reinforce the seriousness of a mock injury. That's my two cents worth.

From my point of view, not stopping may reinforce a certain lack of respect for the danger of getting hit as opposed to a real context, which is something that I think is already a problem as it is in attempting to reconstruct the real thing. As for a real combatant not stopping, I think after-blows are usually allowed because of that, but I'm not sure I agree with anything further than that. I think getting a clean hit by a sword while unarmored would more likely than not neutralize you or at least reduce your effectiveness dramatically.

Continuous/timed rounds can be an interesting exercise that we have used on occasion, but they they usually have the exact opposite effect of adding to realism. The 'in a real fight would keep swinging' is basically a half truth. On the one hand the human body can survive incredible damage, and on the other hand it can be remarkably fragile. In training with swords there needs to be respect for the lethal and/or debilitating nature of strikes. Continuous sparring simply encourages fencers to ignore the threat of the blade and brush off blows as if it were a stick fight. Notice we have afterblows, where a counter can be landed with a single tempo of the initial strike. That represents the continued action after a blow is landed. It's really important when people spar that they respect the threat of the blade. A well placed strike frequently will incapacitate or create enough of an opening to land a second killing or incapacitating blow. This goes out the window is people ignore it and go on. Continuous sparring is a useful exercise, so long as it is done on occasion, and not often. It can often strip a massive amount of realism from a fight. In fact we participated in a sword and buckler tournament that used timed bouts and continuous action a few years ago. The result was frankly terrible. Constantly fighters just powered on through incredibly strong blows and flailed about to get as many hits on the score card as possible. So yes, it's possible some fighters kept on going through multiple strikes, but the cause and effect of the blade needs to be important. More than anything, fencers should be protecting themselves, as that is what these arts were teaching. Survive a fight,.

I would also add if two people are committing to an actual sword fight the adrenaline dump would be tremendous. More likely than not the first blow would not end the fight, though it might. Ferocity more than likely would win the day. That means multiple strikes in quick succession whilst receiving (hopefully less severe) counter wounds. A fight is half won if the enemy is intimidated. Now in a HEMA setting the goals are different than what a fight or flight situation presents. In HEMA the goals are to gain skills, build sporting clubs, and recreate manouvers from masters of an earlier era. I have my doubts that most historical sword fights were as well executed as what we see in HEMA sparring matches. But that's the point, isn't it? It's not so rewarding to let the bull rush happen every time in tournament. Especially when both sides do it without the potential penalty of death as a real fight would present.

The problem with trying to establish what fights looked like historically is, that there would be such tremendous variety. This much is well documented. From very skittish and careful fights. To one hit kills. To brutal affairs with dozens of wounds. Some people fighting with the utmost care for their life, others like fanatics. All are well documented. Then to try and wonder if HEMA is representing all that. Well HEMA can be equally as varied sometimes. Sometimes even what looks like a well conducted and gentlemanly sparring bout isn't really what it seems. Because those moments of interaction and striking can be brutal and savage, but the fighters then resetting calmly can make it look otherwise. Context is also hugely important. Most of what you see on the channel is one-on-one, which is fare more likely to be controlled and cautious than a melee. We have fights with groups and you can see how much the dynamic changes. But the idea of a bullish fighter always winning the day certainly isn't supported by the evidence. They can do sometimes. But certainly in an unarmoured fight, they can get beat up and killed quickly. Whilst it's true that adrenaline can you keep up on your feet, we are also talking about blows that can incapacitate, and frequently did. Number of people knocked out by cuts to the head in sword fights is substantial for example. Many survived, but they still lost the fight. Same as incapacitation of the arm, leaving some fighters defenceless. Ultimately though, there is no perfect formula to training for what we do. There are different methods, many of which are worth exploring. All the while remembering to not take it too seriously. We put our heart and soul in to the research and practice, but we must never forget, we're training with swords in the 21st century, we do this for fun.

The guy in black is a student, which is why his moments aren't quite as smooth as the guy in red. I also think that he's more familiar with wielding only a single weapon, either a single-handed saber or a two-handed longsword, than his is with dual-wielding.

So case and point height doesn't affect how you fight?

As a 5"5 tall(or short?) person, height most certainly dictates how you fight. I have to constantly move into the distance of experienced, taller fighters as they will keep me at the maximum distance to reduce my capability of hitting them. It's about personal style and capability rather than height but you do have to take into account height disparities of course.

Alright thanks

As someone who is 6'5" I can say it does give me an advantage in some ways, but which can be overcome by a clever fencer. For example, its easier for a person with a longer reach to parry and riposte, but then I find people feint a lot to me once they figure this out.