That’s very interesting indeed this “grabbing by the blade” stuff, would never thought of this actually working!
For that matter, half-swording dates back all the way to Liechtenauer himself. Ringeck’s extrapolation on Liechtenauer’s code poems covers it in the section on harnischfechten.
1 Like
Honest you Armchair Sword Fighter, Knights and Warriors. This thread proves only one fact:
The more you know, the less you believe, and the more you believe the less you know.
Especially to grab a sword many different weapons have been developed like the ‘Degenbrecher’ or any other ‘tools’ with a ‘Klingenfänger’. And do you thing people developed it only becuase they were too stupid and could not grab a sword with their hand? I cannot belive that i even have to explain some of the buildup of a sword. Do you know what is a Ricasso? Why it is there? Exactly to grab a sword and wield it Half-Sworded.
Do counduct some experiments, and you will see that this is utterly nonsens to grab a sword barehanded, especially since this swords in this times could be as sharp (dependent on the kind of steel) as a scalpel or a razor. And non of you should be that stupid, to grab a scalpel or a razor, with his bare hand and squeeze it with full strength, and then let it tear out of his hand. The swords had very low friction, which would have allowed one to hold it only on the broadside (but even this would be not possible) and do not let you touch the edge, because to prevent flight rust, they were oiled and polished.
If you want to learn something about sword handling and fighting, then you should go to a Iaido and Kendo school. And in few years you will understand, what i’m talking about.
Or at least ask a Iaido master (at least 6 Dan), what he thinks, about grabbing and holding a sword blade barehanded, especially if the enemy got his hands on the grip.
A good sharpened Daito (Katana), would alone cut through you, by its weight (1,1 - 1,3 kg). And the european swords were nearly as sharp. Do you know the legend how Richard I of England (Lionheart) and Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn, how they have proven each other the sharpness of their swords?
Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn proof is quite possible, because japanese have done it over and over again.
To the picture of Dürer and some more ‘sophisticated’ tests.
You can test it simply with two bokken, and then you will understand that this is nonsense. But beware were some helmets or head protection.
Buy at least a bokken. Oil the ‘blade’ part a little bit and rub the rest oil away, then take the ‘blade’ part in your hand, and let a friend, tear it out of your hand. Now think about: What would have happened if this would have been a real sharp sword. Naturally a test with a chain glove under a leather glove and a very sharp knife would also prove my point.
And posting some the videos of some morons or some frauds does not prove your point, it proves only that you believe what you see. And why there are so many frauds in the martial arts.
I believe this videos as much, as this:
And this is how, this frauds are revealed:
Kameblaablaaa…nonsense
There is easter bunny. There is no tooth fairy, and there is no queen of england.
No. Wait. There is a queen of england.
This is a real world. And in the real world there is the real world physics. And it says: if you exercise a force with your bare hand on an edge, and the force is strong enough or the edge sharp enough, it will cut into your hand. And it is the same, if you push your hand against the edge or the edge is pushed against you hand.
Please do not believe any shit that you see on television or youtube.
213 you have correctly recognised. That if you wield a two handed weapon, you have one arm that does the heavy lifting and one is the control hand for the precision of the movement of the weapon.
Kraft you ßßman. Erase at least this first bald-headed morons, because they throw a really bad light on you. Exposing your head directly to attacks, only just to grab a leg is plain stupid, also to use a sword like a quarterstaff.
1 Like
Lol…History Channel…
It wasn’t so bad some years ago. But now…
1 Like
If only you were alive then, you could have told the old masters how wrong they were. If only they knew…
Here’s a book by another conman:
http://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Eyb_Kriegsbuch_(MS_B.26)
Leonardo Da Vinci was also a terrible conman. It’s as though every single one of his drawings have one single mistake that makes them not work. Did he introduce those single little mistakes to make it harder to steal his ideas? No, he was a conman too. And he wrote the wrong way. Damn armchair conmen.
