Were We Wrong About FLICK CUTS in Fencing? Let's CHOP STUFF! 

And this sort of tap would be more useful in an unarmored duel to draw a bit of a wound.

Scimitars are themselves sabers though. “Scimitar” was just a term used for a saber used outside of Europe. We see for instance some Polish and Hungarian sabers are called sabers but this same saber from the Ottoman Empire might be called a kilij or scimitar if you want to use the broad term. In short scimitar is not a really useful term and it refers to sabers anyway. I recommend watching Russ Mitchel’s saber lecture (can’t link it here sorry) for more on the terminology which gets complicated fast.

The phasing out of brigandines would be very interesting. I'd love to see a video on that.

"Scimitar" is an English word (probably a bastardization of shamshir) that no one uses in that region of Asia & North Africa. They are just sabres, and in fact, some European and American sabres were derived from those foreign curved swords. Like for instance, the US Marine sabre came from the Mameluke style sabre that they encountered in the First Barbary War "to the shores of Tripoli." Perhaps US Marines might have evolved their own sabre fighting system that is different than what Libyans would've used back then, but make no mistake: sabres are still sabres. If the blades are curved and the points of balance are similar, the functions are going to be similar. A big difference in fighting style would really come from the presence (or absence) of a shield to pair with the sabre.

Scimitars vs Sabers, its mostly a lingustics term referencing a specific period of curved swords. The Saber/Sabre term mostly refers to the Napoleonic Wars era backswords that were used by the light cavalry of that era. So we are talking about 18th-19th century which means no armor (mostly military clothes), which is the BIG difference. However the reality is that sabers were around for a long time & armor played a very imporant factor (light or heavy) in the shaping of the blade. Similarly the term scimitar encompasses a more general era (10th century onwards) of curved swords that was introduced to Western Europe.

I'm also thinking of it less full commitment, more as a circular movement just like a jab. However the possibility to have two draw cuts one forward and one in return with the person's weight behind it would be very very unpleasant for soft targets. Sharp blades cut very well when being pushed and pulled just like they do in the kitchen.

Agree there, for me a flick cut is a cut from the guard position, no momentum or build up, just a punch out (jab) of the blade.

Yeah, it was an interesting video. IIRC, it was the one where he discusses the fact that they don't do much tatami cutting in his dojo, because of the temptation to modify your technique to create more impressive test cuts rather than doing what's martially effective.

I saw that too. Very interesting and very practical.

Just going in is usually enough... through is overkill usually.😊

I think a big part is just armored vs unarmored combat. An armored opponent is incredibly tough and these things wouldn't be effective, but for unarmored combat swords are just incredibly deadly and even a lot of "ineffective" blows would have you dying after the fight.

@@novembermike512 Well, yes of course and you should know that Matt talks about unarmoured combat unless otherwise specified. CLEARLY these little taps would do nothing to an armoured opponent.

I'm curious what I would search for to look for that video. Massive backlogs of content make this very difficult to find.

Similarly the Eastern Roman Empire used a similar type of sword (double-edged straight) along with the Paramerion (curved single edged) just like the Chinese used the Jian & Dao. The only difference is that the Eastern Romans also fought the Persians (another very strong & rich empire) and thus had to face a lot more heavily armored troops & cavarly.

Ancient china didn't end up developing the same kind of armors as Europe, which might also be a reason why this was good. I wonder if it was because armies were larger scale and the value of individual infantry just wasn't high enough to merit dressing everyone in the most optimal gear. Also the Jian was kind of a civilian sidearm, so it would make even more sense since it was being used vs people wearing robes.

@@cokecan6169 Ah i was talking about the Jian in general (Jian simply means sword). Jian swords were also in the Warring States period and they are quite different than the more stereotypical jian, these were heavier and broader. The stereotypical Jian is from a later era, it functions more like a spadroon. That type of jian weapon performs less adequate against armor.

@@cokecan6169 Could also be that their opponents didnt have good economies as well. The most difficulty they had was vs the northern horse nomads when themselves when they were split up as warring kingdoms. And when China was unified, then the horse nomads werent such a problem. Eastern Roman Empire was fighting the Persians who were rich (therefore good armors) & also had a good cavalry tradition. Hungary also had such a transformation on a far less scale, where they were between Western and Eastern powers with different tactics and weapons. I think that is one of the critical elements, strength of the opponents.

@@GeoGyf maybe the fact that their steppe opponents were largely cavelry archers also was a factor. Low armor, melee was never the focus in war.

Point taken! We’re not training for actual combat, thank the gods.

It's already upon us

You jest, but Greta is right there besides you for the battle to come.

@@user-ki1zc7qh2l How dare you!

When I did Olympic fencing, my instructors never taught flick attacks. Then, a foemer member came to visit the club and did nothing but flicks. My instructors let me get welts on my back for 20 very confusing minutes before finally teaching me how to parry them. Needless to say, I was pissed.

I feel like it's important to point out that flicks in olympic epee/foil don't mean the same thing as flick cuts like Matt Easton is talking about here. A flick in foil is where you make a whipping motion, causing the blade tip to bend around the target's guard and hit them on the back of the shoulder, but the "flick cut" that HEMA people seem to be talking about would just be referred to in olympic sabre as... a cut. It's the default kind of cut, because it's the fastest to land.

