Rapier vs Sabre Nick vs Tom
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
- Another mixed weapon sparring video. There has been a lot of requests lately for sabre vs rapier videos. We posted one last week, but here is another against a different kind of sabre fighter. Whereas Adam was a comparatively static fighter with finer point control and parry riposte approach. Tom has a much more aggressive approach. He relies on larger arcs of motion with the weapon and tries to apply pressure by covering a lot more ground to close on the rapierist.
You know, Skalligram does this thing where after every hit there is an instant replay in slow motion and a pause on the point of contact with a red hit box. I'm not saying to rip him off, but it's a great system to use.
+Gungriffen I did that on my personal channel many years ago (HEMA Instructor Nick Thomas), the problem is the sheer editing time required. It does work really well though yes. It is something I will go back to for one off occasions, but not common practice. We post up a lot of sparring videos, and just can't do that for all of them. If I did this as a business then yes. Same with lessons, about 6-7 years ago I started making video lessons for rapier, but because of the editing time I only got around to making two. Whereas now with this system we are getting a load of good lessons up.
Make it cinematic
And the viewers and business will come
Just pay someone to do it
There’s definitely someone out there needing work that is fully capable of doing it.
Is it just me or do sabre fighting techniques look fucking terrifying!?
SwitchFeathers That's the fun part!
Rapiers have to be one of the most annoying things to spar against.
spear can be answer
@@tt-ec7yl yes
Even though he's using a rapier, Nick's saber skills really shine through here. That hanging guard into a leg slip and one-legged cut at 4:25 was awesome.
R1-R1-R1
I get it, but please... Don't.
XD
What is this a reference to?
@@uncledanni9352dark souls pvp I assume
The first two minutes is an interesting lesson in figuring out measure. It must have been terrifying to be in a duel with live weapons and not have a safe feeling out period where the other guy wouldn't put a sharp, metal point through your face.
+docjjp ...which is not a bad thing. These were weapons meant for self defense. Self defense=not dying. Nobody wants to stab anybody, weapon's a success.
I recognize nick from his stance, really learned to spar with my friends using it, we arent offical fencer, just three or four friends trying to fence, no fecing clubs in my country…
Interesting. Looks like the saber came out really aggressively, and the rapier was tentative; but after a while the rapier was thrusting and scoring at will and the saber seemed to be frustrated.
Sabre looked intimidating, but I think the rapier scored more lethal hits in total.
P Ciprian it’s really not debatable, the rapier scored more hits including to the face, having a metal spike driven into your body may not always kill you but it would stop you in your tracks much of the time allowing for follow up
I agree, the sabre seems to take more advantage of momentum and the rapier has more explosive energy and would also depend on armour as the rapier would find it easier to penetrate then the sabre (thrust vs cut) and the fact that the sabre having the shorter blade out of the two has to put more work in to close the gap
It rather depends on the fighting technique. This man inflicted sweeping single blows and left the defense. And the effectiveness of both blades depends on their types. The saber is different: gaddare, shamshir, Cossack sabers (there are different borrowings, but mostly these sabers are light), Polish sabers. I think that the blade of an ideal saber should be of standard thickness (2-3 centimeters/scale) and curvature.
Nick is very good here. It's hard to tell sometimes when he scores hits. The amount of cuts with the rapier was surprising. Especially to the lower body. Is that common?
+Prim Roan Rapier would not normally use as many cuts proportionally to thrusts as in this video, it is caused by the matchup. Thrusts are often not immediately incapacitating, and therefore against someone using a lot more cut work you have to be a lot more careful when and where you place them. Also against someone who closes with you, cuts are excellent, as even past the point they can still strike.
+Academy of Historical Fencing How much of Rapier training is focused around placement (of thrusts) and stance/footwork in regards to getting out after a thrust? That seems to be the big factor on whether or not you get hit after a thrust or not.
I also noticed that Tom wasn't engaging your tip. Maybe that has to do with style or use of a saber. But I think I recall you fighting someone with a longsword and they held the tip outstretched almost always.
+Prim Roan A large part, but against someone with such aggressive style as Tom, a simple recovery from a lunge will often not be enough to get to safe distance, and in some timings it is just not possible to recover in time, in which case the attack shouldn't have been launched in the first place.
