News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

half-swording?

Started by chade0, October 31, 2003, 11:33:12 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

chade0

Hello,

I can't exactly understand what half-swording means. So, you graspt the blade with your off hand and use your sword as short spear?
Does this mean that the weapon can only be used for thrusting, not cutting?
How do you avoid getting your off hand injured? isnt the blade that sharp?
And what about when parrying... arent your offhand's fingers in danger?

So, what i want to know is what half-swording actually is.. I had not heard about it before reading tros.


Thanks, and sorry for my poor English skills.

Thanaeon

It's when you grip a two-handed sword (usually a doppelhander) so that your main hand is gripping the main grip while using your off-hand to grip it above the main cross-guard. This way, you have a fairly wide grip on the sword, using it a bit like a polearm. I think you can both swing or thrust in half-swording mode, but swings will lose much of their strength due to smaller leverage, but thrusts will instead be more powerful.

Caz

It can be done with any sword, and safely.  The hand gripping the blade won't be injured by your own blade as long as you have a firm grip, or gloves.  
   When parrying at the half sword, it doesn't place your blade hand in any particular danger.  It's like parrying with a polearm.
   You can't "cut" at the half sword without hurting your blade hand, Newtons law and all, but you can slice.  I think the general concensus is to use combt knife cut dmage for that.
http://www.schielhau.org/talfecht.html
   Scroll down that page to tafel 36, which is a good example.  If you look around that site there are plenty of others as well.

Jasper

A few notes on the above:

Your safety (i.e. the safety of the hand holding the blade) is not dependant on your wearing a glove at all: the blade isn't really sharpened at the midsection (sicne the cuts are delivered with the very end of the blade anyway).

Just to be clear, half-swording can be done with lots of swords, not just dopplehanders, though it was more common with them due ot great length.   With a longsword or such, you could easily switch to it mid-fight, or use it entirely if fighting someone in heavy armor.

I don't imagine cutting would be al that effective per se, but keep in mind that you could be doing a lot of grappling like that, so the weapons is still useful for more than just thrusting.  Also remember that you can reverse the sword while half-swording (particularly if it's a longsword) and smash your opponent over the head with the handle, or pop him with the pommel.
Jasper McChesney
Primeval Games Press

chade0

Thanks a lot for your answers!

So I'll decrease the cutting damage a bit and everyone's happy =).


Thanks

Lance D. Allen

What some forgot to mention is how some swords were actually designed to be half-sworded, having a leather-wrapped portion on the lower blade, or a specifically blunted portion. Some I've seen even have a second hand-guard, but I can't recall where I've seen them. I've heard this portion referred to as a ricasso grip, though I cannot back that up with any historical evidence.
~Lance Allen
Wolves Den Publishing
Eternally Incipient Publisher of Mage Blade, ReCoil and Rats in the Walls

Caz

Yeah, the blunt portion just past the guard is the ricasso.  Some were long enough to be gripped, many had a very blunt ricasso for defending with.  The renaissance two handed swords often had the second guard for short half swording.
   As far as historical evidence is concerned pretty much all swords were just as sharp at the midsection, which doesnt really affect 1/2 swording.

Mike Holmes

Rounded edges.

At a demo given by Jake and John Clemens, they made a point of sending the swords out into the audience, and having you feel the edge. First you were encouraged to run you hand along the edge. European swords were not sharp like knives are sharpened. The edges are all rounded, the metal folded even there. This has some significant advantages over the sharpened sword, which because of the narrowness of the edge, will tend to nick when impacting other metal, whereas the rounded one will only dent slightly if at all under the same pressure. IOW, this means that thrusting would not be dangerous because there was no sharp edge to slip along and get cut by.

OTOH, then they asked you to grab the sword around it and squeeze. This hurts a little, but doesn't cut the skin. This points out that an edge that size is "sharp enough" that when swung it has an effect like that cord on your weed-whacker. Sure, technically blunt, but it'll cut just fine when going at velocity. Again, the point being that as long as the hand is on the sword, and not impacting it, you're unlikely to cut yourself with it with a swing.

OTOH, like I said, it'd hurt like a sonsabitch, so I'd definitely want a glove on there if I were to swing while half-swording. OTOH, given the lack of effectiveness, I'd just change back to a normal grip to swing. I'm sure that, as stated above, some swords were blunted "further" to accomodate this (I mean, nobody would question that an estoc was designed with this in mind), but all european swords seem to me to have been "Blunt enough" to use this way without significant harm.

