I got into a sword fight with a friend.

[Boyevyye De 244]

It's a tradition in many cultures. More than once throughout history, martial arts were banned and weapons prohibited so practitioners disguised their techniques as dances so they could be practiced in secret.

Our Cossack host was not totally killed off because we supported the Soviet Union. 

[yayayayayala 1,668]

It's a tradition in many cultures. More than once throughout history, martial arts were banned and weapons prohibited so practitioners disguised their techniques as dances so they could be practiced in secret.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9BDS6Aq3O0&list=PLYdt1GLqyxd2RfpQlcdOtZAo0eQz7N-Lx&index=8

 

... How do I even link a video on here so its imbedded?

 

 

That is so cool!! :D

(BTW I thin the video has to not be in a playlist to be embeddded :3)

[Boyevyye De 244]

 

 

That is so cool!! :D

(BTW I thin the video has to not be in a playlist to be embeddded :3)

But I posted another video once and had the same issue. I would imagine there would be an embedded video button to use when you post but I dont see it...

 

And thank you, but I dont know how to do it like that. The sword dance I mean.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Boyevyye De

[yayayayayala 1,668]

But I posted another video once and had the same issue. I would imagine there would be an embedded video button to use when you post but I dont see it...

 

And thank you, but I dont know how to do it like that. The sword dance I mean.

Huh. There should be a Youtube button, shouldn't there? XD

 

That must take years to learn...that finesse, and with a real and very sharp sword! :3 I wonder if that girl ever accidentally chopped the ends of her hair off when she was learning, lol. XD

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Huh. There should be a Youtube button, shouldn't there? XD

 

That must take years to learn...that finesse, and with a real and very sharp sword! :3 I wonder if that girl ever accidentally chopped the ends of her hair off when she was learning, lol. XD

 

Well you usually train with a blunted or non-steel weapon for the first few years. Once you get good enough at controlling the blade though, you've reached a level of ability where the risk of self injury is minimized.

I have never even held a sword

 

Lack of opportunity or interest?

[Xenomorphic 362]

Guys, I am Jack Sparrows Cousin Iz so gutt.

[Boyevyye De 244]

Huh. There should be a Youtube button, shouldn't there? XD

 

That must take years to learn...that finesse, and with a real and very sharp sword! :3 I wonder if that girl ever accidentally chopped the ends of her hair off when she was learning, lol. XD

Wait. That guy was a girl? 

 

And there definitely should be.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Wait. That guy was a girl? 

 

And there definitely should be.

 

There's another video in the playlist with a woman going through a form.

[Boyevyye De 244]

Well you usually train with a blunted or non-steel weapon for the first few years. Once you get good enough at controlling the blade though, you've reached a level of ability where the risk of self injury is minimized.

 

Lack of opportunity or interest?

Ah, ok. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtgBNf9nObs&index=3&list=PLYdt1GLqyxd2RfpQlcdOtZAo0eQz7N-Lx

 

I really like this video too. They let and elderly man try too. 

[ARagY 1,152]

I'm good with swords. I prefer two over one anyday

[Night Mist 151]

I would love to learn how to use swords. @_@ I almost bought one once last year.

[Gearbox10mm 794]

How I imagine most sword fights would go down today.

 

 

But seriously, I've never been much into swords and such but I am subscribed to Skallagrim on Youtube and he definitely presents them in an interesting manner. https://www.youtube.com/user/SkallagrimNilsson/featured I might even get one someday, just to have as a somewhat functional novelty item that could theoretically be used as it was intended if the situation ever arose.   

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I would love to learn how to use swords. @_@ I almost bought one once last year.

 

Any particular reason you want to learn?

How I imagine most sword fights would go down today.

 

 

And if neither combatant had a gun? No swordsman or martial artist would stand there brandishing his weapon if his attacker was armed with a firearm. Ever hear of the 21 feet rule?

 

 

 

But seriously, I've never been much into swords and such but I am subscribed to Skallagrim on Youtube and he definitely presents them in an interesting manner. https://www.youtube....ilsson/featuredI might even get one someday, just to have as a somewhat functional novelty item that could theoretically be used as it was intended if the situation ever arose.   

 

Cool guy indeed. Why the otherwise lack of interest though? 

[Night Mist 151]

Any particular reason you want to learn?

I've just always loved the many types of swords and how they've honestly played a huge role in history. I have a respect for the weapons. 

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I've just always loved the many types of swords and how they've honestly played a huge role in history. I have a respect for the weapons. 

 

Well they're not as much of a historical weapon as one might think when it comes to grand military conquests. Their importance is more retroactively attributed than historical fact. The image of thousands of men charging each other armed with swords would be the modern day equivalent of U.S. or U.K. infantry fighting the Taliban with both sides only armed with their knives.