Yes that is Tom's style, and much more like the sort of early Polish sabre style that is becoming popular rather than the British military type. Personally if fighting a rapier I would used outstretched forward guards, but that manner of fighting presents a new range of problems. As the rapier user however, I would avoid blade contact with the heavier, shorter and more cut based weapon at all times, you cannot dominate their blade like you can an equivalent rapier, and it encourages them to close, which you do not want.
How would a rapier user likely fair against someone who is equally as skilled, but is using a greatsword/zweihander?
A zweihander should dominate a rapier, just because it both has the reach advantage and leverage advantage. We have so far not put this to the test because it is difficult. It isn't really possible to use the zweihander as it was intended and still be safe for your training partner. Recent chances such as the synthetic zweihander/montante and protective kit might allow us to go someway closer soon though.
Is it just me, or does that seem like a rather short example of a rapier? It seems like more of smallsword blade, despite having a cup hilt, which is more aesthetically like a rapier. It was a nice sparring video nonetheless.
+SolidBren It is most definitely a rapier, but representative of later period examples from the latter part of 17th and 18th century. We paired them together simply because the sabre is representative of a 19th century one, we would need a more open hilted and heavier sabre for representing earlier sabres that would have been used against larger and heavier rapiers.
It has a 39" blade, as opposed to the 42-45" we normally use for earlier period rapiers. Smallswords are typically 29-32". So essentially it is of a transitional era. It also still has a double edged blade capable of cutting.
Oh, that's very interesting. Thanks for pointing that out!
Nice fight! I enjoyed that, the only thing I could add for the sake of the video clarity is to signal the hit for the viewer, after disengaging just point with your hand where the hit has landed as sometimes its very hard to see on the video.
Other than that great job!
Yeah, I have no idea when someone is hit and who hit who
This channel: "You reeeeeally aaaaare a great swooooordsman"
Glad to find this video, I'm writing a scene of this kind of matchup in a short story.
Clearly the saber is really better when used on horseback. Holding the saber in a hanging guard looks like it would fatigue the arm after a few minutes. Rearing back to swing leaves so much target for a quick thrust and all that motion seems to take a lot more energy.
Tell that to the Spanish Dragoons. Look up "Spanish Dragoon Sword". These straight bladed rapier-like swords did awesome on horseback (Dragoons are a type of medium weight cavalry, often sided with a pistol or other small firearm). The ability to stab at some speed with a longer sword was the more modernized version of the early European lance. It delivered in damage and, contrary to popular belief, the rapiers would not be bent or break on horseback. A true rapier blade could be put between two cinder blocks and hit repeatedly with an axe or hammer, and the blocks would be first to break, if not the axe or hammer -- especially if Toledan steel.
Typically Dragoons were the all purpose "cheap stuff" of cavalry. Heavy horses were expensive to purchase and maintain and limited to elite battle cavalry units. Dragoons were mounted on lighter horses that didn't provide as much shock as heavies but could still mount a charge while being more economical. Straight swords were used by these types so that when you were packed in boot to boot you could hold the sword out in front of you and batter your way through an opponent. Light cavalry fought in smaller looser formations because the were the vanguard, rearguard and flank protection of the army. Swinging a saber in a moving horse duel is easier that stabbing with a long point. Standing in a gym with rubberized shoes is not going to give you the same experience as sitting on a horse, it just isn't. Spanish horses are exceptional when well trained. It takes a long time to get the horse and rider up to that level, trust me I have been at it for years and am no where near where I would like to be to be well prepared to "fence" on a horse. Basic cavalry training was more general, horses and riders probably wouldn't live long enough to master baroque horsemanship anyway.
www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/French_Cavalry.html
According to order issued on October 28th 1802 the horses for French cuirassiers and dragoons were to be between 15 1/4 and 15 1/2 hands tall (154.3m-158.3 m). After war in 1805 the minimum height for horses were relaxed, even for the cuirassiers. But when Prussian and Austrian horses were captured and new territories annexed the requirements were heightened. In 1812 the height of horses was as follow:
- cuirassiers and carabiniers - . . . . 155 cm - 160 cm
- dragoons and artillery - . . . . . . . . .153 cm - 155 cm
- chasseurs and hussars - . . . . . . . . 149 cm - 153 cm
- lighthorse-lancers - . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 cm - 150 cm
- Polish uhlans - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 cm - 153 cm
- Polish Krakusi - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 cm - 142 cm (nicknamed by Napoleon "my Pygmy Cavalry")
During every campaign there was always a shortage of good cavalry horses. In 1805 between Ulm and Austerlitz the French lacked so many horses that the Emperor sent officers to buy horses "of whatever breed" and color for the cavalrymen.
