Fencing with Sabers

S.Al-Anizi · 25th November 2006, 10:23 PM

Very interesting ariel, thanks for the heads up, I always like the idea of comparing the different types of sabres in the world. Anyway, is there a place where I could buy that book?

As to the shamshir, I always thought that had too much of curve, to use for anything other than swinging cuts from horseback.

Also, if that's too much to ask, where did Mr. Zablocki place arabian swords, and what he commented about them?

ariel · 25th November 2006, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.Al-Anizi

Very interesting ariel, thanks for the heads up, I always like the idea of comparing the different types of sabres in the world. Anyway, is there a place where I could buy that book?

As to the shamshir, I always thought that had too much of curve, to use for anything other than swinging cuts from horseback.

Also, if that's too much to ask, where did Mr. Zablocki place arabian swords, and what he commented about them?

Zablocki belongs to the Polish school and assigns a lot of importance to the handle. This element, in his opinion, determines the style of usage.He says that the Eastern Arabian (he calls them Damascus) were influenced by Turkish and Persian sabers and are good for swinging cuts from the horseback. Moroccan sabers are also suitable for swinging cuts from the elbow and he loves the support for the little finger.
Here we have a problem: there were so many different blade types used in Arabia that each had its own advantages and problems. My guess (and it is a very personal view) that the obtuse angle of the Arabia-proper sabers would not provide enough support for the hand.
He also does not say anything about Tulwars because he analyzed only sabers that had potential influence on Polish ones. I would love to know what he thought about the ( in my opinion, awful) disc pommel.
Generally, he does not rate them in any order. In his opinion, the Hussar Polish saber is the best (and I agree) and the Shamshir is the worst. Everything else has its own pluses and minuses. However, as you know, the arm attached to the handle is rather important, too

BTW, where did you get the shashka drawings? What is the difference between the two styles of gripping the handle( fist vs. pistol-like)? Which one is correct? I would guess the upper one is good for true swordplay, whereas the lower one mainly for swinging cuts.

Chris Evans · 26th November 2006, 06:02 AM

Hi Ariel,

Thank you for that terrific and informative post. It would be really nice if that book could be translated.

What I write here is an additional commentary intended to clarify the concept of `fencing' with heavy weapons, and in no way disputes anything in your post. In any event, I am not sure if this belong to this forum as it pertains more to martial arts rather than collecting.

MODERATORS PLEASE ADVISE.

OK. With those disclaimer out of the way, and acknowledging your loose definition of fencing, I'll move on.

Any discussion of so called `fencing' with weapons that had other primary applications is always a vexed one. Perhaps `sword usage' would be more appropriate , as after all, sabres were intended for a specific military application rather than one to one dueling, for which there were much better weapons in Europe.

The great demarcator of sword play is what is known technically single (ST) and double time (DT) fencing. In ST play, the opponents attacks are not parried but rather evaded and then counter attacked, at times with defensive opposition or coverage provided by one's own blade. In DT sword play the attack is first parried by the defender's blade and then a fast counter attack is launched, the riposte. All too often cover or oppostion by the blade in ST, as well as beats and other actions on the opponent's blade are confused with parry-riposte play (DT). I must add that some historical fencers extend the definition of DT to parries made with auxiliary implements such as shields or daggers; Whilst this is true, it is not a common understanding of the term and renders discussion difficult and all too often meaningless.

Whilst some DT moves are possible with heavy swords, they just cannot be moved around sufficiently quickly to reliably intercepts all incoming attacks. Even where a parry succeeds, the riposte may be too slow to reach the opponent, though this is more true of point than edge play. So the weight of the sword is a primary consideration.

In Western European late 18th and 19th century sabre play, high attacks were (at times) parried and low attacks avoided, but rarely, if ever, were both parried as a matter of course, except with the much lighter spadroon. This was because of the ever present threat that the low attack was a feint and once the defender was committed to its parry, the upper regions became irreversibly exposed.

Swordplay using numerous DT moves first became feasible with the lighter transition rapier of the mid 1600s ,that superseded its ponderous predecessor, and came of age with the arrival of the small sword, a much lighter and faster weapon. Fully evolved smallswords weighed around 1Lb, a third of earlier rapiers and about half of late 18th&19th century military sabres.

Military sabres, weighing in the 1.75Lb- 3Lb range are too heavy to allow much DT play and if used alone for dueling (without a parrying implement), deliver a rather uncertain fight, one that depends too much on luck for its outcome, as was the case with the early rapier and broadsword - As a secondary consideration, numerous edge parries result in the rapid destruction of the sword. Hence the constant search for lighter and faster dueling swords, as exemplified by the perfected 19th century weapons, the French epee and the very light Italian sabre.

The primary defensive usage of military sabres was by way of covering: The defender would interpose his blade between himself and his attacker with the result that any cut made and received would land on his sword - This was a favourite technique of cavalrymen, especially if attacked from the left side - Of course, poorly made weak cuts could be parried and riposted, much in the manner of transition rapier play, but the parrying of strong cuts was a very risky business. That very little parrying was expected from military sabres is attested by the sketchy handguards found on so many.

I'll end by adding that point usage with a sabre, whilst fencing, is a very difficult business. In part because, as you pointed out, many do not allow the necessary alignment of the point with that of the arm, and in part because of their poor balance (for this kind of play). Sabres tend to have their point of balance (BP) well forward from the hilt, so as to make them effective cutters. In contrast, fast point re-alignment requires a much more more rearward BP. As well, effective point play usually requires a `on guard' position that leaves the sword arm vulnerable (to `time-cuts') .

Nevertheless, experts endowed with unusually strong sword-arms and fingers, and being well versed in point play with foils could fence well with a sabre, as for example Sir Richard Burton ad Cptn Hutton, though this was the exception rather than the rule. The English fencing historian Egerton Castle devoted a fair bit of space to this topic in his book and to which I refer readers interested in this fascinating subject. Unfortunately, IMHO, Castle was not as clear as he could have been and failed to sufficiently distinguish between the various cutting weapons and as such must be read with care - Nevertheless, he is very informative and remains one of the best resources to date in English.

Cheers
Chris

Andrew · 26th November 2006, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

What I write here is an additional commentary intended to clarify the concept of `fencing' with heavy weapons, and in no way disputes anything in your post. In any event, I am not sure if this belong to this forum as it pertains more to martial arts rather than collecting.

MODERATORS PLEASE ADVISE.

Please post away, Chris. The discussion of the martial arts of these weapons is not only on-topic, but very welcome.

S.Al-Anizi · 26th November 2006, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Zablocki belongs to the Polish school and assigns a lot of importance to the handle. This element, in his opinion, determines the style of usage.He says that the Eastern Arabian (he calls them Damascus) were influenced by Turkish and Persian sabers and are good for swinging cuts from the horseback. Moroccan sabers are also suitable for swinging cuts from the elbow and he loves the support for the little finger.
Here we have a problem: there were so many different blade types used in Arabia that each had its own advantages and problems. My guess (and it is a very personal view) that the obtuse angle of the Arabia-proper sabers would not provide enough support for the hand.
He also does not say anything about Tulwars because he analyzed only sabers that had potential influence on Polish ones. I would love to know what he thought about the ( in my opinion, awful) disc pommel.
Generally, he does not rate them in any order. In his opinion, the Hussar Polish saber is the best (and I agree) and the Shamshir is the worst. Everything else has its own pluses and minuses. However, as you know, the arm attached to the handle is rather important, too

BTW, where did you get the shashka drawings? What is the difference between the two styles of gripping the handle( fist vs. pistol-like)? Which one is correct? I would guess the upper one is good for true swordplay, whereas the lower one mainly for swinging cuts.

Thanks ariel.

I would also have liked to see what he would have said about tulwars. Which polish sabre style is he referring to, there are many?

Excellent post Chris

Yustas · 26th November 2006, 07:22 PM

I happen to have a little training in Hungarian and Ukrainian style sabre fighting. There are movements from Western Europe (positions, blocks, cuts) but because of open grip and no finger ring there is a room for variety of wrist flicks, tricks, and hand switching that significantly help during one-on-one dueling and melee siege.
About difficulty to stop movement of a shamshir-there is another view. You don't stop the movement. You redirect it. It goes in circular motion all the time. Sabre should live together with a warrior's body. In time of training when I did about 1000 cuts and few hundred combinations in 2 hours I felt that body adjusts to this type of movement. It started working like one mechanism to save muscule energy for long time of battle. And this is an advantage of shamshir style. Plus i think, everyone will agree, that curved blade has much more cutting power then staight one. Open grip, no finger hook and strong curvature from my point of view are much better options for a big battles then straight blade closed grip and finger hold that suites better for smaller size dueling style European fights.
But don't forget great thing that Polish did - they put their techniques on paper for future reference.
But it is just my point of view

Andrew · 26th November 2006, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.Al-Anizi

As to the shamshir, I always thought that had too much of curve, to use for anything other than swinging cuts from horseback.

