posted 10-03-2003 02:00 PM               

quote:

---

Why bother doing ANY training if nothing really works?

---

Why do football teams train, when it doesn't tell them who's going to win?

You pick up a full weight Dane-Axe, and swing it around a bit. Power is a part of the weapon, blunt or not. You can't switch it off.

You move that thing at combat speed, and you endanger people who come close. There is no getting away from that.

So it's either
You can use that at full speed, but it's not like the real thing (lacks the momentum, the weight, the power)

or

You can use the real thing but you have to be careful of moving it too fast.

posted 10-05-2003 11:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by skeeter:
I knew the answer would be 'you can't recreate real combat'! I KNEW it

---

Naturally. It's a valid point...try though you might to rule it out as unacceptable from the beginning...

quote:

---

Is there some intangible quality in an axe (but not a sword) that can't be factored out? I don't think so...

---

No, of course there isn't. The intangibles are in the combat itself, and in the combatants. If everything were really reducible to a series of characteristics then weapon X wielded in method Y against subject Z would always, or nearly always, result in the same outcome. History shows us too much variety for that to be the case, so obviously something else is at work.

quote:

---

Power is the only issue raised that is of real significance.

---

How so?

quote:

---

I'm just saying that in the vast majority of cases, a sword is the better weapon for most single combat situations. I thought that's what the original question was...

---

And we're saying that it is a flawed assumption. If it were correct, then the sword would have displaced all other weapons. Who in his right mind would willingly choose a weapon demonstrably inferior in "most single combat situations"? Eventually everyone would have been armed with the sword. Yet this was never the case. Why?

quote:

---

And let's not buy the 'all things work equally well' or 'it is fighter, not the style/weapon' line of reasoning!

---

But here you go again, trying to foreclose counterarguments! This is not a very legitimate forensic technique, is it? To advance a hypothesis and then insist that no one should say X, Y or Z in response because you simply don't choose to recognize them as having any merit?

quote:

---

Fine, I choose a razor sharp broad sword and medium kite shield, and you get a dagger and parrying cloak. no weapon has superiority to any other?! How about sharp stick versus Glock?

---

Straw man exaggeration. You can reduce any position to an absurd extreme and then claim that the result applies overall.

How about I have a dagger and you your sword and shield, and we go into a closet? Or we blindfold and earplug you?

Pretty ridiculous, right?

quote:

---

Marshal, I've seen and done plenty where the rules you cite aren't in effect.

---

Where? Can you describe it?

How about some facts, instead of vague intimations of knowledge?

quote:

---

The reality is that you CAN aproximate real combat.

---

Are we now to be reduced to mere assertion? "Yes you can!" "No you can't!""Yes you CAN!""No you CAN'T!"

It doesn't get us very far.

HOW would you do it? There's the real question.

posted 10-06-2003 12:05 AM               

Not true.

posted 10-06-2003 05:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by skeeter:
Fine, I choose a razor sharp broad sword and medium kite shield, and you get a dagger and parrying cloak.

---

Fine, then My cloak is wieghted and I can throw my dagger with proficient skill. Wait!

I forgot that there ARE no variables with weapons! Swords are better than axes-- and everything else for that matter-- How could I have been so stupid!

posted 10-08-2003 01:38 PM            

First and foremost, not every fight is one-on-one. Secondly, the axe is a common tool, the sword isn't. Thirdly, the sword is MUCH more expensive to produce and requires higher grade steel and more advanced production techniques. Isn't this obvious?

If I had to face someone in mega-heavy advanced plate, make no mistake, I wouldn't choose a sword as my first weapon either. Wouldn't pick an axe either, mind you. I'd probably go with a flanged mace or war hammer for maximum penetration.

But if armor is anything but at its peak, the sword is ALL DEATH. There is no shaft, no slowness due to end-weight, no limitation on thrusting deadliness due to a large end like an axe, mace, or hammer...

And Marshal, you are missing the point of my examples... You can't reduce everything to a matter of choice or circumstance. Some things generally work better than others. Your citing straw man is incorrect, as I'm not arguing that an axe is less effective because a dagger is less effective. This came up as a separate point when people start arguing that you CAN'T make general assertions that some things tend to work better than others in most real-world circumstances. e.g. a wet noodle versus a loaded pistol at 20 yards... How is this even worth discussing?! How can ANYONE believe that everything has equal merit and it all comes down to choice?! You really want to argue this? Really?

