[Renegade Conquistador]

Chris,

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

Hi RC

....Aside from that (which obviously isn't much, given the sheer lack of details), there is no surviving Spanish swordplay of any kind.

I don't think that you read my post fully. But any kind? That's rather broad isn't it? Just what do you mean by Spanish school? For example how would you classify maestro Carbonel?

By "Spanish school" I mean just that--a distinct Spanish school of fencing. None, to the best of my knowledge, have survived.

Forgive me, but I am not familiar with maestro Carbonel.

However, I can say that recent Spanish fencing masters have taught from the surviving French and Italian schools (Julio Castello, who used a saber to defeat a kendoka in the early 20th century, comes to mind).

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.

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.

b) Responsive is very subjective, but balance can be measured. Where would you say that their point of balance is in relation to the quillons or end of the grip (not the shell or forward parts of the guard)? And where should it be for (i) cutting and (ii) thrusting? (iii) fencing in ST and DT?

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.

Double-time actions (parry-ripostes) are quite feasible with them... Keep in mind that I'm not talking about the German longsword school. I'm talking about Anglo-Scottish broadsword/backsword, as well as later military sabers and cutlasses.

I already conceded twice that SOME DT actions are possible with them. If you mean full DT play, in all four lines, then please say so and quote your historical sources.

By "all four lines" I assume you mean inside and outside, high and low. Parries with the point up, and parries with the point down. If this is "full DT play", then yes, I don't see a problem there (though, FWIW, many broadswordsmen took all their parries in pronation).

What about later manuals of broadsword and saber, then? The parry-riposte is a standard method.

Standard? And what do you mean by saber? Even then, in which century and which country? Again, please quote your historical sources.

By saber I mean the military saber. No specific country. We're talking largely about a "pan-European cut-and-thrust method" here.

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.

Swords were used alone as well. Basket-hilts are especially suited to this.

I already acknowledged this. If you disagree with the context that I gave for such usage then please state your alternative understanding, otherwise you assertion does not add up to more than a tautology.

Am I being repetitive? I am genuinely sorry if I was.

In any case, you stated:

Silver used a sword and buckler, or dagger, or cloak for parrying, as did everybody else in his day when fencing with either broadsword or rapier.

In reply, I simply stated what you left out--i.e., the fact that Silver also taught the use of the sword alone.

....but the parry-riposte was a greater part of the arsenal of these weapons than you are leading people to believe.

Are you suggesting that they parried and riposted in all four lines as in say the stage fight in the film Prisoner of Zenda(1937)? Again your historical sources please.

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.

That's fine, but what about fighting with a knife without the use of a secondary?

I already wrote what Castle in the late nineteenth century wrote about knife usage by the Spaniards. If caught without a parrying implement the Gauchos used a stance very similar to that of Applegate and tried to protect the torso with the left arm and hand. Of course, there being no schools as such, it is and was every man to himself, but that was the general approach 50 years ago. These days all sorts of arts have found their way there, so there is no way of predicting what anyone would do.

I was talking about knife vs. knife in general, not from a specific culture.

Why should we favor Applegate over Biddle? Applegate designed a nice knife after the War, but I don't see what makes him "more of an authority" on the subject of knife combat than Biddle.

I think that you misunderstood my words. I did not uphold one over the other. I only quoted those two to illustrate my contention that the armed forces are not entirely consistent in their approach and therefore cannot be used to support one view or the other as being more valid.

I see.

So, to infer that leading with the weak side is better simply because Applegate said so, doesn't mean all that much me.

I never quoted Applegate or any other knife teacher in support of my views.

Perhaps your original post was unclear. Or perhaps I misread it.

Throughout all my writings I consistently upheld the view that all this talk about knife fighting schools and techniques is much about very little. In real combat with knives, luck, aggression, agility, timing and surprise over-rode the advantages of mere technique. We have ample historical evidence for this and indeed Castle said as much himself.

Indeed, he did.

In short, knives make for poor dueling weapons and if used as such, deliverer either stalemates or bloody and uncertain results for both combatants.

I think that's why various Southern states chose to outlaw the Bowie knife--as one legislator put it, "a sword can be parried", but the knife cannot.

I'm not a fan of passata soto for knife fighting either, thought it's at least more feasible with a 16-inch '03 bayonet than a smaller fighting knife.

Amen to that.

I figured that one out by "sparring it out".

You said yourself that much of the material on knife combat doesn't amount to a great deal, in terms of technique--Biddle was hardly unique in that department. Look at Applegate's Combat Use of the Double-Edged Fighting Knife and you'll see what I mean.

You quoted Biddle in support of your views. I never upheld either of those gentlemen as the purveyor of the ultimate truth. Of course, I have my opinion of each, but it is irrelevant to this thread, which is about the navaja and associated themes.

I quoted Biddle because it is a good system for its intended application.

That should be considered with ALL "military men", then.Including Applegate.

After re-reading my original post, I think that we got yet one more tautology here masquerading as an argument. I cannot understand your point, as you seem to be merely repeating what I already said.

The only "tautology" will take place right now--I'll repeat that, either your original post wasn't clear, or I misread it. No big deal either way, and things seem clearer now.

Back to the subject of the strong-side lead in a knife vs. knife situation, I would recommend what Cold Steel head honcho Lynn Thompson does--spar it out. The results will speak for themselves.

I fail to see what that would prove, after all, for a combat system to be validated it has to be tested for real and even then by a large number of people to give a representative result - Not very feasible these days. In any event, sparing always contains an element of unreality and whilst it has its uses, it cannot substitute for actual combat.

It's not the same, but it's as close as we can practically get. 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.

Nevertheless if Lynn found a better way than the Spaniards or others, then good on him. All sorts of things have been improved upon with the passage of time - For one, he makes far better folders than the Spaniards of old ever did.

LOL.

In any event, I have no problem with a weak-side-lead in the Spanish context, when a secondary is used. Without a secondary, however, the weak-side-lead is distinctly at a disadvantage in a knife vs. knife fight.

Best,

R C