| rdfs:comment | - In most media, swordsmanship as practised by Europeans before the Early Modern period is considered to be slow, pondering and lacking in finesse. This is not historical fact, although such depictions may be forgiven on the basis that what we do know has surfaced relatively recently. It can be thought that such depictions are based on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", which is fallacious but not the point of this article. In stark contrast, Eastern swordsmanship -- especially Japanese -- is given deific significance and abilities, with many people unironically believing that a katana is capable of stopping a bullet or penetrating tank armour. While there is no doubt that such swords and their martial arts were and are formidable, their Western counterparts certainly match them i
|
| abstract | - In most media, swordsmanship as practised by Europeans before the Early Modern period is considered to be slow, pondering and lacking in finesse. This is not historical fact, although such depictions may be forgiven on the basis that what we do know has surfaced relatively recently. It can be thought that such depictions are based on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence", which is fallacious but not the point of this article. In stark contrast, Eastern swordsmanship -- especially Japanese -- is given deific significance and abilities, with many people unironically believing that a katana is capable of stopping a bullet or penetrating tank armour. While there is no doubt that such swords and their martial arts were and are formidable, their Western counterparts certainly match them in both potential and practise. Observant students of European and Japanese swordsmanship will also note a stunning amount of similarity in the techniques utilized in both styles. To learn about the virtues of Japanese swordsmanship, see Kenjutsu. Western swordsmanship is generally taught with one, some or all of the following armaments:
* The longsword, a two-handed weapon that measured roughly four feet long from pommel to tip, depending on geographical location.
* English longswords as depicted by George Silver have the same blade length as a normal one-handed sword -- they are exactly the same as one-handed sword except with a longer hilt.
* German and Italian longswords are depicted as having their pommels reaching one's armpit with their tip on the ground.
* Sword and shield. The sword was typically an "arming sword," a bit smaller than a longsword and with hilt space for only one hand, since the other was tied up with the shield. Contrary to media, the shield was frequently made of wood.
* Sword and buckler. A buckler is a small round shield, reserved solely for melee combat. This armament is the source of the word "swashbuckler".
* The messer, generally a family of similar-looking slightly curved, single-edged blades. The German names include varieties of "Messer" ("Grosses...", "Langes..."), or "Dussack". A simple weapon, it originally had a guard consisting of a nail sticking out of the handle.
* The backsword, a one-handed, basket-hilted sword with only one edge. Sometimes very slightly curved.
* The rapier, a long, one-handed sword with a very thin blade and an extremely keen point.
* The small sword, a descendant of the rapier which has an even narrower blade and is extremely light. The weapon equivalent of the modern fencing foil.
* Rapier and dagger.
* Rapier and buckler. For further detail on sword types, see Swords. While we use the word "swordsmanship" here, the martial art itself commonly concerned as well these:
* The dagger, which was commonly worn both on street and on battlefield.
* The spear, halberd, Luzerne hammer, and similar polearms a knight might use.
* Grappling, which actually wasn't as separate from swordfighting as one might think. Pinning down common concepts in European swordsmanship is difficult, because at least one historical swordmaster will have a technique that contradicts the established concept. Time, geography and armament all influence what is considered "proper" fighting, so each individual type of fighting requires its own explanation.
|
