Hi RC
1. In Reply:
By "Spanish school" I mean just that -a distinct Spanish school of fencing. None, to the best of my knowledge, have survived.
The late Spanish schools, which I understand are still practiced under the rubric of "classical" fencing, were certainly a rehash of the French school, but had a local flavour, as exemplified by their hilts, and the attendant grip, much in the manner of the Italian school.
Forgive me, but I am not familiar with maestro Carbonel
He and Sanz were two great early twentieth century exponents of modern Spanish fencing, in the manner described described above. Both developed hilts of their own. The one by Sanz could be seen as the forerunner of the modern orthopedic grip. See attached pictures of their swords. These masters left descendants who are still around today.
Broadswords and backswords are actually well-balanced and responsive.
a) For what application? Cutting? Thrusting? Dueling? On horse back or afoot?
For all of the above.
I cannot see that. First they vary greatly in length, weight, general shape, all with intended use - Cavalry swords tending towards greater length and weight. What they all have in common is that their point of balance (BP) is far forward and are very point slow.
I noticed that you declined to give BPs for applications. My reason for asking was that one cannot possibly discuss what a particular sword can or cannot do unless one understands its physical characteristics and limitations.
An all steel epee or French smallsword or dueling sabre has its BP very close to the hilt, within 3" and weighs a pound or a bit less - This is only attainable with the light hollow triangular French blade or the cannelured sabre blade and this is why such swords can be be used to parry fairly reliably with, in all four lines and at speed - They have a very low angular inertia, that is they can be shifted in an arc very easily, essential for DT play. Once a cutting blade, is substituted, even if very light, the BP unavoidably moves forward and is very hard to bring the it closer than 5" from the end of the grip (see Angelo). Such swords are point heavier, that is, have greater angular inertia, and much greater reliance has to be placed on ST moves, as exemplified by the Italian and Spanish schools up to 19th century. (see paragraph 3 below)
Military cutting swords have BPs at least 6" from the end of the grip. If they did not, they would make ineffective cutters. With the BP so far forward, they are very point heavy. That and their overall weight raises their angular inertia so much that they just cannot be moved with sufficient speed to reliably intercept incoming attacks to all parts of the body, which if they are cuts, are even harder to parry than thrusts, as correctly pointed out by Silver and later by Hutton.
In my own experience, I have handled numerous original basket-hilted broadswords and backswords from the 17th and 18th centuries, and they certainly fit Silver's description of a "short, sharp, light sword".
My old maestro from BCAF noted the same thing when he receive a special tour of the Tower of London Armouries many years ago--he told me how much lighter the originals were, when compared with so many replicas today. "You could fence with these," as he put it.
Some facts: A typical 19th century infantry officer's light C&T sabre-sword with a 32" blade weighs around 28oz with a BP at 7" from the hilt. Of this the blade is 19oz and the Gothic hilt and handle 9oz. A serviceable basket hilt & handle weighs around 16oz. If we re-hilt our blade with a basket-hilt, we have an all up weight of 35oz, twice the weight of a small sword and very point heavy in the bargain. And then the broadswords of Silver's era had longer blades and were consequently heavier, more like 44oz or above. The longer Scottish basket-hilted broadswords weighed around 3 pounds.
Obviously the POB is further down the blade that with a purely thrusting implement like a smallsword, but that doesn't change the fact that these weapons can be used for double-time actions.
If they were anywhere as good at DT play as the small sword, then the small sword would not have been invented. McBane acknoweldged this disparity when he emphasized that the small sword was the dueling weapon of choice since the broad sword left too much to chance; Godfrey also said that the smallsword was the weapon to duel with - I read that as broadswords parries and subsequent ripostes were too uncertain.
By saber I mean the military saber. No specific country. We're talking largely about a "pan-European cut-and-thrust method" here
I don't think that any such sword or method ever existed. A Mameluke style sabre such as carried by Wellington or Jose de San Martin, much in vogue during the Napoleonic wars, is vastly different from a Blucher or Brit 1796 which in turn are completely different weapons from their contemporary Spanish cup hilted 1796 cavalry sword. Then we have spadroons and nineteenth century light straight bladed infantry officers swords which were different again as were the curved US civil war era sabres; And what are we to make out of later Brit 1908 pattern and the Patton cavalry swords?