- The Arabian mounts were not as fast as European warmbloods but they were sure-footed. They were famous for elegance, toughness and almost legendary endurance. Arabian horses were very popular among officers and generals. Napoleon usually rode on Arabian: the snow-white "Euphrates" at Wagram, the dapple-gray "Taurus" in Russia (1812), at Leipzig (1813) and in France (1814), and "Marengo" at Waterloo. Napoleon encouraged the use of Arabians at the French national studs. Almost all European countries mixed their native mounts (coldbloods) with Arabians and getting new breeds (warmbloods). In 1800s the biggest studs of Arabians were founded in Hungary and Poland.
- The Andalusian horse was called "the royal horse of Europe". Many war-leaders rode on the Spanish horses. This is friendly, docile, strongly build, brave (used for bull fighting) and of catlike agility.
- The French horse Comtois of Burgundy was used by the army of King Louis XIV and by Napoleon. Characteristics: hardiness, endurance, good nature and easy to train.
- The French horse Auxois of Burgundy was a powerful one. This mount was a quiet and good natured, used also by artillery.
- The French horse Ardennais was a very popular horse in French cavalry.
- The French horse Percheron was a powerful mount used by heavy cavalry. By XVII Century it attained wide spread popularity. In early XIX Century the French goverment established a stud at le Pin for the development of army mounts. The horse was docile, energetic and of big size.
- The French horse Boulonnais of Flanders enjoyed a great popularity in every European heavy cavalry and among horse dealers. Napoleon purchased thousands of these horses for his cuirassiers.
- The German horse of Frederiksborg enjoyed numerous exports which seriously depleted the stock.
- The Hannoverian horse was used by light artillery and heavy and line cavalry. It was probably the most successful warmblood in Europe. The Hannoverian breeding industry has existed for 400 years. Even today this horse excel in equestrian disciplines of jumping and driving.
- The Holsteiner horse was developed in northern Germany. Their reputation was such that only in 1797 approx. 100.000 horses were exported ! This horse has a good character, is fast and strong. Napoleon purchased very many Holsteiners. The famous Saxon heavy cavalry and guard rode on Holsteiners.
Very interesting. I'm not sure about dragoons being considered "cheap stuff", however...
Certain regiments of Spanish and English dragoons, for example, were very elite and well trained units. Especially the Spanish ones, with their Iberian horses. As you were saying, they are very good when trained well. In other countries I know what you mean about dragoons being cheaper, especially in areas around Sweden and Poland. They were at the opposite end of the spectrum, with Swedish Reiters and Polish Winged Hussars considered the perfect cavalry, and they truly were some of the finest cavalry troops in Europe.
As a boxer, to me this looks like the sabre would have done better if he parried the rapier more or slipped it while stepping to the side rather than straight forward, to get on the inside or outside of the point rather than moving the point.
Why is it most sword sparing videos only show people moving back and forward? Why do people not move sideways when they advance, more like unarmed combat?
For example as someone under 6 ft, if I am against some one with reach that is jabbing like a rapier then I would attempt to slip past it (and maybe parry at the same time) rather than just walking into the jabs while trying to swat them out of the way.
Similarly this is why, in my head, It seems like shield and curved sword would be very effective at getting in close and then doing a lot of damamge where they are "safer"
I'm sure I'm wrong as swords are not fists but it's something i find interesting and if someone could help answer that would be great
Engaging the blade more with tighter movements would have done him some good certainly, but then there are many styles and approaches to fighting.
There is offline (sideways) stepping in swordsmanship, but to varying degrees. From the late 16th century onwards, most European sword styles (and those influenced by them) moved to a mostly, and often completely linear style. Mainly it is about efficiency. When you have a single sword, keeping the sword, and sword arm forward ensures the smallest area to defend and gives maximum reach. With most traversing footwork, the blade simply moves faster than the body can. Additionally, you cannot take the risks that a boxer can. The re-direction of thrusts due to them being based at the wrist again make them rapid in change of direction. Look how many shots even an expert boxer takes when ducking and weaving, one of those shots landing with a thrust could be the end.
