Lengthy sword fight without flynning?

How to write a decent believable lengthy sword fight without resorting to Flynning? Where should I conduct the research on the matter? Are there some types of swords with more suitable technique than others?

Flynning describes a visual technique. As an author it's not even a concern of yours because you'd have to describe it in such a way as to make it obvious someone is Flynning, i.e. two people deliberately aiming at each other's swords.

As long as you describe it as two people trying to stab or cut each other with sharp objects, you really can't get your Errol Flynn on in writing.

edited 7th Sep '13 1:40:02 PM by Night

I mean, lemme gives you an example here. I removed the names to avoid distracting anyone.

Not too much detail, in here, I admit, but it sounds like people trying to kill each other, whereas the distinctive characteristic of Flynning is swinging at your opponent's blade.

edited 7th Sep '13 1:50:51 PM by Night

Thank you, but detail is exactly what's worrying me. I like extensive detail, so when I write a lengthy sword fight, I could make many mistakes of the "Why couldn't he/she follow up for a kill right there?" Like, say, if the sword is horizontally deflected to the side by a parry, and a clear fatal cut line is in there. But the character doesn't go there because the dramatic combat would then end too quickly.

Some of these things I might notice myself, but my knowledge is limited. Hence I ask.

When I'm writing sword fights, I usually pick up something that could act as a sword (a stick or something) and perform the motions a few times. If there's an issue with a particular parry or swing, I try to find a way to avoid that issue.

It takes a while, but I've yet to re-read a fight scene and think; "Yeah, that doesn't work".

Pretty much. Excessive parrying, dodging, evading or blocking of the blade is very expected in sword fights against equally skilled combatants. (And 99% of the time in fencing.)

As long as you never describe them intentionally aiming for the blade you need not worry about it.

These are not lengthy, but these might help you.

Notice, in this one, how much there are non-bladed physical fights here. I'm sure you can work with that one. Somehow.

Though not all of it is relevant, if you want to write a realistic swordfight (which seems to be the case here), you might want to check out this site. Admittedly it's focused upon the European school of swordsmanship, and it doesn't really cover lengthy swordfights, but it should allow you to side-step some of the unrealistic aspects of swordfighting that occurs in fiction.

If that isn't what you're looking for, then my apologies.

EDIT:

Don't assume it's 100% accurate, though - I cannot claim to be an expert in swordsmanship, so I could have chosen poorly.

edited 8th Sep '13 3:26:52 PM by Flanker66

As far as I'm aware, the Pirates Of The Caribbean movies roughly feature lenghty swordfights without Flynning (with the exception of the three-way sword fight in the second movie), so maybe you'll want to check that out?

The big problem always is: lengthy fights are unrealistic - they fought to survive, not entertain - so you'll have your work cut out trying to extend the fight without it seeming very "Hollywood".

A documentary I saw, on the training of bodyguards, had their unarmed combat instructor delivering this gem. "Do not 'fight', take them down. The longer you spend fighting them, the more chances you are giving them to turn it into a slugging match in which you could be injured."

The same idea applied in historical sword fights - you took out your opponent as quickly as possible with minimal risk to yourself. There was no difference between a guard and a strike as each strike ends in a guard and each guard is the beginning of a strike - as you are moving against your opponent the very blade position that protects you from his blade is your attack. Or, viewed conversely, you are attacking with your blade and you have it positioned in such a way that it deflects theirs.

You don't parry followed by a riposte as we were taught in Olympic fencing (two distinct movements, one to push their blade aside and then another to bring yours down online to thrust), you attack with your blade jamming theirs (one movement).

Of course, you're both moving all the time trying to avoid the sharp bits of the opponent's blade and counter their attack but they also didn't limit themselves to their sword - if they had a free hand, they would use it to grapple/attack, if they had a shield they'd use it to punch or push - and they put a lot of stock in fooling their opponent - not merely making a feint with their blade but disguising their other body movements to ensure their opponent has no idea of where the attack is coming from.

The one who succeeds in that, wins when their attack hits home - in extremely short order. It is not in their advantage to wear themselves out in lengthy fights or provide opportunities for the other guy to get lucky. It's move in and kill in such a way that the opponent has no idea what to defend against while being mindful of where his blade is and what it can do from there.

There's a limit to how long even two evenly matched fighters would go against each other before one was duped into making the wrong move or just plain overwhelmed by the other's attack.

But have been recorded many times throughout history. And that's not going into mythology.

That doesn't mean much. Two evenly matched fighters could feasibly battle it out for a few hours; assuming neither of them ever get unlucky, but basically every person ever to have died by the sword did so quickly and unceremoniously.

You can be damned sure that in the fights that did last long times, both opponents were trying their best to finish it as quickly as possible in their favour and working like mad all the while to avoid each others extremely serious and skilled attacks.

In order to convincingly replicate that, you'd need to know as much about sword fighting as they did.

Otherwise it will come across as two people who aren't really trying to kill each other and are merely patting each others blades around.

More or less.

At the risk of sounding as though I think I know what's best; this is an excerpt from my current work, involving a pair of fights:

Mightn't be the greatest thing ever put onto "paper" but it should provide an insight.

It depends on the weapons and armour in question and whether the fight is to first blood, submission or death. Plus, there is a question of the time pressure. Using a fairly heavy weapon, with no armour, to the death, with no time pressure due to multiple combatants or whathaveyou, would probably end up in a fairly long exchange of feints, parries, countertime and low commitment attacks while keeping a defensive posture. I'm no expert but I have done foil, epee, various martial arts, military training, and a smattering of other sword training and a bit of SCA. These would be my observations. I would do some research on duels with cavalry sabres. Olympic sabres are too light and fast and all but a joke. These guys look like they are using something heavier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0L2a5mlnkg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2CHLFTV30c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvYA4_RKUzU . Contrast the above with Olympic sabre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmdWynyN2JA . The former use slower movements and much heavier padding.