Doppelhander

[Mayhem1979]

Just had a thought.

If you're really having trouble with the idea that a little, fairly weak person, can use a given weapon as well as your big hulking barbarian, modify the weapon's TN's.


If you're exceptionally big and strong, use the longsword TNs for a greatsword, or the arming sword TNs for a longsword.

Or if you're exceptionall small, use the greatsword TNs for the longsword and longsword TNs for an arming sword.

That work for everyone?

[Tash]

Every swing should flow to another or end in a guard postion.

Actually that makes a lot of sense.  My training has always stressed choking off a swing and then making your recovery so as to draw the blade along the target.  In practice this becomes a single movement so I don't really think about it as two distinct actions, but from a physics standpoint it is (you have to arrest the "swing" movement when you begin the "draw").  You aren't cutting "through" the target, you are cutting along it pulling with you bottom hand and pressing into the target with your top, in effect turning your sword into a huge steak knife.

Big difference from what you described.

[Mayhem1979]

That actually makes sense given that you were trained in kendo which is based around the Katana.

The katana is a slashing weapon, a 3 foot razor blade, draw cuts are going to be a big part of the style, but at the same time, if you manage to connect to make that draw-cut, how fast your recover isn't going to make much difference.

[Tash]

Recovery after the cut is less important.  We were taught that in a real fight by the time you reach that stage either your opponent is dead, or you are.  That first cut has to count.

[bergh]

One of the things i think is importent is that the user of a large weapon do got some weight, so when you swing your weapon, you dont "follow it", but control it.

One of my friends is very thin, but still strong, when he uses my claymore, he is actually slower then me, becouse i simply got the weight to let me control the swing, and not let the weight of the sword decide when the swing is over.

i have trouble my my english to bear over with me.

[Mayhem1979]

Is your friend stepping with the swing?  If he is, he shouldn't be having any problems wit the sword trowing him around unless it's REALLY overweight.

[bergh]

I think he is not, generaly i think its also importent to have some experince when handling such weapons.

[Mayhem1979]

Advice for using a sword (two handed)

1 - Keep your shoulders square with your opponent

2 - rear foot shold be angled out, the forward foot should be pointed towards your opponent.  Shoulder width apart, weight even distributed.

3 - Top hand should be at the top of the grip, the bottom should be grasping the pommel or just above it

4 - take a step as close to every time you swing as possible,

5 - make sure the sword always stops above your rear leg

6 - guide the sword with your lower hand using the upper hand as a pivot.

7 - DO NOT BLOCK EDGE ON EDGE


Have your friend try this, and practice it a bit and see how he improves.


ps - There are a number of types of steps, but the two most important for a beginner are...

1 - Passing step -  Go to the foot postion described above.  Take a step just like your walking, back foot passes the front and they switch postions.

2 - Simple step - Step forward with your forward foot, bring the rear foot up so your in the same stance as you started.

[Mayhem1979]

double post

[Tash]

Question on #2:  Every unarmed martial art I've taken has said this is the wrong way to position one's feet because it inhibits quick lateral motion.  Instead I've always been taught to have my rear foot at roughly 45 degrees off center.  
Both sword styles taught a 90 degree angle between the front and rear feet.

So why the difference when using a sword?

[Mayhem1979]

Question on #2:  Every unarmed martial art I've taken has said this is the wrong way to position one's feet because it inhibits quick lateral motion.  Instead I've always been taught to have my rear foot at roughly 45 degrees off center.  
Both sword styles taught a 90 degree angle between the front and rear feet.

So why the difference when using a sword?

This is why I shouldn't write stuff when half asleep, it never makes as much sense as it should.  ;)  

I'll try this again.

2 - To start with stand normally.  Now take a step back with one foot, keeping the front foot where it is and your torso facing in the same direction as that front foot.  Keep your feet about shoulder's width apart and your weight balanced equally between both feet.

Your rear foot should have landed pointing outward at about a 30 to 45 degree angle.

This is your basic stance... no matter what guard you are in, your feet should be in about this position.  You can widen and narrow the stance as needed during the fight, but this is the position you should always start in.



And as to why the sword styles you learned dictate a 90 degree difference between the angles of your feet, I have no idea.  I just went up and tried it and I noted that my mobilty was notably hampered to the side of my forward foot, and it made it uncomfortable to have my torso facing my target like I was taught to do.