I disagree, Saqr.

Certainly the extremely curved examples are nearly useless for a linear thrust, and far from optimal for any thrust, but a slash from an unmounted fighter would work just fine with those.

ariel · 26th November 2006, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

I disagree, Saqr.

Certainly the extremely curved examples are nearly useless for a linear thrust, and far from optimal for any thrust, but a slash from an unmounted fighter would work just fine with those.

My only hesitation is that the functional "uselessness" of the blade segment from the point of persussion to the very tip of the sword shortens its working span. I tried to wield some highly curved shamshirs and, just like with Black Sea Yataghans, it was quite difficult to judge the distance.
Surely, a well-placed slash with a shamshir would be highly efficacious, but to place it well while pretending to fight on foot presented a problem, at least for me. Must have required a different system of fencing.

Let's not forget that Mr. Z. was a professional fencer and valued speed, economy of movements and precision very highly. I guess the ability to stop the blade, to turn it on a dime and to precisely assess the distance must have been highly valuable for him. I am unaware of any written contemporary manuals of shamshir fighting. Or Yataghan, in the same vein. In general, it was mainly Westerners who had the compulsion to classify, systematize and put on paper everyting. But, as they say " If you do not write it down, it does not exist"....

Andrew · 27th November 2006, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

My only hesitation is that the functional "uselessness" of the blade segment from the point of persussion to the very tip of the sword shortens its working span. I tried to wield some highly curved shamshirs and, just like with Black Sea Yataghans, it was quite difficult to judge the distance.
Surely, a well-placed slash with a shamshir would be highly efficacious, but to place it well while pretending to fight on foot presented a problem, at least for me. Must have required a different system of fencing.

Let's not forget that Mr. Z. was a professional fencer and valued speed, economy of movements and precision very highly. I guess the ability to stop the blade, to turn it on a dime and to precisely assess the distance must have been highly valuable for him. I am unaware of any written contemporary manuals of shamshir fighting. Or Yataghan, in the same vein. In general, it was mainly Westerners who had the compulsion to classify, systematize and put on paper everyting. But, as they say " If you do not write it down, it does not exist"....

I don't necessarily disagree. As I said, it's a design that's far from optimal for the thrust, thus significantly limiting options for technique. I still wouldn't want to defend against someone on foot with one.

Were shamshir used exclusively by horseman? Were they primary weapons? I suspect they probably weren't a rank-and-file weapon in any event. I'm also not so sure we should expect every sword to be a good fencing weapon.

