Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fernando
I thought the revelation was more in the contrary direction  .
Rigid wrist sword handling wouldn't proprerly be called fencing 
Wasn't the advantage of malleable wrist fencing (recazo, thrust and all that) a score against talwar and scimitar rigid moves?
Oh, why should i, such an ingnorant, interfere in this discussion ?
Just forget it  .
Fernando |
You are certainly not ignorant, nor interfering Fernando, and as usual you make a good point.
LOL, I didn't word it very well I'm afraid.
I was envisioning battles on foot only, rather than from horseback as well.
I have often wondered how the two styles would 'clash'
In European fencing the correct distance is critical and the the wrist is key to many moves (in the up/down motion which is restricted by a sword with a large disk pomel). Being engaged by an opponent using a semi-rigid wrist style would (I assume) mean they would be constantly trying to move into 'your space' and in those circumstances the automatic response is to lunge for the kill, slash with the front third of the blade for a disabling wound or step back to maintain distance.
Sooooooo, if the Indian warriors defence is good, and an opening is not clear, then the British soldier would be constantly 'on the back foot' seeking to maintain distance and stab/slash, while the Indian Warrior would constantly be moving in to close the gap to their effective 'kill zone'.
I meant that (if my assumptions
are right) having skilled opponents using these tactics which must have seemed both alien and very aggresive would have been a huge shock to the Brits (a revelation!).
I am of course assuming that both combatants are skilled with their weapon and using a practiced technique.
Hopefully someone can comment further on Tulwar fencing techniques, I've probobly got it all wrong!
