On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Greg Chalik <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > European use of swords was also designed to kill quickly.
>>
>> Well, sort of.  I mean, it's a simple machine, long skinny wedge to
>> improve leverage and slice.  The bigger differences are HOW they are
>> used.
>>
> Yes, and in GOOD families every boy considered capable received lessons on
> the how.

That's pretty much a different topic.

"designed to kill quickly" is largely a no-value statement.

(Unless you mean, as opposed to killing slowly...)

Weapons are (to some extent) designed to fight to fight against an
exected opponent against expected techniques.  Against other opponents
and techniques, they may or may  not work.

Japanese technique mostly emphasizes cutting over stabbing.
Post-1450 "European technique" if such a thing can be said to exist
transitions from mostly cutting to mostly stabbing (and then with
saber, back to cutting.)

>> > All the swashbuckling stuff is Hollywood.
>>
>> Mostly.
>>
> I think you are going to tell he some actors had lessons?

Nah.  It is, once again, a matter of technique and weapons.  Those
fights are trying for a cut rather than a thrust.  Again, a matter of
technique.

(Although, yes, Hollywood is mostly interested in cinematic fights
rather than historically accurate fights; two peole standing mostly
out of reach, maneuvering with tiny steps until one of them snakes out
and stabs the other in the face is also a realistic model, but not as
entertaining as Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone dancing around and over
the furniture while Rathbone makes Flynn look better than he really
is.)

>I came to the conclusion most
> swashbuckling films about pirates were badly researched.

Probably barely researched at all.  "entertainment" =/= documentary.
We expect entertainment narratives to flow a certain way.  Dying of
disease, scurvey, etc is not an entertaining narrative.

> largest pirate vessel was something like a 30-gun converted merchant. Very
> small, cowded decks. Very hard to swing an else they mostly use in movies.
> Even later accounts of boarding between ships of the line officers often
> chose a cutlass, or wore light cavalry or Rifles sabres.

And yet the cutlass and sabre are primarily cutting weapons.  If it
was hard to swing a sword, why would they choose to use primarily
cutting weapons?

>>saber vs epee

> Yes, very. The epee allows far more precision, enabling a faster ending to
> the duel with less damage.

I believe you have that backwards.

The epee is an almost-modern sport weapon, designed to allow people
who are NOT trying to kill each other to inflict minor wounds.  It's
not so much a matter of precision as it is a matter of cultural shift
(to first blood, minor peripheral hits, rather than trying to kill
your opponent) and the weapons evolving ot match that goal and
techniques.

If you were going to a real fight, with someone who was trying to
seriously injure or kill you, you wouldn't take an epee unless you had
no other options.  This is why Victorian era officers and NCOs are
still carrying sabers, cutlasses, et al-they are going to be trying to
kill people, or at least remove them from the fight, and using a tool
designed for that purpose.

Dan

--

"Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from a genuine
kook." -Alan Morgan