From: burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Dakin Burdick)
Subject: Re: Duelling vs. "Swordfighting" (was: french grips)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:55:09 GMT

In article <1gm09pINNmjr@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>Mark Allen Kampe:
>>If you wanted to kill somebody, you would not choose a foil [sic] (or even
>>an epee).  If you did, you would probably find you could be beaten by
>>any combat sword forged since the bronze age.
>
>Such notions are absolute fiction.  Death was the result of most duels
>(with the exception of 19th century Germanic duelling, in which the
>successful duellist would slash the opponent's cheeks).  Any sword
>design that would enhance the duellist's prospects would be quickly
>embraced.  If a 5-pound broadsword was genuinely more efficient at
>killing one's enemies, it would have been used.

Are you sure?  I think one reason to use a thrusting weapon rather
than a swinging one is that if you survived, you would have a smaller
(and hopefully cleaner) wound.  It might also speed up the combat,
reducing the amount of damage taken by the winner.  While German
students English working men (for such, I would imagine, is the class
of George Silver and his compatriots) may not mind big scars,
the "gentlemen" of fashion rarely do.  Since it was the "gentlemen"
who seemed entranced by meetings on "the field of honor", it makes
sense that weapons would be selected on the basis of how "civilized"
they were, rather than their effectiveness.  Remember that the French
used blades in duels long after the English (practical fellows always)
had moved on to pistols.  Gentlemen, it seemed, preferred tidy little
holes to great gory ones.

>The fact that heavy weapons vanished at the same time
>armour did shows that they were inferior weapons for single, unarmoured
>combat.

It may be that they were not "inferior" but rather, unnecessary.
If you didn't HAVE to use a bloody big blade to get at your opponent,
you could get a more elegant blade, nice and thin and light, with a
beautiful swept hilt.  After all, most people that carried a blade
around did it for fashion, not for fighting.

>On the contrary, the weapons and techniques are pure.  It is the
>presence of armour, shields, and other forms of "cheating" that debased
>sword fighting into a clumsy parody of the real thing.  It was only
>after the yoke of armour had been thrown off that sword fighting really
>developed and flowered.  Pure sword fighting involves two combatants,
>two swords, and nothing else.

You would have made a wonderful gentleman!  To my mind, heavily
influenced by Vietnam and other modern conflicts, a fight is a
nasty business.  If someone picks a fight with me, he can be assured
that I will NOT fight fair.  Anything that can be thrown will, and
any "cheating" I can think of will be used.  I'm rather fond of my
health; I think I'll keep it.

>This debate was supposed to be about whether pistol grips would enhance
>the performance of a real duellist, and not simply the competition fencer.
>I have yet to hear somebody address this point directly.

Maybe because even fewer people are interested in duelling than in 
are interested in preparing for battle (and that's damn few!).

Dakin
burdickd@silver.ucs.indiana.edu



Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing