This is a question of point on, or in line, vs point offline when in guard position. There are good reasons for both, and here we discuss them in the case of the military sabre.
Great advice, i am currently getting into saber fencing and have not found a local HEMA club so get a lot of my info from videos like yours and Schilagladitoria's. I appreciate the continued uploading of instructional material as it gives me and my sparring partner techniques to try and master while we search for a local club!
Really simple way to explain to people this idea. Context, it depends on the situation, the weapon you are using, your opponent's weapon, are you in an open field? Are you in a enclosed position? Context is one of the most important things to consider in combat.
Really interesting video :) I'm relatively new to HEMA and that's something I never thought about. Keep up the great work! I also would like to make a video suggestion if that's okay :) I really would like to see a video about sideswords and how they were used and maybe complex hilted longswords because I'm wondering if they were used differently in comparison to 'normal' longswords :)
Side sword is one of my primary areas of interest. Do a search on RU-vid for a couple of guys: Ilkka Hartikainen, and Robert Ruthfoord. I would say that they have the best videos out there on side sword. As far as how differently you would use a sword with a complex hilt compared to one with a cruciform hilt. not all that different. While things with full basket hilts like the English back sword have guards where you have your hand very forward such as their hanging guard, in side sword systems you tend to have your hand back and close to the body with the tip forward to keep it from being a good target. And the systems actually say to attack the hands quite often.
Glad you are enjoying the videos. About complex hilted longswords - there are no sources, despite the fact that the sword type was common. I think you will find that is simply because the methods used were be the same as an open hilt, and any emphasis towards one thing over another would be taken for granted. In our experience with these swords, you use less rotations like the zwerch because they are so much slower, and use more forward guards like langort and eisenport, and some of the binds become safer. In terms of sidesword, we do not teach from the sidesword treatise. We can only fit so many styles in to our teaching. But I still practice with them. Loosely if you mixed rapier with sabre styles and used plenty of passing steps, you would essentially have sidesword.
I wasn't talking about sport sabre specifically, but sport fencing in general. There is a large focus on point being on line when in guard, as below. But I appreciate there is much more to it and a far greater range of technique. I merely referred to it as it is referenced by those who comment. webpages.uidaho.edu/VandalSwordplay/site_Images/targets.jpg
Academy of Historical Fencing Would there be any situations where a smallsword point would be away from an enemy? In foil and epee, the tip is pretty much always towards the enemy.
@@matthewpham9525 I did foil, and considering that the foil (and by extention, smallsword) were almost exclusively thrust based weapons, I would say that its a good idea to keep it pointing at the enemy at all times
commenting is what I do Actually, absence of blade works well against opponents who rely on taking the blade to land hits. It’s generally good to keep the point in line, but not doing so doesn’t mean you’ll instantly lose.
They are just brushcutter guards. I have been using them for ten years now. They don't offer anywhere near as much protection as some of the current generation HEMA guards, like Red Dragon, but I far prefer them because they are so much lighter and have no restriction of movement at all - www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/191740358459?lpid=122&chn=ps&googleloc=1007448&poi=&campaignid=620865095&device=c&adgroupid=27378760866&rlsatarget=pla-181484342466&adtype=pla&crdt=0
I'm a bit confused. You mention Roworth, but from my reading he quite explicitly advocates keeping the point in line in outside and inside guards, lifting it when parrying or when the opponent tries to gain your blade. Granted, the illustrations from the 1798 edition show very high guards.
Where does he say this? The illustrations are indeed very upright, and he makes frequent reference to having the point up in guard, and his descriptions of the guards he describes having the point 6-8 inches over your opponents head, once again offline.
In the 1804 edition, on page 50, he advises to hold the inside guard with "the point opposite your antagonist's left eye, or elevated from one to four inches above it". Similarly, on page 55 he advises to "direct your point to the right eye of your antagonist" when in the outside guard.