If you go back to earlier medieval styles you will find more passing footwork and traversing more circular footwork, but from the renaissance onwards, linear is key for most. Excellent defence, few openings, maximum reach. That isn't to say there aren't offline steps though, watch more of our videos and you will see them, they are just not the norm.
In terms of fighting a longer blade, its pretty much always the same approach - you need to engage it, and close distance quickly. That again means the straight line. Trying to avoid things at a distance can save your life, but will not setup any good counter.
Academy of Historical Fencing
That makes perfect sense. Thank you so much for the speedy and informative reply.
@Aldo Nadi interesting stuff.
Iunges sound great but I can't help but think that a lunge into a Persons rib cage might make dislodging it or avoiding a counter blow with the sabre difficult.
Then again I suppose you could just lunge, let go of the rapier and run?
@Erik Wesley While I agree with some of what you say, I also disagree with your theories as to why there is a lack of lateral movement. In a life-or-death situation, people wouldn't really be all that concerned with honor. I also do believe that Nick is quite the rapierist, and the lack of lunges comes down to the match-up with the saber, or even Capo Ferro's style relying less on lunge-work. Your assement of the Rapier is romantic, but mostly accurate. It is not a battlefield weapon. However, sabers were used in many different contexts, and many different types existed, for example:
The 1803 British Infantry Saber: www.militaryheritage.com/1803sword.htm
US Model 1850 Foot Officer's Sword: arms2armor.com/Swords/1850fos.htm
1796 Light Cavalry: collections.royalarmouries.org/battle-of-waterloo/arms-and-armour/type/rac-narrative-289.html
1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword: collections.royalarmouries.org/battle-of-waterloo/arms-and-armour/type/rac-narrative-514.html
As you can see, there were many different sabers tailored to different tasks: Heavy cavalry use, light cavalry use, and infantry use.
@Erik Wesley That duel from the movie is with smallswords, not rapiers. A rapier is a more in-between to medieval and pure renaissance weapons with blades between 3 and 4ft in length whilst retaining the ability to cut. Lunging all the time with full-size rapiers from what I have seen is frowned upon except as a punish to a whiffed strike as it leaves you very much exposed. I'm no expert in boxing but from what I can tell, you are taught not to lunge with punching for the same reason.
Reality is Nick didn't need to do overextended lunging when he can do outstretched thrusts while retaining the ability to quickly disengage to parry or dodge afterblows. the video clearly shows this.
I've been trying to find a good, non-fancy training saber for a while now, and I'm not having much luck. If I had to guess I'd say it was a hanwei hutten used in this video, but I hesitate to buy one because of all the things I've heard about hanwei. Do you have a recommendation?
+Robert Weston No this is not a Hanwei Hutton, and is nothing like one. This is a Peter Regenyei, longer, much thicker blade, much thicker hilt, they have little in common. We used the Huttons about 8-9 years ago when they were all that was available, and they were much cheaper. Don't bother. Go to Regenyei and buy any training sabre he has and you will do well.
I want to see a rapier & spear combination admist a 9 vs 9 spar. I think that would be a unique & effective combination to compliment a sword/axe/spear & shield combination.
I'm not sure who's using rapier here, but there were a couple moments when the one using sabre was vulnerable to a light thrust. As long as you're discreet about it and don't build up to it, he won't expect it coming; it's kind of like bringing back your left fist as if to punch with it and strike with your right instead.
Good fight!
Well fought.
Sabre user looks similar to polish sabre style with the aggresiveness and wind ups for a heavier cut centric blade. It would be scary being the rapierist relying on the thin point to hit true, and even if you do the afterblow might get you. Plus the wound might not always be lethal. Not to say that getting a rapier stuck in you isn't enough to kill but the sabre should have easier to follow up with cuts. Am I wrong? Also... I mostly see the static and finer style used. How come?
+Roderik Vikström Funnily enough we have been teaching Polish sabre recently, but Tom's style with one handed more cutty swords was always like this anyway. He came to us from another club that practiced different styles again.
Yes it can be intimidating relying on the point, and plenty of source material exists to show how point work will often not quickly incapacitate an opponent, hence why there is plenty of cut work still used with the rapier here.