 

Swords were expensive to make and took many years of training to learn how to use. It was much easier to equip your armies with spears and took only a few months, at most, of training to use them. In terms of history changing weapons, those are more along the lines of the recurve composite bow, the pike, and yes, the rifle and then the machine gun that really changed warfare.

 

That being said, swords were the weapon of choice for officers, royalty, and often a civilian self defense weapon for gentry for a reason. They ARE very effective close combat weapons withe a multitude of uses and options for fighting with them.

[Night Mist 151]

Well they're not as much of a historical weapon as one might think when it comes to grand military conquests. Their importance is more retroactively attributed than historical fact. The image of thousands of men charging each other armed with swords would be the modern day equivalent of U.S. or U.K. infantry fighting the Taliban with both sides only armed with their knives.

 

Swords were expensive to make and took many years of training to learn how to use. It was much easier to equip your armies with spears and took only a few months, at most, of training to use them. In terms of history changing weapons, those are more along the lines of the recurve composite bow, the pike, and yes, the rifle and then the machine gun that really changed warfare.

 

That being said, swords were the weapon of choice for officers, royalty, and often a civilian self defense weapon for gentry for a reason. They ARE very effective close combat weapons withe a multitude of uses and options for fighting with them.

It isn't just their use in war that interests me. It's the fact that so many cultures could make the same weapon but in different variations. Though I knew they weren't cheap to make I did think they were a bit more common in use then that.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

It isn't just their use in war that interests me. It's the fact that so many cultures could make the same weapon but in different variations. Though I knew they weren't cheap to make I did think they were a bit more common in use then that.

 

You're not wrong with that. Almost every culture has not only unique variations on the sword but myths surrounding it. (Excalibur, Kusanagi-no-Tsurugi, Tyrfing, the Lightsaber) Which I think is more prominent in most people's minds than the actual history, and I include myself in that.

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

 

It depended on the time period and place really. Regions that had lots of steel ore could more easily procure the resources and the closer they were to industrial level smithing made the actual manufacture easier. Whereas mineral dry places, swords were afforded to only a precious few.

 

I'm not saying they were rare, but the fate of nations almost never rested upon the outcome of a one on one sword fight.

[Night Mist 151]

You're not wrong with that. Almost every culture has not only unique variations on the sword but myths surrounding it. (Excalibur, Kusanagi-no-Tsurugi, Tyrfing, the Lightsaber) Which I think is more prominent in most people's minds than the actual history, and I include myself in that.

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

 

It depended on the time period and place really. Regions that had lots of steel ore could more easily procure the resources and the closer they were to industrial level smithing made the actual manufacture easier. Whereas mineral dry places, swords were afforded to only a precious few.

 

I'm not saying they were rare, but the fate of nations almost never rested upon the outcome of a one on one sword fight.

Well myths naturally are more interesting and tend to stick in everyone's minds much better then historical facts. Also catches your imagination a lot quicker. I'm big on both history and myths, but I must admit I can tell you more about myths than historical facts.   

 

Okay that makes much more sense. Yeah I really think the only time that would of matter if two kings were engaged in the middle of the battle field. 

[MountainDrew 1,877]

Maces and warhammers are far more useful against armored people anyway.

 

Don't care how strong the armor is. If you smack someone on the head who's wearing a steel helmet they're getting a concussion or a broken skull.

Ya know what's really useful against armor?  A 50 cal. sniper rifle like the one my friend Greg has.  But I digress, I will always favor a blunt weapon in a fight (it's kinda hard to fight back if your bones are broken).  

 

If someone is actually trying to assault me and I have no weapon then all bets are off.  It doesn't matter how much they hurt me as long as I hurt them more.

[Midnight Justice 70]

Well they're not as much of a historical weapon as one might think when it comes to grand military conquests. Their importance is more retroactively attributed than historical fact. The image of thousands of men charging each other armed with swords would be the modern day equivalent of U.S. or U.K. infantry fighting the Taliban with both sides only armed with their knives.

 

Swords were expensive to make and took many years of training to learn how to use. It was much easier to equip your armies with spears and took only a few months, at most, of training to use them. In terms of history changing weapons, those are more along the lines of the recurve composite bow, the pike, and yes, the rifle and then the machine gun that really changed warfare.

 

That being said, swords were the weapon of choice for officers, royalty, and often a civilian self defense weapon for gentry for a reason. They ARE very effective close combat weapons withe a multitude of uses and options for fighting with them.

 

Quite right, and as gunpowder weapons began to develop and became more efficient and useful swords were typically relegated to a decorative yet practical sidearm.  Sabres were officer sidearms until the 20th century.  And of course the civilian gentry carried rapiers during the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries.