What the H are you talking about. If you were fencing, the moment a score is registered the action stops. There is no second opportunity for another hit (score). Your language use seems to be non-fencing, but fantasy sword lingo. If you want to look at it in a realistic sense, then, a flick doesn't do much damage and you can follow it with a thrust which is well known (among the knowledgable) to be far more lethal than a cut. A note on language and swordwork. "Thrust" implies a sudden jab of the arm in an attempt to use strength to push the point into a body. The way muscles work, a thrusting jab results in a shorter reach of the foible of the blade, which is the attacking tip of the sword (regardless of type). Genuine fencing technique teaches how to extend the sword from the hand to the arm, to the shoulder, and the legs then propel the tip further. With training, a fencer learns (if they have a real master teaching them) how to gain one to three inches of reach by extending the shoulder. This is not a natural movement and must be learned. The scapula is actually moved away from the thorax. Over time, the muscles learn how to do this. I once pulled a costal cartilage from my sternum, while executing an attack so energetically that when I pushed my sword out from my shoulder, (I was also executing a flying lunge), I pulled the cartilage with the muscles of my scapula. I understand this because I was also a sports chiropractor and took care of Olympic fencers in the U.S. and Slovenia. (I lad on the floor and set my own cartilage in place. I had to redo that for about a month).

That's very strange to me because, as a HEMA practitioner, my perception is that Olympic fencing is nothing but flicks and light movements to get contact. Olympic fencing seems to be more about touching than actual good quality cuts. The again, perhaps what you are calling a "flick cut vs normal cut" and what I would consider a "flick cut vs normal cut" are just two very different things.

@@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244 good for you.

Maybe the first rapier cut on the milk bottle was noticeably less than 70, but yea, you're drawing back for each of those cuts instead of just flicking forward. I'd be curious to see what a bit of wool or linen would do. I do agree with the premise that you don't need a giant wind-up to make a successful cut

Yeah, he literally cannot stick to the flick when he tries to cut. The samshir cut basically started in the upper shoulder guard.

Degenerated? I believe you meant to say “improved”!

I agree

Because people tend to over extend and end up hurting their joints.

@@18ps3anos it takes a lot of practice to do wrist flicks right. And to do elbow and shoulder flicks at all.

Unfortunately that's a common misconception. That shows you one of the vibrational nodes, but that is not the centre of percussion. In many swords is just so happens that the node is in the region of the centre of percussion, but it's not always the case and they are separate things. I made this mistake myself for many years - even shown in some early videos on this channel.

but we are not hitting our targets with the flat, are we?

@@scholagladiatoria - ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification on this! Seems like something that coincidentally happened to be true many times but doesn't always hold.

yes, if you smack it, the part that vibrates the least is the CoP

Almost all fencing treatises ever written were for an unarmored context, this armor argument is utterly pointless.

Chinese martial arts have many flick cuts with jian, and flick cuts are often considered a test of skill. Some flicking techniques emphasise avoiding creating momentum like you do with the lunge.

Because these attacks are usually done from out-of-measure and thus require a step to reach the target, which means either a step or a lunge, and the latter tends to be advantageous over the former.

@@nevisysbryd7450 makes sense. I understood this video as a mechanical test of sorts: flick cuts have less distance over which to gain velocity - can they still produce effective cuts? While lunging forward makes "tactical" sense, it also creates 100+ degrees of sword rotation which is similar to other cuts. This kind of negates the whole experiment in my opinion.

@@JIMA-Club It does not because you are very rarely going to perform an attack that you do not need to step into in the first place. People usually remain at least one step away from each other's attack reach in combat; about the only circumstance where one is liable to attack without stepping is as a counter when someone else is the one who enters the threat range, and that is usually not the context in which one performs a flick-cut. Nearly all cuts, regardless of whether from the shoulder, elbow, or wrist, still usually rely predominantly on the rotation of the hips for the real power. Furthermore, I think the real takeaway from this video is that a blow does not need to entirely bifurcate a limb to cause a debilitating injury that will disadvantage your opponent in any subsequent exchanges or effectively end the fight outright. If you cut 1/3 of the way through someone's forearm bone, they are probably not going to be able to make effective use of that arm for the remainder of the engagement, if ever, and that is without considering the debilitating effects of their psychological reactions or shock.

@@nevisysbryd7450 Let me give you an example: Many jian systems have an upward cut with the upward facing edge to the wrist. As the opponent advances, you sidestep and flick the blade upwards into his wrist. The blade often has a very short arc to travel and it's challenging building velocity (it's also an "unnatural" way to cut). Practicing this technique, we're battling the short distance and trying to hit hard enough for the cut to be effective. I'm curious about how effective short flick cuts like the one I described (jian has several) could be, and I think testing this could make a good focus for a video. Like you said, lunging flick cut mechanics are quite similar to cuts from the elbow, so I'm curious about the effectiveness of these more constrained flick cuts.

Balance is the reason when hand is back. Also you can cut your hand yourself or opponent can help. If you had a dagger or buckler in left hand but if it's empty take away from enemy.

Defense? You mean an easier target to bleed out? That is what your opponent would see. Flesh is not really a good defense against a sword.

It's just a really well-made sword. LK Chen know their business. They paid very close attention to the blade profile, distal taper in particular, resulting in a point of balance just slightly past the guard.