From: markk@pongo.West.Sun.COM (Mark Allen Kampe)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing
Subject: Re: French Grips
Date: 12 Dec 1992 02:49:07 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: markk@pongo.West.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo.west.sun.com

In article 1gbfs8INNh2@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca, morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>Also, the pistol grip allows a much more powerful grasp of the weapon than 
>do more traditional grips such as the French, so the strength argument
>works against you there.  

My strength argument had nothing to do with powerful grasp - it had to
do with the ability of the human fore-arm to beat-disengages with a
six pound weapon.  I was claiming that pistol grips and modern technique
are only applicable to light weapons and so ancient warriors (using
heavy weapons) would find them to be useless.  You aren't strong enough
to make fast subtle movements with a heavy weapon.  
 
>Such weapons (light point weapons) have been used for centuries.

What light point weapons have been routinely issued to field soldiers
for use in sustained hand-to-hand combat?  I know of none!  Light point
weapons were carried by gentlemen.  Not by people who had to fight for
a living.   

>Weapons like the epee (foils aren't real weapons, by definition) were 
>developed in a context of personal duels with no armour.  

Precisely, they are not weapons of war and would have been
ineffective as such.  The reason the romans didn't invent
the pistol grip is because they realized that light point
weapons would be useless in battle.

>the Romans (and everybody else prior to c.1700, for 
>that matter) had no reason (or metallurgical technology) to develop them 
>or their grips.

Which metallurgical technology didn't they have prior to 1700AD?
Grips are cast from cheap pot metal?  Precision casting of much
better metals dates back to at least 1300.  The finest blades
ever made (Katanas, Damascines, Toledo Salonicas ...) also date
from well before 1700.  

Foils and Epees are not made from high tech materials, and better
swords could easily have been made 400 years ago.  The reason they
were not made is because those weapons would have been inefective
in combat.
 
>It is an artificial comparison.  Why on earth would a foilist take on
>some guy with a broadsword?  

THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT.  If you wanted to kill somebody, you 
would not choose a foil (or even an epee).  If you did, you
would probably find you could be beaten by any combat sword
forged since the bronze age.

>Even a real duelling weapon like epee presumes
>that if some guy came at you with a broadsword, you're best response would
>be to shoot him.  You are casting these weapons into roles they simply 
>weren't intended to serve.

Precisely.  If you had a foil and someone came at you with a
sword you would have to shoot him.  If guns hadn't been invented
yet you would have to die.  That is why foils are toys and not
real weapons.  A real weapon is a weapon that you would choose
to carry into mortal combat if you could have any weapon you wanted.

>Things have progressed somewhat since the 16th century.  Modern fencing,
>its weapons, and its techniques are directly descended from the most 
>recent times that swordfighting was actually used to kill and maim people
>(mid-late 19th century).  

When did dueling swords come into existance?  After guns had rendered 
swords obsolete!  The weapons and the techniques for using them are 
artificial and would be ineffective in real sword combat against an
opponent whose goal was to kill you (rather than fence with you).

Thus, I repeat

	Foils, epees, and their sharp ancestors are not fighting
	weapons, but rather dueling/fencing weapons.  The techniques
	for using those weapons and the grips that enhance those techniques
	were not applicable to swords that were used by people who were
	serious about killing people.

	Tournement fencing does not harken back to a time when swords
	were used to kill people.  Rather it harkens back to a time when
	swords were used to settle matters of honor.  I think the
	distinction between techniques used to "kill people" and 
	techniques used to "win tournements" is completely valid.
Newsgroups: rec.sport.fencing