Can you occasionally try to find common ground rather than trying to argue every point, even the obvious ones? Yes, in a closet a dagger might work better than a sword. Gee, here I was thinking we were talking about general traits for general one-on-one combat. Silly me, I was supposed to render an opinion based on closet blindfold fighting. My mistake... And on the basis of closet duels, I guess the sword is a lousy weapon... WHAT are you talking about man?!

Felix, we agree 100%. I was saying that power is the only advantage the axe (or should I say SOME axes) have over the sword. breadth of range, speed, thrust are all generally sword advantages imo.

And again, can someone point to a culture tha thad adequate steel and metalurgic science who chose a sidearm OTHER than a sword (or dagger) as its principal weapon?

posted 10-08-2003 07:20 PM               

I was about to ramble on about axe technique, but then I noticed Colin R. said it all on the previous page.

quote:

---

e.g. a wet noodle versus a loaded pistol at 20 yards... How is this even worth discussing?!

---

quote:

---

And again, can someone point to a culture tha thad adequate steel and metalurgic science who chose a sidearm OTHER than a sword (or dagger) as its principal weapon?

---

posted 10-08-2003 07:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by skeeter:
First and foremost, not every fight is one-on-one.

---

Granted. But the sword didn't even supplant other weapons in those fights, like holmgangs, which were.

quote:

---

Secondly, the axe is a common tool, the sword isn't.

---

Yes. And?

quote:

---

Thirdly, the sword is MUCH more expensive to produce and requires higher grade steel and more advanced production techniques. Isn't this obvious?

---

By the High Middle Ages any fighting man who wanted a sword could have gotten one. Indeed many national armies began to issue them to their soldiery. They still didn't relegate all other weapons to history's dustbin. And perhaps more tellingly, the sword didn't replace the axe and mace even amongst that class of fighting man for whom cost was no object: the noble. Not even during the period when mass weapons were not dictated by plate armour...

quote:

---

How can ANYONE believe that everything has equal merit and it all comes down to choice?! You really want to argue this? Really?

---

Saying that no weapon is inherently superior to all others or even to one other isn't the same as saying they're all equal, though. No more than saying that no one man is going to win every cage match is the same as saying that he can beat a grizzly or an elephant bare-handed.

I maintain that the sword is NOT innately "better" or "deadlier" or what have you than the axe, the spear, the bow, the mace, the dagger, the club, etc. This is not to say that it is deadlier than than having an atom bomb dropped on you. THAT would indeed be a straw man.

quote:

---

Can you occasionally try to find common ground rather than trying to argue every point, even the obvious ones?

---

Aw, but where would be the fun in THAT?

"I should like to have an argument, please."

quote:

---

And again, can someone point to a culture tha thad adequate steel and metalurgic science who chose a sidearm OTHER than a sword (or dagger) as its principal weapon?

Skeeter

---

Yes. Just about all of them. The sword was never the 'principal' weapon in any culture. It was ALWAYS something else---the spear ( Greece to Switzerland, Norway to Byzantium ), or the bow ( from Scythia to Japan, Syria to England ). The sword was widely chosen as the weapon to be invested with symbolic import by ruling classes. But that isn't the same as saying that it was the principal weapon of any culture---or even the principal sidearm, that would probably be the ubiquitous dagger...

posted 10-09-2003 02:45 PM            

Right, like we should be arguing over closet blindfold duels... When you argue every point you aren't trying to further the truth, you are just having fun or whatever. What about blindfolded in a closet, then the sword isn't effective... Please...

Feel free to use a stick instead of a sword in a duel for all I care. Gee, you wonder why cultures put in SO MUCH TIME developing and perfecting swords when they could just use a stick or pole and do JUST AS WELL. Or any of a variety of farm tools that work as well or better.

I think there is WAY too much naivete regarding the range of things that work best in a one-on-one setting.

And I'll repeat my challenge: set your rules, fight it out, and then tell me what works best! It is not impossible or even that much more dangerous to require a MUCH heavier blow to 'count'. It is not that much more dangerous to allow greater than 90 degree swings. In truth, you aren't likely to land a greater than 90 degree swing in a one-on-one setting unless your opponent is really hapless or napping between encounters.

Aren't those the only issues here that have been raised as making it 'impossible' to know what would really happen in a fight? How about 'likely' happen? That's probably good enough to start with.