What little training I have is in the western styles though, so my knowledge of the eastern ones is a bit fuzzy at best.



...this would be so much easier to do in RL... :)

[tauman]

Your footwork would depend on what type of weapon you are wielding. For Italian rapier (i.e. linear, as opposed to the Spanish stuff on the circle), you'd definitely want your rear foot at 90 degrees. OTOH, for the Bolognese stuff, including the sidesword and spadone (i.e. the Doppelhander), the rear foot is closer to 45 degrees, as many of the moves are non-linear and involve oblique passing steps.

tauman

And as to why the sword styles you learned dictate a 90 degree difference between the angles of your feet, I have no idea.  I just went up and tried it and I noted that my mobilty was notably hampered to the side of my forward foot, and it made it uncomfortable to have my torso facing my target like I was taught to do.

What little training I have is in the western styles though, so my knowledge of the eastern ones is a bit fuzzy at best.

...this would be so much easier to do in RL... :)

[Richard_Strey]

The stance in any martial art is geared towards that which you have to deal with. In boxing or most unarmed arts, the attacks come in from the front and you attack forward. With European swordsmanship, the attacks may come from the front, but also the sides. Thus, you have to adjust your footing. Some period treatises show stances with almost 135°.

[Mayhem1979]

Your footwork would depend on what type of weapon you are wielding. For Italian rapier (i.e. linear, as opposed to the Spanish stuff on the circle), you'd definitely want your rear foot at 90 degrees. OTOH, for the Bolognese stuff, including the sidesword and spadone (i.e. the Doppelhander), the rear foot is closer to 45 degrees, as many of the moves are non-linear and involve oblique passing steps.

Alright before any other comment is made... a spadone and a doppelhander are completely different weapons.  A spadone is another term for a bastard sword, which almost never exceeded longsword length.

A doppelhander is a six-foot long sword that's used more like a short polearm most of hte time than a normal sword.  There is no resembalance between the two.


The rest of what you said I agree with.  Footwork does depend on the weapon you're using.  Thrusting dueling weapons like rapier have a lot of back and forth motion and you often have your torso turned completely sideways to present a smaller target.

This is most obvious and extreme in modern sport fencing where their feet may be well beyond 90 degrees.

However, rapiers were never considered to be battlefield weapons.  Most battlefield weapons... at least in the western traditions... had your foot closer to 45 degrees to allow for as much mobilty in every direction as possible.

The stance in any martial art is geared towards that which you have to deal with. In boxing or most unarmed arts, the attacks come in from the front and you attack forward. With European swordsmanship, the attacks may come from the front, but also the sides. Thus, you have to adjust your footing. Some period treatises show stances with almost 135°.

So you've looked at Meyer too?  :)

Best as we can figure, those instances...a long with alot of the other really goofy poses, are action shots.  Your seeing the footwork in transition, not in any still guard with those.

Or at least thats what thoes wonderful ppl in ARMA have been able to determine... and when you treat those as transitional steps and images, they're VERY effective.  :D

[Turin]

Mayhem1979 Wrote:

No. How strong you are has little do do with anything other than how hard you can make that weapon hit. This is already reflected in the fact that your strength is one of the main fators in figuring out how much damage has been dealt.

Superior strength to your opponent is an advantage as to your chance to hit.  A stronger blow will be more difficult to parry, and all of your parries will not deflect the weapon perfectly - combat is to chaotic for that.  The strength will also help in close, for manuvers such as shoving your opponent with a shield.

Yes, brute strength does not win in a chance to hit situation, but assuming equal levels of skill and agility for both opponents, the stronger one has an advantage.  For an extreme example, try parrying a 20lb sword swung by a troll (difficult to recreate obviously, but the point is valid).

TROS does give allow higher strength to cause more damage (To much IMO), so perhaps some unbalanced advantages are given to the stronger, which perhaps does counteract the fact strength is not part of the base to hit equation.  The weaker needs to spend more on defense to avoid being struck, as the hit would be of more consequence, also thereby allowing less dice for attack.

Personaly, I would like the strength apllied more in 1/2 steps for damage, but also included in the base to hit factor.