There are a few of occasions in this fight where you can see that exact situation, a thrust followed by an afterblow cut.
As for why do you see a more static and finer style used more? Probably because most of the time you see people practicing sabre they are studying from British sources, like we typically do. Rowarth,Hutton, Angelo etc. We have only recently starting running some Polish sabre classes for a bit of fun and variety.
Also, the Polish style is well suited to more open hilted swords where you cannot fight with such an extended guard like you would with a sabre with large hand protection, or a rapier for that matter, and until recently, most sabre practitioners have been using bowl guards. The synthetics you see in our videos not only represent earlier Georgian period sabres well, but also earlier Polish sabres, hence why we have been practicing that too.
Academy of Historical Fencing That is awesome. Yeah when you mention it... You don't want to have your hand extended towards your opponent without adequate hand protection. Thanks for the insight. I appreciate the more consistent uploads lately.
+Roderik Vikström Yep, see my post lower down to Tom Rundell where I go into the differences in more detail. I am glad you are enjoying the channel. We have made a lot of changes these past few months that now allow us to consistently post 2-3 videos per week. The channel is already shaping up to be much more informative and varied in content that our personal channels ever used to be.
You are quick replier.Yeah I agree. It is shaping up to something different in a good way. It will attract more people I think. There seems to be an audiance for it lately which is nice to see.
I want to see saber and rapier wielding in two hands :-)
What style is Tom using?
Bruce Lee Was Right About One Thing Though...Fighting Is Like Fencing
This sabre work looks rather different to what I've read in any manual, is this continuous aggressive swinging intentional to discourage the rapier from attacking? I practice sabre but I've never fought against rapier so I have no experience in this. Wouldn't you want to seek blade contact if you've got the heavier and more powerful blade?
Personally I'd instinctively keep the sword in tierce/quarte just to be able to quickly deflect incoming thrusts, but Tom doesn't seem to stay in guard at all; he's constantly in motion.
+Shutendoji Tom came to us from another club and had learned different sorts of single hand work than we teach, but recent lessons we have taught on Polish sabre have found that to be much like his style and he has seemed to find that himself too. It does make for a very different fight than say Adam was using as in the description.
Both methods, a more point on line refined movement and seek of an engagement, and the withdrawn larger arcs have their advantages and disadvantages against a rapier. If I were to use sabre against rapier I would focus on outside half hanger and outside guard in order to seek engagement and close. But all methods can work of course. Tom's style, like Polish style, is very intimidating, and can work well for that reason too.
The sabreur makes good use of the Hungarian and the "guard of the determined" to entice the rapierist to attack him. I think it costs him more than it benefits him though.
Fantastic stuff!
No slicing? Once making contact with an edge there is no slicing but rather disengage for a a new cut. I guess when thrusting the same happens, instead of stepping in the blade is retrieved for a new stab.
this rapier is super short isn't it ? it seems shorter than the saber
+clubinglex Compared to the late 16th and early 17th century rapiers we normally use yes. However it was selected specifically for this video as it represents the mid-late 17th and 18th century rapiers better, which got shorter and lighter, and would be the type more likely to encounter a sabre of this type as that is when they were becoming popular.
It is still longer than the sabre. It has a 39" blade, compared to the sabre which is just under 34". Our typical earlier rapiers seen in other videos are 42-45".
sabre looks way superior, or at least much more impressive/beautiful style of sword-fighting... (I'm not an expert by any means)
+ILIAS AMPELOURGOS You'll never find agreement on that subject. I teach both and fully appreciate both the aesthetics and combat effectiveness of both. Both are exceptional at what they were made for.
Total novice here. My understanding is that both the sabre and the rapier are relatively agile blades capable of being quickly maneuvered via the wrist. In your experience, which is superior in this speed/agility/dexterity department?
+Safton The sabre and rapier are actually very different, though they draw a little closer in later periods like the examples seen in this video. The rapier is much better at point control due to its reduced mass in the tip, and finger over quillion grip. This gives much finer manipulation and changing of lines as well as a faster tip for point work. But the sabre, being typically lighter and shorter, with no pommel restriction has superior rotation speed for cutting.