Then there is the issue of the hilt:
a) Is it sufficient to provide adequate hand protection? The Mameluke sabre had only a simple cross quillon and the Blucher/1796 only a stirrup hilt, as many German sabres did;
b) does it incorporates a thumb ring to facilitate holding onto and directing such a heavy blade?; and
c) Whether the handle is long enough to permit other than a restrictive "hammer" grip.
For a summary on how military type weapons were fenced with in England and how this fencing changed with time, I refer readers to Castle, from whom I quote in part: "....Cuts below the hips were usually avoided rather than parried...".
However, before going on, I should point out that such fencing was not without its conventions to make it possible. In the days of Silver cuts below the waist were considered un-gentlemanly (too hard to defend) and later English backsword play excluded the use of the point - My instincts tell me that there were probably more conventions, but cannot prove it. In short, it was a mixture of parries to protect the upper body and lots of defense by evasion. Only the light spadroon, could be used to defend all of the body, yet because of its lightness proved marginal for military usage.
We have to remember that DT, that is parry/riposte fencing only started to become feasible with the shorter and lighter transition rapier, which the lighter 19th century sabre-swords approximate. To that extent they can be fenced in DT, but only to that extent. Yet the transition rapier was further lightened and made nimbler into the Colichemarde, the edged smallsword and the hollow triangular bladed smallsword. These changes did not occur without a compelling reason; Less reliance on ST and a shift to the safer DT parry/ripostes.
In any event it is important to remember that in the days when the infantry had a real use for broadswords, they used them with bucklers or shields - The Scots used their basket-hilted Claymores with targes (a buckler). After the bayonet was invented, the need for the infantry to carry swords disappeared and were used only by the cavalry. Mounted use of the broad sword/sabre is not fencing as is commonly understood, even in melees, and survival depends far more on horsemanship and team work than on skill with the sword. In any event, on horseback, the number of moves possible with a sword is extremely limited and in eastern Europe they were used in conjunction with a small shield right up to the 18th century.
The opportunity and need to fence with broadswords were few and far in between, usually when a cavalryman lost his mount and had only his sword to defend himself with. Afoot it was only of interest to officers, for only they carried swords and even then they were often discarded once action commenced - For real fencing, that is dueling, there was the smallsword and later the featherweight dueling sabre.
Military instruction in sword usage is very different to that of the fencing school - Patton objected even to the teaching of parries deeming them to be superfluous. In naval usage the broadsword was used by boarding parties, but not in the manner of fencing in one to one duels, but rather relying on team work and over-running shell-shocked enemy crew to clear the decks, much as modern riot police does its work after the water cannon or tear gas has done its job..
Around forty years ago, I met some emigre eastern European ex military fencing masters and they told me much of what I write here. Yes, officers learned to fence with the light training sabre, mostly for dueling and sport, but that was largely inapplicable to the heavy sabre; Yes, they used light practice sabres for drilling troops and to instill dexterity, but the actual techniques had little application in battle - You either got the enemy or he got you or you moved on. Same for the bayonet. The speed of action was just to fast to allow fencing duels.
Of course, there's also the "Radaellian" duelling saber--the sciabola di terreno of the late 19th century. That weapon is lighter than the military types, and likewise can be used for double-time actions.
With this I completely agree and would like to add that:
a) This is the only "sabre" that can be used in full DT play on account of its extremely favourable BP and light weight;
b) even with this sword, the sword arm was difficult to protect and for this reason in duels, protective bandages were wrapped on the forearm; and
c) this is not a true sabre at all, rather a derivative of the edged small sword.
In reply, I simply stated what you left out--i.e., the fact that Silver also taught the use of the sword alone.
I thought that I covered that by stating that all fencing treatises had to allow for the possibility that a sword may have to be used alone.