I had not looked at the 1804 version for a long time. I just took another look. That is interesting, as in the same sections of the 1798 he says to point well above the opponents head, rather than at it. Thinking about it, that seems like a period of transition to more point on guards. Look to 1798 Roworth, then the Rowlandson art done for Angelo, as linked below, and other broadsword illustrations of the 18th century and you see a lot of point high work. I wonder if the sword design change was a factor too. 1804 Roworth, published a year after the 1803 pattern was introduced, which was move towards protection to the hand that sabres had not typically had up to that point, and takes it closer to the gothic hilt swords that would become the norm later on. It may also speak to the encouragement of the increased use of the point seen through the 19th century. art.famsf.org/search?search_api_views_fulltext=Hungarian+and+Highland+Broadsword+Exercise%27
Very interesting! I think the change might be related to the spadroon material added to the 1804 edition. Roworth may have wanted to keep his system consistent across the various swords.
Well the spadroon section is in the 1798 version, but you may well be on to something as well. He discusses the spadroon being used according to smallsword principals. Bringing the point lower and online might have better suited a more universal system for sabre and spadroon, as you say.
Most sabers used for practicing and fencing seem a little short compared to sabers of the 1900's. Why is that? How long is that blade? I bought one from cold steel that was 32 inches. That one looks like it's 29
Actually most sabres used for fencing are at least as long, and often longer than the typical infantry sabres used historically. That is because when most people think of a sabre they think of a cavalry sabre, when almost everyone practicing sabre today is practicing infantry sabre. The sabres I show in this video have blades of 31.5" and 33". Comparing those to originals. well Napoleonic era infantry sabres were typically 27-31", sometimes reaching 32", but the plain stirrup hilt ones like I show were normally at the shorter end of that scale. Victorian infantry officers swords were 32.5", so a whisker shorter than the one I show. So in essence, both of the sabres I show here are at the large end of the scale for what they are representing. Cavalry sabre equivalents for the era are longer and heavier though.
I was wondering why in so many of your rapier sparring videos the point is almost never in line, I thought with such a long weapon it would be beneficial to do so. It does make sense though that if you keep the point on all the time the opponent knows where it is and that you will strive to move it there, while keeping it off makes your movement more unpredictable and they have less to work with. I think I will eventually try to pick up a rapier and learn some more about it, it never struck me as quite as alluring as the curved sabres I usually favour but it certainly has an elegance and deceitful deadliness on its own.
Yes, typically the point is online in rapier, but there are very good reasons to have it offline, particularly when you face a shorter, more cut based weapon, or when using with a companion dagger. It's much harder to safely attack or close against a blade that you cannot engage. But of course in rapier there are still massive advantages in having the arm extended and point in line in many typical scenarios.
I suppose that would become even more important when using a shorter thrust-oriented blade like a spadroon. I recall Hutton says the important thing for a combatant using a "French sword" against a sabre is to save his blade from the opponent's heavy cuts. In Nyblaeus from 1876, a Swedish manual devoted to gymnastic fencing, they put it like this (note that "rapier" here refers to something more akin to a spadroon rather than a rapier in the common sense, in Swedish they use the same word for both): "Against the swordsman and the sabreur, the rapierist is, regaring fencing aginst the thrust and its subsequent counter-thrust, at advantage, but because the enemy in this encounter may employ cuts and thrusts interchangeably and in combination, appears here the not insignificant difficulty for the rapierist to use his parades, in particular against the cut, if therein shall be enough strength, may at times be needed with retraction of the hand and the greater curve of the arm, whereupon the steady position of the hand within the 'plane of attack' which is the true strength of the rapier, rendered impossible, so that the rapier here is truly rendered but a light sword, that although it can deliver rapid thrusts and even, provided it has significant mass, ward against both cut and thrust, but which no powerful cuts may be used. These conditions against the weakness of the rapier, as well as the heavy and forceful thrust of the bayonet, and the strong cut of the cavalryman, makes her a hardly worthwhile weapon on the battlefield. She is, however, the true weapon of the study and practice of the fencing art." Apart from the astonishment that the first paragraph is a single massive sentence, it seems here that they found being on point with a thrusting sword to be difficult against a cut-centric opponent. With a shorter weapon yet I suppose footwork becomes more important to avoid heavy impact on your own blade, while with a longer "Italian" rapier you can threaten with the point at safer distance.
