German swordmanship video

[Brian R. VanCise]

They are definately able to be moved quickly and efficiently. At least the ones I have used. Plus they have great reach which is very, very nice.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Here is their website link : http://www.zornhau.de/source/zornhau.php

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes, I think it's a common misconception that European swords were heavy, clumsy, and club-like. They were actually fairly light and highly maneuverable, and technique was very sophisticated. The Asians weren't the only ones who developed their martial traditions to a high level.

 

[arnisador]

they wiegh between 2 and 3 pounds and are as manueverable as is needed.

Wow, I did not think they were so light! It makes more sense now. In watching The Weapons that Made Britain I saw a lot of heavier swords, but they focused mostly on a particular time period.

 

[arnisador]

Yes, I think it's a common misconception that European swords were heavy, clumsy, and club-like. They were actually fairly light and highly maneuverable, and technique was very sophisticated. The Asians weren't the only ones who developed their martial traditions to a high level.

I know their systems were highly developed, but I did think that sword--as opposed to, say, a rapier--was fairly heavy. I know some of the ones used by heavily armored knights were heavy and were used in a fairly club-like fashion, and am probably guilty of generalizing!

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Rapiers aren't that much lighter than their more warlike cousins, if at all. The big difference is in the balance. It's more in your hand to facilitate point work.

Jeff

 

[Flying Crane]

I know their systems were highly developed, but I did think that sword--as opposed to, say, a rapier--was fairly heavy. I know some of the ones used by heavily armored knights were heavy and were used in a fairly club-like fashion, and am probably guilty of generalizing!

Well, I imagine there were both kinds, perhaps depending on era, and intended use.

As matallurgy improved and quality of steel improved, a weapon could be made lighter and slimmer than before without sacrificing strength. I suppose technique would have changed dramatically at the same time, as new ideas became possible with the improved weapon.

Big two-handers had a definite use, and probably needed to be thicker and heftier in order to be strong enough with the added length. Some of these had a blade length of 5 or even 6 feet, weighted 5-8 pounds, and were used by big guys. I think they would try to work as a group to sweep the battlefield clean of a pocket of pikemen, or something. I remember reading that they would be used to sever and break the pikes up, so they could close the gap and effectively engage the enemy.

A horseman or knight would want a longer sword so that he could reach his opponents on other horses, or on the ground. He might want this to be a bit heavier as well, to take advantage of gravity in striking a guy below him. But, if it is too heavy, he will get tired out quickly, so there would need to be that balance of features. Keep in mind that on horseback he probably could not use the weapon two-handed, so he couldn't fall back on that technique if his arm got too tired.

I train with the sword in Chinese arts, mostly Tai Chi, but some external stuff as well. My weapons are all realistic, and are much heavier than the common "wushu" junk that you see people using. My heaviest is about 4 pounds, and I feel that it is really pushing the limits in weight. I train with it and I have gotten used to it, but most people can hardly pick it up. It doesn't sound like much, but when you start using it, it is heavier than you think. Probably about 2 1/2 to 3 pounds would be more appropriate for most people, if they want a realistic weapon. The wushu junk are all probably under a pound, maybe even 1/2 pound. I find that the weight of a realistic weapon forces you to use proper technique, and does't let you cheat the way a wushu weapon does. If you cheat, you get tired very quickly.

 

[JoshLittle]

Rapiers aren't that much lighter than their more warlike cousins, if at all. The big difference is in the balance. It's more in your hand to facilitate point work.

Jeff

My Darkwood rapier w/bated blade weighs more than my longsword.

A lot of the misconception about the weight, either true or relative/felt weight, comes from people handling poorly constructed modern replicas. Even some of us heavily involved in Western Martial arts can fall victim to this. I've always considered the British 1796 sabre to be a very heavy and beefy sword. I was able to handle an original that Craig Johnson of Arms and Armor brought to this year's ISMAC convention in Lansing. I've never handled a better constructed weapon than that original sabre. It moves with precision, purpose, and with very little effort. These people who used these weapons to preserve their own life. If they were heavy, clumbsy, or other wise hard to use, don't you think that they would find something better? Form follows function follows form.

 

[Risto Rautiainen]

As matallurgy improved and quality of steel improved, a weapon could be made lighter and slimmer than before without sacrificing strength. I suppose technique would have changed dramatically at the same time, as new ideas became possible with the improved weapon.

Actually it rarely has anything to do with improved metallurgy. For example some of the 13th century war swords (like this), which look very heavy are infact sometimes lighter than some of the slimmer looking 15th century cut and thrust blades (like this). And this really is a matter of form follows function. The war sword was thin and wide to make fast powerful cuts and the later cut and thrust sword was designed to be thick and robust to support precise and powerful thursts at the maille and the gaps in armour. This does not BTW mean that there were no cut oriented blades in later periods. And as has been said a viking sword can easily be lighter than a rapier.

Concerning zweihänders (the really big swords). To my knowledge they were never used in a unit consisting of just zweihänders. They were used by specialized men called doppelsoldners ( because of the double pay). There usually would be one or two of these men in one pike square and they would use those swords like spears or big levers to get past the long and pointy pikes. And when you get past the points, the half-swording mayhem begins. So, no you wouldn't cut through the pikes, just get past them. Largely because you really can't cut very well through a pike.