Then do some cutting exercises with an axe and a proper sword and tell me that the axe really has a big advantage cutting meat. There are some great posts here on this subject, and the conclusions are NOT that the axe has an advantage... Maybe easier to keep in peak condition, but in optimal form the sword cuts just fine; no big advantage to the axe.

But PLEASE make a simulation weapon, don your plate and try hitting a buddy with it without getting nailed by his sword. If you weight an axe to give it much more power than the sword, you'll have a VERY hard time hitting someone with it in a duel (again, this assumes one-handed weapons and shields).

And I wouldn't count on penetrating a shield, but try that also, smack on a shield with an axe and tell me what you produce. I can't get through much good plywood with a duel type blow. Maybe a lumberjack swing, but again you'll be run through or out of range with anything resembling this in a duel, try it out.

And when I do go through the shield, I certainly can't count on hittin the spot where the guy's (or gal's) arm would be. Having the head of my axe stuck in someone's shield while their cutty-pokey is free wouldn't be a good thing.

I really believe that counting on intangibles is a BAD way to approach training. Figure out how to eliminate them or admit that you don't really know. But to profess knowledge or superiority based on intangibles is foolish IMO. Put up or shut up is a crude way to put it.

Please try this stuff before you talk about parrying broadsword cuts with the HEAD of an axe! OMG that is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Hard enough with a shield, let alone a smaller piece of metal and the end of an end-heavy stick. You really think this is somethign you can count on doing in a duel? You've really tried this out? And it worked enough to be counted on, not just a fluke? Do you throw in a back-flip and KO your opponent with a kick to the head after the parry?

Again, I'd want an axe in a BATTLE. Nice to hook shields with so the guy behind you with the pike can drill the dude when you pull down his shield. Good to do nice slow swings with power beind it to smash through weak parries on the line, when people are playing 'zone' and not one-on-one.

But one on one you'd usually be at a disadvantage. Not insurmountable, no greater than with a mace or hammer, but a disadvantage nontheless. Maybe not if you were blindfolded in a closet, but otherwise at a disadvantage.

Now the MACE, there is a fun weapon. No flat, crazy in-close offense, huge power. Crawl over your enemy and nail him in the back . Still not great for dueling, but fun in group encounters.

posted 10-09-2003 05:14 PM               

quote:

---

Please try this stuff before you talk about parrying broadsword cuts with the HEAD of an axe! OMG that is the silliest thing I've ever heard.

---

quote:

---

In truth, you aren't likely to land a greater than 90 degree swing in a one-on-one setting unless your opponent is really hapless or napping between encounters.

---

quote:

---

(again, this assumes one-handed weapons and shields).

---

Maybe it would help if you made it clear what kind of axe you mean and what techniques you are thinking of.

posted 10-09-2003 06:26 PM               

Firstly I think there might be some confusions over what type of axe is being used, in the above disscussions, so I will cover both single and 2 handed axes.
Also being a serious sort of medieval martial artist I have always tried to push the limits of what can be done with modern replicas of medieval weapons, without killing anyone and not too many serious injuries (If your going to go full speed with authentic weight, but blunt weapons with historical styles of armour, you will get hurt at some stage, in my 10 or so years of doing this I can cont 1 finger I have not cracked or broken, inumerable minor cuts and scratches, bruises and close calls, however good training so far has keept at bay anything serious).
I have also trained and fought with most common medieval combinations.
All coments will be considered for one on one engagements.
For viking period, viking sword and shield against viking hand axe and shield, with or without armour (hauberk and helm).
I found I could beat an axe and shield man with sword and shield, but also with axe and shield.
I found I could beat a sword and shield man with sword and shield, but also with axe and shield.
I found the swords advantage is it is a bit quicker, the axe's advantage is it can hook the sword, shield or opponents body. I find however you need to be a better fighter to get the most out of the axe though.
Now, given the opption of choosing weapons before the fight (i.e. not just the basic side arm of a sword, or a hand axe, and shield) I would go for a viking spear with a foot long blade on a 6 foot pole if not wearing any armour, or a dane axe if I had armour on and my opponent did as well. If my opponent is armed with a spear or dane axe, I would go with the spear with armour or not. (I would still have the sword and shield as back up side arms).

Now 15th Century the side arm for my preference is langenschwaert, (the other common one being sword and buckler, but that is more for lower classes) and of course for me a rondel dagger. So that is what I would have to fight with in a sudden affray, however given the choice, for fighting without armour I would take a boar spear or light glaive. If fighting in Armour (my preference http://community.webshots.com/album/46859730xtnPbH Im the one in the first photo and doing most of the techniques) I would take a pol-axe, in both cases I would still have my langenschwaert and rondel dagger and also grappling as a back up.
Not to mention the 20 odd copies of 15th C manuscripts I have which show that the dagger and/or grappling were fairly common ways of ending a fight despite whatever weapon you started with and regardless if you are wearing armour or not.

Cheers
Joram

posted 10-09-2003 06:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by skeeter:

Then do some cutting exercises with an axe and a proper sword and tell me that the axe really has a big advantage cutting meat.

---

quote:

---

Please try this stuff before you talk about parrying broadsword cuts with the HEAD of an axe! OMG that is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Hard enough with a shield, let alone a smaller piece of metal and the end of an end-heavy stick. You really think this is somethign you can count on doing in a duel? You've really tried this out? And it worked enough to be counted on, not just a fluke? Do you throw in a back-flip and KO your opponent with a kick to the head after the parry?

---

So I guess all those sword and buckler manuels are full of it. After all, you can't use that little piece of metal to parry a sword. After the parry I would kick my opponent's forward knee, followed by a chop (which would be more than 90 degrees) to his head or neck. A one on one between two people will probably tell you more about those individual fighters than it will about their weapons. Oops, I forgot. I'm not allowed to acknowledge that.

posted 10-09-2003 08:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by skeeter:
When you argue every point you aren't trying to further the truth, you are just having fun or whatever. What about blindfolded in a closet, then the sword isn't effective... Please...

---

Skeeter. "Dagger vs sword in a closet" is no more silly and extreme than "Glock vs stick". You merely refuse to see this fact because the latter was YOUR example, and you are invested in it.

BOTH examples are absurd. We cannot draw any useful conclusions from either exaggeration. We cannot get anything worth knowing from setting up extreme examples designed to yield a predetermined outcome.

It is not and never was a matter of either knife-vs-sword-in-a-closet OR Glock-vs-stick. It is and was about sword vs. axe. And in any sensible battle scenario not designed to favor one or the other, Neither.One.Is.Inherently.Superior.

I'm willing to forego setting out absurd examples if you are.

quote:

---

And I'll repeat my challenge: set your rules, fight it out, and then tell me what works best!

---

And we keep telling you why this is not of any use. But you won't hear it.

quote:

---

It is not impossible or even that much more dangerous to require a MUCH heavier blow to 'count'.

---

If I may be allowed just a little bit of sarcasm---gee, with all of the thousands of people practicing the WMA in dozens of different venues and forms over the last few decades, it seems that you and you alone have been able to figure out how to do this. Please, I ask again---tell us how. Enlighten all us poor benighted sorts...

posted 10-11-2003 01:18 PM               

Perhaps people interested in WMA should suggest to various governments that all persons on death row be required to fight each other one on one to the death with different period weapons. Then we'd finally solve this issue.

quote:

---

But as Silver says, a staff is not much good in battle.

---

Well, yes, but he also said halberds, battle-axes and black bills were good in a fight. And pikes of course, which are just really long staves with a pointy end...

It's interested how Silver said skilled people fight with a staff. Strike only at the head and thrust only at the body. Thrust right after you strike and strike right after you thrust. I assume this strikes are straight down at the head and these thrusts are straight foward at the body. This is how I try to practice with my staff. I find it hard to do these to attack in rapid enough succession, but my staff is long and heavy and I'm a weakling.

posted 10-13-2003 07:03 PM            

Maybe this is common knowledge and I was just reinventing the wheel, but I found that if you make a traditional right-to-left downsloping cut from a right-handed guard, letting your right hand slide down the haft as you do so, and then instead of trying to recover from this to the original guard you release the haft with your left hand and retake hold below the head with that hand, you are now in a position to make a blow that is the mirror image of the original one---now you strike left to right. This seems to be just the position you see in the tapestry, a left-handed cut being made. You can alternate these wings back and forth very fast, with no pause to arrest the momentum of a cut---you just redirect it into the next, going back the other way.

It seems to me that this is the answer to the usual objection to the axe: that it is heavy and thus slow to recover, and can only be employed in screaming power cuts which if missed leave one appallingly open. But keep the thing moving in loops and wheels, using the weight to pull you into the next cut, and that "drawback" goes away. Combine that with techniques using the axe like a staff, or a pugil stick, striking short sharp jabs with head and butt and helve, and I think that in the hands of a skilled, practiced man a lot of what some see as the superior speed and versatility of the sword goes away.

posted 10-14-2003 10:07 AM               

I'm too suck on bills and staves, straight down strikes probably would be too hard to recover from with a dane axe. Of course, it's always good to have options. I still think straight down strikes are underated - with a long weapon they don't even require much of a wind up to be powerful.

Of course, with pole-axes you wild tactics like flipping the thing around and using the butt spike as a spear! Supposedly a lot of people favored that trick. Even odd reverse high guards with butt spike held forward.

As you can tell, I like pole-axes.

posted 10-16-2003 04:08 PM               

Skeeter, you seem to be losing the argument here so I'll help you out by giving some positive points on the sword. Obviously the sword is far quicker than the Dane axe-- except for the axe's dual sides of attack...

But wait! The sword has more of a parrying surface! ...except of course for the axe's 5 ft. haft...

But the sword is still a stronger cutter! Or wait... the axe has a longer length focused into a smaller point of impact...

I hope this helped your (foolish) cause!

(Did I say I was going to help? I must have been mistaken-- or maybe you were.

posted 10-25-2003 03:09 AM               

Your discussion of possible techniques to employ in this fight has been great, but "who would win" can never be judged. The weapons are to simular in abilities.

Those of you who are more knowing than I are too close to the subject. You see vast differences in weapons capabilities, when in reality this duel would consist of two physically fit, highly trained men with murder on their minds fighting with hand weapons. What type of weapom they bore would have very little to do with the outcome. Skill, experience, drive, speed, strength, agility, luck, size, eyesight, endurance - All of these thing would be more important than what type of pointy thing they had in hand.

posted 10-25-2003 05:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Morris of Stafford:
Those of you who are more knowing than I are too close to the subject. You see vast differences in weapons capabilities, when in reality this duel would consist of two physically fit, highly trained men with murder on their minds fighting with hand weapons. What type of weapom they bore would have very little to do with the outcome. Skill, experience, drive, speed, strength, agility, luck, size, eyesight, endurance - All of these thing would be more important than what type of pointy thing they had in hand.

My money is on the big, career soilder who's wife was just assaulted by his opponent.

---

posted 10-25-2003 08:21 AM               

I have been arguing to the side of the axe being more efficient, not because I would prefer the axe, but everyone always discounts it and picks up a sword. I'm just saying, in certain situations you want a sword, and in others you want an axe.

(P.S: 20 vucks on the big career guy!)

posted 10-26-2003 06:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Morris of Stafford:

Those of you who are more knowing than I are too close to the subject. You see vast differences in weapons capabilities, when in reality this duel would consist of two physically fit, highly trained men with murder on their minds fighting with hand weapons. What type of weapom they bore would have very little to do with the outcome. Skill, experience, drive, speed, strength, agility, luck, size, eyesight, endurance - All of these thing would be more important than what type of pointy thing they had in hand.

---

Actually, this is just what we were saying. My first post on this thread included this statement:

"If two combatants were truly equally matched, neither would win. They would fight to a standstill. Barring a stroke of luck, that is."

Rob Lovett said

"It comes down to the most skillful fighter - if we level that in this model and compare a sword and shield vs an axe and shield - then I would go for hand axe and shield - the hooking effect of the axe will have a real advantage, however, the swords and shield man would realise this and not allow this advantage to be used"

Many others have made similar statements along the way. Even belacose, who started the thread, recognized the artificial nature of the question, and asked us to discuss it anyway. ( Hey, some of us would argue about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, too! )

So we made the impossible assumption of 'ceteris paribus' and went on...

posted 10-28-2003 06:43 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marshal:
Hey, some of us would argue about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, too!

---

Seven.

Actually, the real question was: since angels are immaterial, can several angels occupy the same space simultaneously?

posted 12-14-2003 04:46 AM               

Instead of trying to fan the flames please keep mouth shut, as every time that you open it, or in this case write something, your ignorance just shines through.

Try reading round the subject first and then say something, thankyou.