Why didn’t they have the sense to make their blades less sharp than scalpels if they wanted to fight with them? If only the Europeans were more like the Japanese, then they would do proper swordsmanship and not cut their fingers off all the time.
7 Likes
Sharp as a scalpel? You’re kidding me, right?
NO swords were as sharp as a scalpel. European swords were sharp, certainly. However they were only as sharp as the needed to be to cut, and that’s for a couple reasons:
- Steel quality. Overall, the quality steel used wasn’t as high as is possible with today’s smelting technology and capability. That’s not to say the steel was BAD, but smiths had to work with the limitation of their materials, and the simple reality is, that the steel they had was soft enough that the sword wouldn’t be able to hold too fine of an edge.
However this also worked in the sword’s favor. Because the steel was softer, it was able to be made more flexible, which mean it was less likely to bend or snap, thus making for a much more durable weapon (steel that’s too hard will break. That’s why you do NOT USE STAINLESS STEEL for a sword you intend to use for anything more than a wall hanger).
- The finer the edge, the more brittle it is. News flash: When you strike a sword against something, whether it’s another sword, armor, a wooden pell, a body, whatever, it damages the edge. The fine that edge is, the easier it is to chip, nick, and otherwise damage it.
So what, I guess those guys like Liechtenauer, who’s only the father of the German martial arts tradition and is believed to even have had a direct influence on the Italian school (there’s very strong evidence that Liechtenauer was one Fiore dei Liberi’s masters. Certainly, there is a VERY strong relationship between Fiore and the early written German fechtbuchen IE Ringeck) don’t know how to handle a sword?
Once again, I guess you’re saying Liechtenauer didn’t have a clue, even though he LITERALLY wrote the book on the longsword? The longsword was the foundation of the entire German tradition. The principles of halbschwert were directly applied to staff and polearm. Hell, the longsword was used as a training too FOR polearm (you learned the basic techniques on the longsword first, and then you graduated to actually using a staff, halberd or hammer).
And I guess you’re content to swing a longsword around against a guy in full-plate armor? Why not, it works in the movies and video games, right?
Gee, it’s not like some of us actually PRACTICE German or Italian longsword, and have developed first-hand knowledge of what the swords are capable of in different situations or anything.
7 Likes
What makes you think it’s American? The only American in the film was the narrator. Why are people so keen to instantaneously shove the blame on America with little if any evidence for it?
Interesting, but I’d say most of them seem impractical to wield. Then again the guesswork they did that the man was trying to present himself as a smart cookie who knew unorthodoxed ideas inorder to sell his services is a logical answer to them. We do know that the other half of his depictions are sourced in other text, so that doe shine a bit more validity to his more outlandish claims.
I took fencing in high-school and college, and work part-time at renascence festivals each year (Gotta love those free tickets). It’s not exactly a knighthood certification, but I think it gives me a reasonable vantage to speculate from…
Can someone please tell me how spoiler boxes work in this forum? Sorry!
I stole this from here
Probs to “Allen Johnson”
This gripping past the hilt is seen in almost every single longsword master that there is an illustrated manual for. Even the ones that make less sense to us
From Fiore:
in the one about the fighter is wearing gauntlets but the palm- where the blade is - is still leather. There is obviously an understanding between armoured fighting and unarmoured fighting because they have both illustrated in the same manual. Half-swording is seen in both cases.
From 15th century Fechtbuch “Gladiatoria” (It’s full of halfswording):
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Gladiatoria/Gladiatorie_part2.htm
note full plate here but with bare hands- this is the topic of discussion in the mentioned thread
From Codex Wallerstein:
From Vadi:
From Duerer:
The list could go on for days.
And another stolen addition from “Delvie” who posted here
Codex Wallerstein:
From Talhoffer’s Fecht buche
Fiore dei Liberi’s Flos Duellatorum in armis
Enough source material has been stolen today, make up your mind 
5 Likes
It’s a certain style of documentary making, history channel is probably one of the worst offenders.
2 Likes
Please do show me your major in medieval history or experimental archaeology.