 

[Flying Crane]

Actually it rarely has anything to do with improved metallurgy. For example some of the 13th century war swords (like this), which look very heavy are infact sometimes lighter than some of the slimmer looking 15th century cut and thrust blades (like this). And this really is a matter of form follows function. The war sword was thin and wide to make fast powerful cuts and the later cut and thrust sword was designed to be thick and robust to support precise and powerful thursts at the maille and the gaps in armour. This does not BTW mean that there were no cut oriented blades in later periods. And as has been said a viking sword can easily be lighter than a rapier.

Concerning zweihänders (the really big swords). To my knowledge they were never used in a unit consisting of just zweihänders. They were used by specialized men called doppelsoldners ( because of the double pay). There usually would be one or two of these men in one pike square and they would use those swords like spears or big levers to get past the long and pointy pikes. And when you get past the points, the half-swording mayhem begins. So, no you wouldn't cut through the pikes, just get past them. Largely because you really can't cut very well through a pike.

Yeah, I had a feeling I was shooting at the target, but maybe not quite hitting the bullseye.

As far as matallurgy goes, I think in the extreme comparison between say, bronze age and steel swords, or low quality steels in the early stages of steel use, compared to steel used in the later middle ages, my thoughts might be accurate. From one century to the next, once quality steel came into use, you are right, this would have had little direct dictation.

I think JoshLittle's comment about people handling poorly constructed modern replicas is probably right on target, as far as giving people a false impression about what it would be like to handle a sword.

 

[Sukerkin]

Hollywood has a lot to answer for when it comes to misconceptions about weaponry.

It has proprogated endless myths about the supposed amazing superiority of the Katana and the uselessness of what they depict as 25lb clublike European swords.

Neither of these myths are based in historical fact.

 

[Bigshadow]

Hollywood has a lot to answer for when it comes to misconceptions about

Martial Arts in general. That is definitely true. Not only the weapons but the arts themselves have been misrepresented.

Speaking of misconceptions... Until recently I had a totally screwed up idea of a rapier. I guess I imagined the flimsy foil that is used in the movies, but I started digging around online and found a ton of stuff about rapiers and I was amazed.

Swords are cool stuff, no matter if it is a katana or a sabre.

 

[Sukerkin]

Martial Arts in general. That is definitely true. Not only the weapons but the arts themselves have been misrepresented.

Speaking of misconceptions... Until recently I had a totally screwed up idea of a rapier. I guess I imagined the flimsy foil that is used in the movies, but I started digging around online and found a ton of stuff about rapiers and I was amazed.

Swords are cool stuff, no matter if it is a katana or a sabre.

I quite agree about how broad a 'misconception brush' the film industry has used. The myths of the martial arts are a weighty shroud to dispel when newcomers take their first steps in any style.

I also used to have the wrong idea about rapiers - that was corrected only a few years ago when I started more serious research into 'early' weaponry.

A big double thumbs up for your last statement there. All I would add is that I hope that more members of the MA community can make the leap of realising that both Eastern and Western martial traditions have value and interest.

 

[Don Roley]

Rapiers aren't that much lighter than their more warlike cousins, if at all. The big difference is in the balance. It's more in your hand to facilitate point work.

Well, the battlefield weapons were meant to cut. Which means they needed to have more mass, at least at the end. You can't cut through anything with a rapier. Try cutting through a heavy jacket with one.

But even a kukri, which does not have much mass, can cut pretty well because of the way the weight is spread out.

 

[donald]

Man those are some awful big pointy things to be waving around. Especially with out ANY protection!

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Well, the battlefield weapons were meant to cut. Which means they needed to have more mass, at least at the end. You can't cut through anything with a rapier. Try cutting through a heavy jacket with one.

But even a kukri, which does not have much mass, can cut pretty well because of the way the weight is spread out.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I never meant to say that a rapier was a good cutting/slashing weapon. Like you said about the kukri, it's all about the design.

Personally, I prefer a good cut and thrust sword or a backsword.

Jeff

 

[Martin Grover]

Hey! My first post! Here goes...

I am currently a student of the same tradition (Leichtenaur by way of Ringeck and others) that the German guys do. That video is an excellent display of the basics, with some tricky bits thrown in for spice. My teacher corresponds with the Zornhau group and they talk interpretation. The European Longsword styles, whether Italian, English or German are all reconstructions from source texts. We work out how we think the masters did it, what they meant by their writings, some of it damn cryptic! Then we drill the motions individually and in partnered responses. The next phase is to work out some realistic method of bouting and seeing if it actually works as written. This is all new, but I have dropped Aikido and the connected sword arts to focus on this, which I deem worthy of wider interest.

As for the swords, they are aroung four feet long with three feet of that being blade. They all hover around three pounds, give or take a few ounces, and balance between three and six inches from the guard. This combinded with a fairly wide two-handed grip makes a very fast and dangerous piece of cutlery. Many of the strikes are based on rotations of the two hands, rather than baseball swings and there is a much sophistication to the style as I have seen in asian stuff. Loads of fun.

Martin

 

[Martin Grover]

Aaah yes. In Armoured combat this sort of sword was used more for the thrust, cuts being basically useless against 15th centuryplate armour. Often the sword was gripped in the middle of the blade to guide the thrust. I believe this was shown in the Zornhau video.

Martin