Basically, don't try this with a Katana if you want to keep your fingers. :-) No surprise at the differences in technology given that the Katana didn't have to face metal armor. No need to half-sword when a swing is probably enough to cut your opponent nearly in half.

The ricasso, IIRC, was for another grip that was, something in-between half-swording and a more normal grip. Clemens pointed out that there were all sorts of modified grips (displayed weird pommel grips, for example). I think in game terms these come down to character proficiency, and in terms of game tactics there's only "normal" and half-sword grips. Half-swording, in this case meaning not the ricasso grip, but the firmly "polearmish" grip well down the blade that dramtically increases thrusting power, but decreases swining potence.

Mike
Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.

Caz

I thoroughly disagree.  I hate to argue but that seems so far from the truth.  I think you must've misunderstood them.  Most surviving european swords meant to cut are as sharp as kitchen knives.  Dull swords don't cut half as well as sharp ones, and they don't slice.
   You can 1/2 sword easily with very sharp blades.  I've seen this explained and demonstrated by mr. Clements as well.  
   It's a huge myth these days that because many soldiers wore metal armours in medieval europe that their swords must've been dull so they could beat on people with them.  This is absolutely false.  
   Also on medieval blades meant to cut there was a large variety of ege geometries depending on the blade form, but they were all sharp, not "rounded".  The closest I can think of would be a convex edge bevel, still going to a very sharp edge.  
   Most surviving swords that have seen a lot of use are narrower than they started due to so much honing.

Salamander

Quote from: CazI thoroughly disagree.  I hate to argue but that seems so far from the truth.  I think you must've misunderstood them.  Most surviving european swords meant to cut are as sharp as kitchen knives.  Dull swords don't cut half as well as sharp ones, and they don't slice.
   You can 1/2 sword easily with very sharp blades.  I've seen this explained and demonstrated by mr. Clements as well.  
   It's a huge myth these days that because many soldiers wore metal armours in medieval europe that their swords must've been dull so they could beat on people with them.  This is absolutely false.  
   Also on medieval blades meant to cut there was a large variety of ege geometries depending on the blade form, but they were all sharp, not "rounded".  The closest I can think of would be a convex edge bevel, still going to a very sharp edge.  
   Most surviving swords that have seen a lot of use are narrower than they started due to so much honing.

I have to agree with Caz on this. From what I understand a good portion of the weapons of the time used an Appleseed edge geometry. It was sharp, but not crazy sharp and would maintain its edge and would not be folded easily after impact with hard or unyielding surfaces. If I recall, a Viking sword was recovered from a river in Sweden which was still sharp enough to cut paper... after about 1000 years of neglect...
"Don't fight your opponent's sword, fight your opponent. For as you fight my sword, I shall fight you. My sword shall be nicked, your body shall be peirced through and I shall have a new sword".

Jasper

Perhaps this is just an issue of semantics: what exactly is "sharp" or "not sharp?"  It seems likely to me that in the demonstration that Mike saw, Mr. Clements was stressing the fact that swords are not razor sharp, nor even likely as sharp as many eastern swords, as is commonly believed.
Jasper McChesney
Primeval Games Press

Mike Holmes

Thanks Jasper. Semantics indeed.

The swords I observed were not blunt. By rounded edges, I mean that they had an edge about the same width as that weed-whacker cord. This is just me looking at the edges of their swords up close (they discussed that they were fairly accurate reproductions), and feeling them. Like I said, grabbing the sword bare-handed hurt. It wasn't what I'd call blunt. But obviously, just like they described, the metalurgy included folding the edge for strength. Which they pointed out was different than most knives and swords like katanas which are left without that folding on the edge (or which is filed off for cheap knives).

They then discussed that, occasionally, swords were made that were blunt for special applications (again, the estoc obviously). But that most swords were like the ones that they displayed.

It does seem to me that European swords would be fairly useless for slicing, if, by that, you mean dragging the edge along a victim (with enough velocity to penetrate, I'd call that a swing, I guess). Unless it was the point (or some part that was sharpened near the point) that caused the cut. Clemens at one point took his sword, and waved it around holding it by the blade to demonstrate that it wouldn't cut him, in addition to running his hand along the blade in a slicing motion.

They were very specific about this, and it all made internal sense with my observations. Jake, being as you gave the demonstration, could you elaborate? Has this information become obsolete?

Mike
Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.

Salamander

Quote from: Mike HolmesThanks Jasper. Semantics indeed.