 

But really it's pikes, spears, and variants that were the go to weapon for soldiers throughout most recorded history. (And bows, but those are ranged)  From the Hoplite spear, to Roman pila, to Scottish schiltron pikes, Italian and Swiss pikemen. etc. etc.  Spears lend themselves to being highly effective when in formation with others, require little training  (and THAT is huge), are cheap to make in comparison with swords, and have a very long reach.  Piercing weapons are far more common than hacking and slashing weapons.

 

Even English longbowmen, who trained from childhood to pull their giant yew bows often carried poleaxes and pikes as well.  Soldiers with pikes were the backbone of every army of the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance (even though the Renaissance wasn't actually a thing).

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

Okay that makes much more sense. Yeah I really think the only time that would of matter if two kings were engaged in the middle of the battle field. 

 

There were kings that did lead from the front, but that usually meant they were in the command tent coordinating everything, not fighting on the front line. That did happen though from time to time, but the thing is, the king usually ALSO carried a lance, spear, halberd, or other pole weapon. Their sword was, again, the equivalent of the combat knife, you use it when your primary weapon has failed.

 

If in the event that two kings were at war and they were both leading from the front, the likelihood that they would both be on the same battlefield on the same time was very small. Even in the off chance that they both were on the same battlefield, engaged at the same time, it's very unlikely the two would personally fight each other during the battle, that's why both kings have honor guards.

 

The image of two knights duking it out blade to blade largely comes not from the battle field, but from tourneys. Again, the entertainment, the source of myth and storytelling. The bards might take what we would called "artistic liberties" and say the victorious king personally slew his nemesis when really it was the king's forces.

 

That isn't to say a King NEVER fought a mortal duel, but the point is that's the exception, not the rule.

[yayayayayala 1,668]

There were kings that did lead from the front, but that usually meant they were in the command tent coordinating everything, not fighting on the front line. That did happen though from time to time, but the thing is, the king usually ALSO carried a lance, spear, halberd, or other pole weapon. Their sword was, again, the equivalent of the combat knife, you use it when your primary weapon has failed.

 

If in the event that two kings were at war and they were both leading from the front, the likelihood that they would both be on the same battlefield on the same time was very small. Even in the off chance that they both were on the same battlefield, engaged at the same time, it's very unlikely the two would personally fight each other during the battle, that's why both kings have honor guards.

 

The image of two knights duking it out blade to blade largely comes not from the battle field, but from tourneys. Again, the entertainment, the source of myth and storytelling. The bards might take what we would called "artistic liberties" and say the victorious king personally slew his nemesis when really it was the king's forces.

 

That isn't to say a King NEVER fought a mortal duel, but the point is that's the exception, not the rule.

This is seriously geeky, I love it! XD

[Night Mist 151]

There were kings that did lead from the front, but that usually meant they were in the command tent coordinating everything, not fighting on the front line. That did happen though from time to time, but the thing is, the king usually ALSO carried a lance, spear, halberd, or other pole weapon. Their sword was, again, the equivalent of the combat knife, you use it when your primary weapon has failed.

 

If in the event that two kings were at war and they were both leading from the front, the likelihood that they would both be on the same battlefield on the same time was very small. Even in the off chance that they both were on the same battlefield, engaged at the same time, it's very unlikely the two would personally fight each other during the battle, that's why both kings have honor guards.

 

The image of two knights duking it out blade to blade largely comes not from the battle field, but from tourneys. Again, the entertainment, the source of myth and storytelling. The bards might take what we would called "artistic liberties" and say the victorious king personally slew his nemesis when really it was the king's forces.

 

That isn't to say a King NEVER fought a mortal duel, but the point is that's the exception, not the rule.

I'm not saying they all did that or it was common. It was just the only example I could think of that would be a duel that could decide a nation's fate.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

This is seriously geeky, I love it! XD

 

Hey, as much pride I take in fiction, at the very least this "geeky" subject is history. This stuff actually happened.

[Midnight Justice 70]

 

 

That isn't to say a King NEVER fought a mortal duel, but the point is that's the exception, not the rule.

 

If the King has to fight then they've very likely already lost.  It would mean that not only has the front line collapsed, it would mean that their army has been routed to the point where the battle has reached the back lines and if a king had to fight for their life then that means their personal bodyguard would be too hard pressed to help them.  At that point they would surrender and hope for a  good ransom or fight and die.  

 

That doesn't mean that every so often a king wouldn't want to get his hands dirty, for example King John the Blind, King of Bohemia who fought with the French at the battle of Crecy (many of the French nobility died there, perhaps as high as 4,000 although that count may be unreliable and exaggerated), died because he wanted to jump into the fray and fight. (Dude was blind.) 

 

It's a generalization and there are always exceptions to generalizations, but there ya go.