26th November 2006, 06:02 AM	#3
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	Hi Ariel, Thank you for that terrific and informative post. It would be really nice if that book could be translated. What I write here is an additional commentary intended to clarify the concept of `fencing' with heavy weapons, and in no way disputes anything in your post. In any event, I am not sure if this belong to this forum as it pertains more to martial arts rather than collecting. MODERATORS PLEASE ADVISE. OK. With those disclaimer out of the way, and acknowledging your loose definition of fencing, I'll move on. Any discussion of so called `fencing' with weapons that had other primary applications is always a vexed one. Perhaps `sword usage' would be more appropriate , as after all, sabres were intended for a specific military application rather than one to one dueling, for which there were much better weapons in Europe. The great demarcator of sword play is what is known technically single (ST) and double time (DT) fencing. In ST play, the opponents attacks are not parried but rather evaded and then counter attacked, at times with defensive opposition or coverage provided by one's own blade. In DT sword play the attack is first parried by the defender's blade and then a fast counter attack is launched, the riposte. All too often cover or oppostion by the blade in ST, as well as beats and other actions on the opponent's blade are confused with parry-riposte play (DT). I must add that some historical fencers extend the definition of DT to parries made with auxiliary implements such as shields or daggers; Whilst this is true, it is not a common understanding of the term and renders discussion difficult and all too often meaningless. Whilst some DT moves are possible with heavy swords, they just cannot be moved around sufficiently quickly to reliably intercepts all incoming attacks. Even where a parry succeeds, the riposte may be too slow to reach the opponent, though this is more true of point than edge play. So the weight of the sword is a primary consideration. In Western European late 18th and 19th century sabre play, high attacks were (at times) parried and low attacks avoided, but rarely, if ever, were both parried as a matter of course, except with the much lighter spadroon. This was because of the ever present threat that the low attack was a feint and once the defender was committed to its parry, the upper regions became irreversibly exposed. Swordplay using numerous DT moves first became feasible with the lighter transition rapier of the mid 1600s ,that superseded its ponderous predecessor, and came of age with the arrival of the small sword, a much lighter and faster weapon. Fully evolved smallswords weighed around 1Lb, a third of earlier rapiers and about half of late 18th&19th century military sabres. Military sabres, weighing in the 1.75Lb- 3Lb range are too heavy to allow much DT play and if used alone for dueling (without a parrying implement), deliver a rather uncertain fight, one that depends too much on luck for its outcome, as was the case with the early rapier and broadsword - As a secondary consideration, numerous edge parries result in the rapid destruction of the sword. Hence the constant search for lighter and faster dueling swords, as exemplified by the perfected 19th century weapons, the French epee and the very light Italian sabre. The primary defensive usage of military sabres was by way of covering: The defender would interpose his blade between himself and his attacker with the result that any cut made and received would land on his sword - This was a favourite technique of cavalrymen, especially if attacked from the left side - Of course, poorly made weak cuts could be parried and riposted, much in the manner of transition rapier play, but the parrying of strong cuts was a very risky business. That very little parrying was expected from military sabres is attested by the sketchy handguards found on so many. I'll end by adding that point usage with a sabre, whilst fencing, is a very difficult business. In part because, as you pointed out, many do not allow the necessary alignment of the point with that of the arm, and in part because of their poor balance (for this kind of play). Sabres tend to have their point of balance (BP) well forward from the hilt, so as to make them effective cutters. In contrast, fast point re-alignment requires a much more more rearward BP. As well, effective point play usually requires a `on guard' position that leaves the sword arm vulnerable (to `time-cuts') . Nevertheless, experts endowed with unusually strong sword-arms and fingers, and being well versed in point play with foils could fence well with a sabre, as for example Sir Richard Burton ad Cptn Hutton, though this was the exception rather than the rule. The English fencing historian Egerton Castle devoted a fair bit of space to this topic in his book and to which I refer readers interested in this fascinating subject. Unfortunately, IMHO, Castle was not as clear as he could have been and failed to sufficiently distinguish between the various cutting weapons and as such must be read with care - Nevertheless, he is very informative and remains one of the best resources to date in English. Cheers Chris Last edited by Chris Evans; 26th November 2006 at 08:05 AM.

26th November 2006, 07:22 PM	#6
Yustas Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 40	I happen to have a little training in Hungarian and Ukrainian style sabre fighting. There are movements from Western Europe (positions, blocks, cuts) but because of open grip and no finger ring there is a room for variety of wrist flicks, tricks, and hand switching that significantly help during one-on-one dueling and melee siege. About difficulty to stop movement of a shamshir-there is another view. You don't stop the movement. You redirect it. It goes in circular motion all the time. Sabre should live together with a warrior's body. In time of training when I did about 1000 cuts and few hundred combinations in 2 hours I felt that body adjusts to this type of movement. It started working like one mechanism to save muscule energy for long time of battle. And this is an advantage of shamshir style. Plus i think, everyone will agree, that curved blade has much more cutting power then staight one. Open grip, no finger hook and strong curvature from my point of view are much better options for a big battles then straight blade closed grip and finger hold that suites better for smaller size dueling style European fights. But don't forget great thing that Polish did - they put their techniques on paper for future reference. But it is just my point of view Attached Images

25th November 2006, 10:23 PM	#1
S.Al-Anizi Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Arabia Posts: 278	Very interesting ariel, thanks for the heads up, I always like the idea of comparing the different types of sabres in the world. Anyway, is there a place where I could buy that book? As to the shamshir, I always thought that had too much of curve, to use for anything other than swinging cuts from horseback. Also, if that's too much to ask, where did Mr. Zablocki place arabian swords, and what he commented about them?