I don't have them in front of me (I'm at my gal's house at the moment), but the manuals I have seen list a slew of parries, so let me get back to you on that.
No need to. I know that the parries were there, Castle, Hutton, Angelo, all give them, but that does not mean that they were used to a great extent, as opposed to here and there, or in the manner of a smallsword/dueling sabre. However, the spadroon, a very light C&T sword, was indeed used much like a small word and hence its popularity with officers who were proficient fencers.
We have to keep in mind that if we persist in believing that much parry/riposte fencing took place then we run into that intractable debate of whether the parries were made with the edge or flat of the blade. Based on surviving specimens in museums and collections, with hardly any blade damage I say neither.
To me fencing with broadswords, for which they were never intended, is an exercise of trying to make the best of a bad situation with what one has on hand. Another point I would like to make is that practice bouts with broadswords is a very dangerous exercise because of their weight; Even a blunt blade will split a scull or crush a bone if the blows are not pulled back - Fencing masks and leather aprons being totally inadequate protection. For this reason military sword usage was taught by way of set drills or with a light practice sabre as advocated by Hutton. With the lighter practice sword all sorts of fencing moves are possible, but not with the full weapon.
I was talking about knife vs. knife in general, not from a specific culture.
I can't answer that because the world is a big place and different paradigms apply in different localities. Knife dueling nearly always has some constraints imposed on it, otherwise people would end up using swords, since blade length confers an advantage. Without the knowledge of what these constraints are, it is not possible to generalize. Then, for example, in colder climates slashes pose little threat to a heavily clad opponent and the thrust has to be resorted almost entirely to inflict injury, whereas in the tropics the opposite applies.
I figured that one out by "sparring it out".
In that case you did your homework better than Biddle.
It's not the same, but it's as close as we can practically get.
But not close enough with knives, which are heavily dependent on factors other than technique, at least not in my opinion.
Sparring is actually a pretty good indicator of what will and what will not work. It must be used in conjunction with other training methods (drills, test cutting, etc), but it is certainly a crucial component, and has been at least since Roman times, if not earlier.
If we are taking about mere technique, I agree entirely.
2. With the above out of the way, I suggest that the correct way to duel with a heavy sword (used alone) is as advocated by Musashi and as was done in olden times in Europe, that is to just stay out range, constantly threatening the opponent, compelling him to shift to unfavourable ground or position and then when he either wavers under pressure or begins to make a badly commenced attack move straight in, displacing his blade, or covering against it if necessary, and hit him. If one engages in parry/riposte exchanges with a broadsword, the outcome will be far from certain. Even with epee/smallswords one does not duel as in competition, for victory requires a decided tactical advantage before committing to an attack as one is not playing a game where the winner is the one who scores the best of so many hits. Where these weapons differed from broadswords is that a good deal more feinting and probing was possible without committing to an attack, and even after a failed attack, there was a good chance of recovery.
3. Something Else:
3.1 I noted how you declined to comment on Stephan Hand's article on ST fencing. Do you have a reason for this?
3.2 We have trashed the subject of swords as far as I am prepared to take it because this is becoming the rewriting of the history of swordsmanship and that has already been done. In any event, it is irrelevant to this thread, which is about the navaja.
3.3 I would like to point out that some time ago Stephan Hand and William Gaugler got involved in a heated controversy. This came about after Hand's review of the publication of Gaugler's History of Fencing, which was heralded in some quarters as the successor to Castle's work. One of the major points of contention was Gaugler's views on ST, DT parry/riposte in old sword play, which have some semblance to your arguments. Hand's full review can be read here:
http://www.thearma.org/bookreviews.htm
and Gaugler's reply here:
http://www.swordhistory.com/excerpts/hacareply.html
Now, I have Gaugler's book and read whatever Stephan has to say and consider both experts worth listening to, even though sometimes they are less than clear or muddy the waters a bit. However, if they are read simplistically, like so much of fencing literature, all kinds of unwarranted assumptions about parry/riposte are likely to be made, something made amply clear by the above exchange.
Cheers
Chris