Ultimately both swords can be used in the same way, and there is plenty in common between some of the styles taught with each, but one emphasises cutting, and the other thrusting, so it isn't really possible to say which is better in terms of dexterity at the wrist.
Academy of Historical Fencing
Thank you for the information!
I'm interested why the rapierist didn't use more point. Obviously I wasn't fencing but I would have tried to keep my point on line and disengage those large cuts.
+Matt Laban There are still plenty of thrusts in here. But when facing a weapon like a sabre, and especially with someone using it more in the Polish style of repetitive cutting arcs, you have to be very careful about how you use the point. Too many attacks will lead to you being struck simultaneously or with the afterblow.
Parrying in hanging guards rather than disengaging also sets up an excellent cut to the head or arm. The cut is the same in rapier or sabre, but in this case, the rapier is a little longer and lighter bladed so can achieve it with an advantage.
When you face heavy cutting weapons with a rapier you have to be so much more careful of the afterblow, and also use dead parries that you otherwise would not. SIngle time defence work almost never works because of the power and leverage against your blade.
Keeping the point online can also be a problem, because a shorter blade will want to engage you. One of the best ways to counter a rapier is the same way you would a spear, engage it in a hanging guard and close rapidly, where you have the advantage.
This is like a boxer who mostly just jabs and crossis vs a boxer who just fires hooks intresting
this is a challenge. being in the centerline of the thrust is the worst place to be. is there a reason there isn't any change of footwork?
+Tyler Lalonde In what way would you like to see a change of footwork? In every scenario we have ever seen, the shorter blade needs to come distance, the fast way to do that is in a straight line, you can't move your body fast offline than the point can re-direct.
Academy of Historical Fencing yeah the fastest but also the deadliest. So why was there different footwork used in the time of these weapons but you never use it? Seems kind of an intentional handicap. Like with two sabres once they get to a stalemate they go for the legs. Why not use other techniques attacks as footwork?
Looks like the guy with the Rapier started with the 'right of way' BS but midway he adapted and realized that he can counter attacks :)
+Phantom Apprentice We don't have right of way in HEMA, and neither of us train sport fencing either. The style changes as the fighters adapt to the scenario, as this was a first time encounter of these opponents with these styles.
If it had been a little more heavy rapier parry would be more effective.
Everything is a trade off, with a heavy rapier comes a stronger parry but less agility. In thgis particular video I used a very light raper because the sabre was of a later period type and so it was the best match to it. We do a very broad mix with both weapons but to try and keep the match ups as realistic as possible, period wise.
What if the roles were reversed ?
Nick beats everyone with a sabre, but usually the rapier beats everything.
How about a video of Nick with a sabre vs. Tom with a rapier ?
That should be pretty interesting.
+Louis Joliet This is close to what you want, broadsword (basket hilt), vs rapier- th-cam.com/video/utwLzf0JhvA/w-d-xo.html
Why did soldiers use sabers instead of rapiers? Rapiers seem to have a good advantage over sabers.
+MissingNo Soldiers did use rapier hilted weapons (but with normally shorter and heavier blades than most rapiers). It isn't fair to say the rapier has an advantage though. It cannot deliver the massive cutting power of a sabre, and the thrust work is frequently not as safe to use. The shorter and lighter sabres are also much better suited to close in fighting. Also the sabre is easier to carry and wear, being smaller in blade length and hilt, and much better suited at fighting bayoneted muskets.
5:08 NICE!
what weapons did they use? i quite like the saber
+rahadian panji oki Peter Regenyei sabre, made to our club spec. Rapier is a custom made form a mix of Hanwei parts.
Does anyone use Spanish sabres?
There is a small but growing movement for it, but it's still pretty small, especially outside of Spain.
There can be only one.
Rightly ending at 3:45
I don't understand the saber-ists use of constant swinging while disengaged. It leaves himself wide open. If the rapier-ist was more aggressive at times, I think he'd skewer him 9 times out of 10. We were always taught to use our on guard in third, or a high second with the point always threatening an advance. But when the saber-ist is sitting there spinning his arm or his blade, there's no threat. There's just open target. In the amount of time it takes to bring his point back online, he could be stuck pretty easily, it seems. I can understand using a moulin à as a counter attack, but that much spinning doesn't make sense to me. I believe it's also used in martial arts using the machete on some islands where they also integrate a kind of odd foot hop as well as a constant swinging. Is there some benefit to this style of combat beyond maybe trying to give a false opening to your opponent that you can use to counter attack? Because it seems too open to be practical to me.