1 Like
I think one of the biggest mistakes here is that some people really think that they knew with which weapons people actually fought in medieval times in big detail.
Reality is: very few swords and other real war weapons of the time before 1500 have actually survived. The best preserved weapons we know are all ceremonial or ritual weapons but not weapons which were really used in combat.
To argue that Thalhofer didn’t know what he wrote on basis of modern weapon design is ridiculous. How did you even know that the swords used by Thalhofer were not even made especially for his techniques? Yes, you don’t. You just speculate.
What we know is that there are numerous sources about half-swording. We have more written proof than actual weapons to support that. Does that mean that every written word is wrong? No. It just means that we can’t know for sure how people actually fought in medieval times. There are of course physical limitations to fighting. Holding a sharp sword blade in your bare hands or even with leather protected hands seems to be stupid due to the high danger of self-damage. So the first idea would be to think that the weapons were altered in design to support that kind of fighting or the technique were only used with swords suited for that…
2 Likes
i think that’s his point all along. that you can’t just use these techniques with any kind of sword.
Which would be just plain wrong. Bu tthat’s not even his point imo.
IF you grab the blade by pressing down with fingers on the flat of the blade… not on the edge… and than you can easily grab it… test it yourself with a knife… (holding the blunt edge toward our hand for safety until you get the hang of it)
Another option is simply to have a blade that is only sharp on part of it. If you are going to fight persons in armor the sharpness of the blade is rather irrelevant anyway.
1 Like
And frankly, Zawisza is drastically overestimating the “slipperiness” of an oiled blade. You wouldn’t leave your sword dripping wet with oil, but wipe the excess off so there would only be a very thin coating (too much oil is almost as bad as not enough). I’ve handled steel and iron after having been oiled plenty of times (I shoot black powder) and trust me, it’s not going to be anywhere NEAR slippery enough for your hand to slide around like that. If anything, what’s left of that oil coating when you’re finished maintaining the blade (which by the way, you do AFTER you’ve used the sword, not before) may actually leave the surface slightly tacky to the touch and help MAINTAIN the grip.
1 Like
Let us beginn. But only one at the time.
@TREYSCEUSEC
Excuse me that i did not posed this answer to your post yesterday, but because i have written so much, it have to split it over several posts, and i’m still changing the structure of it.
One the (Bl. 16r) page of this ‘Kriegsbuch’ von Ludwig II von Eyb manual, blocking with the grip of the sword?
This should be not done, at least not if it is possible to be avoided, else you will loss your fingers, or they will be brocken. And even with plate mittens it will really hurt if they get hit and this will lower your fighting capabilities.
But they wear at least (exception Bl. 16r) always Mittens perhaps plate or chain. Chain mail cannot be cut by sword in a normal fashion. Most (nearly always with one exception) of times they are grabbing in the ‘forte’ part of the sword which does not need to be sharp and have mittens on their hands. But this formulates an other question about the sword and the mittens, that i will adress later.
(Bl. 18r) Holding a sword behind ones head? First technique good, the second dependes on the fighter, third is bad.
(Bl. 21r) A bad technique. Especially if you could grab the foible. Same (Bl. 21v)
I like the stick figure on Bl.22v. 
The Dagger (Dagger: Rondel Dagger or Schweizerdegen) fight is more controversial, but knife/dagger defeces are always controversial. There are also many holding weaknesses, of arm in a lock / lever in some depictions.
(Bl. 25r) First picture is a clear don’t do it.
(Bl. 26v) Interesting a more modern grip from below (for this times), in the first picture.
(Bl. 27r) First one very good. Second not as good but, but still very plausible. Third dangerous do not grip the dagger, but the wrist. The third depiction, may look like he is grabbing the dagger, but it is not so.
(Bl. 27v) Good depiction of levers on arm. Very good.
(Bl. 30v) Again a modern grip. Nice.
(Bl. 31r) Stabing someone with his own dagger, fantastic. Techniques not often seen this way, but the principle stays the same.
(Bl. 31v) Some don’ts.
(Bl. 32r) Dagger vs Longsword. Some things can be made better, than depicted. But not utterly false. Especially if you defend your self against the dagger.
(Bl. 33v) Wrestling. Standart leg hooks, nothing special but it functions most of the times, and it is as old as martial arts.
(Bl. 37r) Grabbing the testicle of the enemy would be more effective. This will be not so effective, if you do not lower your center point of mass, and go below the the enemies mass point.
(Bl. 42r) WTF. Nonsens techinques on the ground or standing.
(Bl. 42v) Grabbing the groints or holding down enemies arm. First yes, second no. Other techniques WTF.
(Bl. 43r) First one good, second one bad and third is good again.
Opinion about Ludwigs ‘Kriegsbuch’:
Overall a standard manual for a beginner with good depiction of some techniques. It hides nothing and the few flaws are acceptable and common. One can say it has the same flaws like modern martial arts books.
The techniques on (Bl. 42r) and (Bl. 42v) are pure nonsense, but this kind on nonsense is also common in modern martial art books. But perhaps the levers on the arms of the two enemies have been drawn from the false side, by the artist. Most of the modern martial art books are done exact this way, but reading a martial art book, will not substitutes the training, nor does it display the weekness of a technique, that can be only revealed and understood by training with different opponents. In this book are many good things, but also many bad things. If one has not done for several years and different martial arts, one would not recognise this. Some things that are depicted and would not quite work, could be quite effective with few adjustments. Always think if you look at such things: What does the technique do? Where are the hands and arms of the advisary (a source of danger)? What can a adivsary do against you in this moment? How are the center of mass of the contrahents related to each other? How could a lever work on this joint? How does one come into this position? How does one weapon work? What is its prime use? Where does the force (the one that does the damage) come from?
And always try the technique out, carefully with different friends. And your opponent should not stand still, but should try to defend himself. There are many techniques that might very well function in a training, but they will not function on the street, in a real fight against another opponent. And some things are total nonsense like aikido, or the things in the video that i have linked. But the people and student believe it.
The key to reveal nonsense is to be sceptical and to conduct experiments, and sometimes even the common knowledge and experience is enough. The main key to victory is not to depend on a technique, but more important is the ability to see an window of opportunity and then execute a good fast and precise attack.(Weapon and fist-kick fights.)
This also the reason why Musashi Miyamoto wrote nothing about any technique, only about the principles of sword fighting. But learning of the possibilities and different attacks, goes often through the learning of techniques.
Because the human body is the same, the same techniques are used even today. But it does not disprove, my position against holding the blade of the enemies sword, with bare hands. Even the opposite, it validates my statements, because all figures with Longswords are depicted with mittens. Also it does not display any utterly nonsense, that i have already criticised on Thalhoffer or the videos. So i don’t know what you want to prove to me, besides supporting my statements with this nice book.
End of part 1.
Next post: The cutting and thoughts about the used sword and mittens or gloves.
@SER_AWESOME
Fencing is an incredible sport, i love to watch it. The speed and the agility. SIRE it’s AWESOME.
The fencing with the rapier and dagger or buckler and later the use of the small sword, was the highest point in development of european sword fighting schools.
And i even think that this piercing style is above the japanese fight style with its cutting techniques.
Modern fencing descended from this schools and is with the foil, épée, or sabre very beautiful, i would urge you to continue. Or at least train the fighting style with the rapière and main-gauche, it has an incredible flair. ( You already know the basics of this kind of fighting. ) I wished i would have done this sport in my youth.
2 Likes
Wow. That…that’s just PAINFUL to read.
Buh-bye credibility.
7 Likes
I am not sure, but it looks like it might be a wristlock. Apart from Fiore’s dagger-assisted wristlocks, this would be the first wristlock I have seen in a medieval European book. Lichtenauer recommends breaking wrists though. It would be good to have a translation of this book.