The swords I observed were not blunt. By rounded edges, I mean that they had an edge about the same width as that weed-whacker cord. This is just me looking at the edges of their swords up close (they discussed that they were fairly accurate reproductions), and feeling them. Like I said, grabbing the sword bare-handed hurt. It wasn't what I'd call blunt. But obviously, just like they described, the metalurgy included folding the edge for strength. Which they pointed out was different than most knives and swords like katanas which are left without that folding on the edge (or which is filed off for cheap knives).

They then discussed that, occasionally, swords were made that were blunt for special applications (again, the estoc obviously). But that most swords were like the ones that they displayed.

It does seem to me that European swords would be fairly useless for slicing, if, by that, you mean dragging the edge along a victim (with enough velocity to penetrate, I'd call that a swing, I guess). Unless it was the point (or some part that was sharpened near the point) that caused the cut. Clemens at one point took his sword, and waved it around holding it by the blade to demonstrate that it wouldn't cut him, in addition to running his hand along the blade in a slicing motion.

They were very specific about this, and it all made internal sense with my observations. Jake, being as you gave the demonstration, could you elaborate? Has this information become obsolete?

Mike

I think that the blades you were shown were what are known in the community as rebated blades. The edges were about 2-3mm thick, right? That type of edge is mostly used for live fencing practice where the dynamics of a steel weapon give you a better feel for the actual use of a sword where the properties of wood and aluminum will not. We should of course ask Jake about it the next time he comes around... Jake?
"Don't fight your opponent's sword, fight your opponent. For as you fight my sword, I shall fight you. My sword shall be nicked, your body shall be peirced through and I shall have a new sword".

Caz

I agree with salamander, I think you got the wrong idea.  But hey, here are a couple of quotes from the late Ewart Oakeshotte, who handled and knew more about antique swords than Mr. Clements (not their use mind you, but the weapon itself)  He said they were "razor sharp" and exgeration mind you, but you get the idea, no sword, from any nation, was ever razor sharp.  He also said that all cutting blades he'd handled that were still in decent condition were "kitchen knife sharp".  
   I'll take his word for it for one.

Mike Holmes

Tired of waiting for Jake, I did some of my own research. Seems that like all things in real life, that the answer is fairly complex.

From the ARMA site (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/heymr.htm):
QuoteAnother element of a real Medieval or Renaissance sword is its edge, or rather, the bevel from its center out toward the intersecting point of the planes of the two sides. The edge then is not just the sharp part but the entire surface angle. Commonly however, we refer to the edge of a sword as being its degree of sharpness, and here there is considerable misunderstanding and debate as there are different degrees of sharpness and ways of polishing edges. Even then, there are differences between edges for soft as opposed to hard targets.  The variety of possible edge types for impacting different targets is considerable.  Most cutting swords do not have a knife-like wedge-shaped edge (which can fold upon impact) but more of a rolled tear-drop cantle shape which is stronger. As well, edges for slicing soft yielding materials are not the same as those for shearing harder resistant materials. Expert swordsmith Dan Maragni explains the importance of the edge on cutting swords by noting: "The edge is in many ways the most important part of the sword.  This is the interface between the blade and the target and must be properly shaped and presented to maximize the effects of the cut.  If the edge is shaped incorrectly for the target, too thick or thin depending on hard or soft targets, it will either not 'bite' or it will fail by either chipping or collapsing on contact."  Paul Champaign also suggests, "Think of a sword edge as a shape moving through water, the least resistance will win. This has nothing to do with ease of sharpening, chip resistance, blade handling, or manufacture, etc. As the target gets harder you have to adjust the 'meat' of the rolled edge or the angle of the cantle, etc. You could also leave the edge the same and soften the edge so it won't chip. There are multiple solutions to the problem...it's all in the execution. The best solution is the one that holds up the best to the various things you have to cut." He adds, "Different periods and sword types will use different bevel and edge geometries according to what they are intended to do, just as the blade shape changes between a cutting blade and a thrusting one."
Interesting article, and really great pics of Clement and the other guys in a Sweedish armory. Check out the "Flambard" and the huge falchion looking thing. Who'd have imagined that that one.

Anyhow, it seems that European swords came in a variety of formats. I'd suggest that ones that were intended for Half-Swording would have had that "rolled tear-drop cantle shape" that they mention. "More meat" as the one guy puts it.

What's really cool about this is that you can come up with rules for this, I think. Have three classes of blade edge. Sharp, "normal", and thick. Sharp gets a +1 damage vs. foes unarmored, unaffected by leather, and may become damaged if it hits metal armor. Thick would be -1 overall, but negate two points of metal armor. Probably not really realisitic, but a potentially fun rule.

Mike
Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.