Troper Fencing Academy

Hey, swordspersons, a few questions:

1. Any of you know much about Chinese swordsmanship? I know that's a huge subject to ask about, but I'm interested in that in particular.

2. I read in a book on fencing once that if your opponent attacks you on your left, you should attack from the right, and vice versa. Is this true?

3. Do any of you know of a specific book or something that has well-written swordfight scenes?

edited 14th Jul '11 9:38:06 PM by AirofMystery

Chinese swords are not really my thing. I'm not even sure I know the basics.

1. I don't know anything about Chinese swordsmanship, either.

2. Yes.

3. Nope. Some movies have decent swordsmanship, but often for different reasons and it's rarely more than a handful of real techniques taught to the actor for the sake of one or two scenes.

To elaborate on 2, you want to strike in such a way that your sword is where their sword isn't, but so you can intercept their strike as well. This is why diagonal strikes are often favoured; since they run along two axes, they've got twice the chance of parrying without giving up any offensive oomph. You should generally pick your strikes as per the situation, but if in doubt, make a high diagonal strike downwards.

This video's kinda wanky and I don't know how legit it is, especially given some of the footwork, but the "free play" seemed fine.

Upon further perusal of this guy in another video, he actually seems quite good. I'd trust it.

edited 14th Jul '11 10:06:13 PM by MadassAlex

1. Nope. I've been exposed to some Korean sword, but only as part of a broader martial art; I don't think I'd trust it as a style.

2. It's highly situational, but for obvious reasons you should strive not to run into your opponent's blade. Attacking into an attack is a good way to do that.

3. Western film is pretty much uniformly bad; what works in Western foil and epee fencing is either too fast or too slow to look good on camera, and reconstructionist sword hasn't made it into Hollywood to any substantial extent. Eastern film can be better, but what you see on screen is uniformly a lot flashier than anything that'll win you an actual swordfight.

Literature is occasionally accurate, but you should not expect to learn anything from it; if it's there, it's there as a shout-out to fencers. The swordfight scenes in The Princess Bride are a good example: most everything they talk about is legitimate classical fencing, but you'll never decipher it if you haven't studied it yourself. (The movie's version is pure Flynning.)

Robert Heinlein's Glory Road is similar; Heinlein was an experienced fencer.

edited 14th Jul '11 10:06:51 PM by Nornagest

Every time I see videos of Eastern styles like that, they lose a little credibility for me when I see the drills being performed by some middle-aged white guy.

Bonus points if they are a balding or fat middle-aged white guy.

edited 14th Jul '11 10:06:00 PM by Blackmoon

Give it twenty years, Moony.

Yes, that is when I will not be performing martial arts drills on camera.

@Swordsmanship in movies: I enjoyed the sword work in Rob Roy, mainly because it looked like two guys actually trying to kill each other. Also, the pacing was correct; there was circling, sizing each other up and then a lot of hacking.

But yes, most movie duels aren't realistic, and with good reason; the actors have to walk away from it when it's all over, and they can't really wear protective gear. Also, they are actors, not fighters, generally speaking.

Also, two guys sizing each other up sucks ass at pacing.

edited 15th Jul '11 8:08:09 PM by FurikoMaru

The final duel between Robin (Sean Connery) and The Sheriff (Robert Shaw) in RobinAndMarian

edited 15th Jul '11 8:11:20 PM by Madrugada

There's a difference between a movie fight being incorrect and it being grossly idiotic, though. Given the misinformation surrounding European swordsmanship in particular, this often results in something that doesn't even begin represent reality. At least Kingdom Of Heaven made reference to Italian longsword.

Pacing is subjective to the individual swordsman, I think. Sometimes, standing around observing isn't worth half as much as making the first strike and taking the initiative. But we might be confusing narrative pacing with martial pacing, so...

edited 15th Jul '11 8:21:07 PM by MadassAlex

Just a quick question: did the ancient knights of Europe ever use axes during battle? To me, it seems very irrational considering that axes are used for slashing. Slashing motions vs. armor doesn't bode well for the axe wielder if you consider that armor was made to protect against slashing motions.

I could never grasp what it felt like to rush into battle during the medieval ages and clomp together in one mass crowd, slashing and stabbing. It'd just make me feel so vulnerable knowing that there's hundreds of different "mini-battles" going on around me while I was fighting my own. One minute, I could be fighting one guy, stab him in the chest, and before I even pull out my sword, I'd be looking down staring at someone else's sword going through my stomach.

edited 15th Jul '11 8:28:30 PM by Warreh

^^ Quite. As a writer it's the type of pacing I'm qualified to comment on. Action movies tend to have the actual action scenes take place every ten pages or so in the script to keep things flowing, and only climactic ones are allowed to be suspenseful and drawn-out. If you do it over and over you lose the effect and the whole thing just looks stupid.

Tv series are different, though; they're probably a good venue for authentic sword-slinging.

^ Shieldwalls. They haz them. At least, as far as I know the Britons did, prior to the introduction of heavy cavalry.

edited 15th Jul '11 8:35:22 PM by FurikoMaru

Knights sometimes used axes, but probably not against one-another by the time plate armour came about. They probably would've been pretty common in the era of maille, though.

edited 15th Jul '11 8:35:12 PM by MadassAlex

^ Wasn't mail better at preventing penetration (such as arrows and thrusting swords) while plate was better at preventing slashing motions?

By the way, I took that advice you gave me about practicing with the two hand, and I found a place near me that offers that. I'd probably never have found it if it weren't for this topic, so thank you.

Always a pleasure.

Plate armour was more or less completely immune to everything. The reason blunt weapons worked is because they transferred energy through the armour, hitting its owner inside and basically scrambling them inside their own protection. When swords were used against plate armour, they were used in "half-sword" configuration, where the off-hand gripped the middle of the blade for more thrusting power. These thrusts were then directed at the weak points in the armour, such as the armpits, between plates, ect.

@Warreh: The main weapon for infantry was a spear. Axes weren't too popular. However, axes were used before the knight era by Germanics.

edited 15th Jul '11 8:58:13 PM by Erock

Although infantry that didn't go in for the whole polearm thing would generally uses axes.

True, but most men couldn't afford to choose.

I'd say spears were cheaper.

@Furiko: Pacing-wise, two guys having a "Kodak moment" may not be the best thing, but for realism it's what actually happens between experienced swordsmen.

Not necessarily. Kunst de fechten suggests skipping that whole thing and just striking to ensure they have to react to you.

Not everyone is German, Alex.

And not everyone wants a realistic fight in a fictional movie, especially when it's not as fun to watch.

Especially because a realistic fight would probably end in fifteen, twenty seconds.

@Furiko: I enjoy a realistic fight, because it's not a quarter hour of blocky-blocky-bash-bash made OMG Awesome!!! by cinema magic.