Well the distance will certainly be very different. I think that paragraph is basically saying that the rapier (spadroon) user is forced into a sabre like fight, with a weapon that is inferior for the task. As for avoiding heavy impacts, I am not so sure about that. Everywhere that a light blade is shown or taught used against a heavy, they actually focus on dead parries (as opposed to contratempo, single time) ones. McBane for example taught these strong dead parries and then ripostes with the smallsword vs broadsword. Most swords are plenty strong enough at the forte to parry good cuts. So long as the blade is tough enough not to break, which most are, you'll need to be taking those parries, and damage to the edge is not at all a worry, only not getting hurt, and being able to end your opponent. I have fought when fighting this style, spadroon vs sabre or similar, you often do need to be point online or similar so that you can use the hanging parries and counters as I was discussing in the video. Because the distances are roughly matched and you need strong parries.
I don't entitely agree with the conclusion. On spanish saber (Destreza), the cuts are made from the right angle by rising the hilt and lowing the point
And cuts are made that way in our systems as well, but not exclusively. If that's what your style says, thats fine. But most styles have a less rigid structure, and good reason to use both. The conclusion that both is used is not speculation, it is fact.
The bowl hilt is out of production, but was made by Peter Regenyei. The Stirrup hilt was by swordsmithy, you can name me (Nick Thomas) and our club and he will make you the same spec if you want - facebook.com/Swordsmithy-831416396952304/?fref=ts
Yes, sabre has been the most under catered to sword in the HEMA world for a long time. Regenyei changed that for a few years, but has sadly moved away from producing what most sabruers need. We can't rely on one smith anyway, that would be foolish. Swordsmithy is great, and I am working with Neilo and VB to produce similar models too.
Something I have noticed watching a your videos is that you typically use saber in a forward position and use almost no polish saber techniques like the ones I often see Richard Marsden use; is there a reason you do not use any of these techniques or styles?
Well in large part because we don't teach Polish sabre, though we have certainly researched it and shown our students some elements. Our interest in sabre primarily stems from an interest in it's use by the British. Also, we have far better documentation for British sabre and broadsword. The earliest known Polish sabre treatise is from 1830, which is rather late, and after the Poles lost the art of cross cutting and were influenced by other Northern European nations. This is rather a shame, and makes it much more difficult to accurately represent Polish sabre of that period.
I understand that you study a different technique but I am more interested in the functional aspect of it over the historical aspect in what I am referencing here. If you have looked at some of the techniques have you found these techniques not to work as well for you or is it a case where you just try to stay period accurate therefore don't use any of these techniques, or something else?
When we teach we teach according to a certain method, but when people spar, they are welcome to bring anything to the table, unless on the odd occasion we are trying to represent something specific. In many regards I don't think there is a huge difference. Some techniques specifically relate to deeply curved blades, of which the British system is more universal for all infantry swords. Do I think they can work? Yes. But I also don't like the way that there is so little surviving information on Polish sabre. Too much is left to speculation and experimentation. I prefer to rely on systems that are well documented. I also believe that many of the Polish sabre techniques now taught are intended for a much heavier sabre than a British infantry one, which was typically 700-800 grams. Many of the passing steps and back edge cuts are too slow when you have a lighter blade like this. I do however like some of he back edge work with Polish sabre, and hook parries, and use of curved edge in some thrusting. You will see me utilise these techniques in sparring. Overall I find the British system more efficient, with far better protection to the hand and forearm as well.
Interesting, I use mostly polish style sabre but really I take what I think works best for myself no matter the style or period. One of the reasons I enjoy polish style sabre is because it seems to set up the blade often so you don't have to drop or change guard for an attack and instead move directly from the guard into the attack in a very efficient way. This has advantages and disadvantages to it, you can quickly perform an attack but if someone knows this technique they can tell what potential attacks you can perform depending on your guard which leads to a "rock paper scissor" scenario often. Thanks for the response, I was curious on your perspective on this.
Indeed there are many approaches that can work. Nothing annoys me more than a swordsman or instructor who believes he has the one true way. It's perfectly okay to prefer one thing over another, or even believe one is better or more efficient than another in some way, but to presume you have the only way to achieve success is foolish. Just like I dislike destreza for rapier, I think it is inefficient, and yet I can appreciate that many good fencers have been made with it.