The sabre fencer isn't using a style we taught him, but very much his own based on other weapons and personal experience. It's quite different to our methods (British MIlitary Swordmsnaship), but there is absolutely threat in those motions, amssively so. Tom uses high guards that threaten powerful cuts, and rotations at wide measure that allow fluid changes of direction and threat from powerful rotational cuts. This is an aggressive defensive measure that relies more on the threat of a strike rather than defense. It's a lot harder to strike into than you might think, and the risks of doubles are absolutely huge, hence the ever present risk of that powerful downward cut. It's not my preferred way to fight, but it can certainly be effective.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Very interesting! It's definitely very cool to see different sword styles pitted against each other. Where I trained, in Northern California, the saberists learned and sparred at the same time the sword and buckler guys trained, but there was only two of them, and maybe four or five of us, so we never sparred together. I don't think we were ever around and long sword or rapier fencers. It definitely would have been fun and educational to see this kind of sparring first hand.
This was an enjoyable video, and it looks like a great school. Keep up the great work! Cheers!
May I ask where you bought the Sabre from?
+Thibaut Angevin Peter Regenyei in Hungary. He is the only supplier we would recommend for steel military sabres right now.
+Academy of Historical Fencing Thank you very much for the info!
Can you make a video on how do that twist with your wrist wielding a saber. Although I see all the time, I never seen a close up and slow down of it in action.
You mean how it looks like he swings it in a circle as if his wrist bends 360 degrees? Trick is you kind of let it go a little bit, and twist your wrist quick enough that it can still make a full cut. It's a good technique when you don't have a lot of room to swing, especially when you do so and then proceed to do a heavy strike, which your opponent will not see coming.
wow. are those real rapiers they're fencing with?
Full weight and size. They only differ from originals in that they are blunt and have tipped points for safety.
Academy of Historical Fencing that's cool. fencing sure seems like a fun sport. i also like the idea of elegant swordplay
how different are rapiers and sabres? please fill me in
Completely different. Aside from the fact they are both one handed, that is where the similarity ends. Sabre is curved, rapier is straight. Sabre is single edged, rapier is double. Sabre has a plain grip to use it like a hammer, or with the thumb pointing forward. Rapier has protection forward of the cross/quillion, so that you can wrap the index finger over quillion for fine point control. The sabre typically emphasises cut work, when the rapier emphasises thrust work. Because of this the rapier tapers acutely towards the tip, but the sabre does not. Sabres are typically around 30-33" in blade length, when rapiers are normally 40-45". The sabre is a most commonly a military sword, when the rapier is a civilian sword for self defence.
Even the way in which they were commonly taught is very different. The rapier uses single tempo and contratempo actions, where you parry/cover and strike in one motion, where the sabre is typically more about double tempo, parry-riposte.
People have also combined the best features of each into single swords, those things are awesome.
Some sabres do have false edges, but sabres definitely can't thrust as well as rapiers no matter what. Overall I feel the rapier is a better weapon, with its more protective guard yet ability for fast and clean strikes in quick succession. Probably the best design is a cut-and-thrust style rapier, which knocks that whole "rapiers can't cut" myth out. Especially rapiers by cold steel, those things are extremely sharp and strong. Complex hilted broadswords too, if you consider them rapiers (since 'rapier' is such a loose term these days) are good at both thrusting and cutting. These weapons, primarily an invention of the Spanish during the Inquisition, allowed for an even better broadsword because you could use it with an Italian grip (meaning one to two fingers above the quillons) which adds a lot more control. Furthermore, Schiavonas are an even heavier weapon, which allow for the Italian grip as well, with a protective basket hilt around the entire hand, similarly to Scottish highlander basketswords but with the Italian grip as I said.
Is it normal to leave yourself so open with a saber
No, Tom is using a fighting style he has developed over time for mixing different things. Though it in many ways represents some of the way people interpret earlier sabre methods that are not recorded with surviving manuals and treatise. The British military methods we use has a large emphasis on keeping the sword out front and using short and sharp actions for parry and riposte and covering of lines. Tom is using a sweeping aggressive style, which has a lot of aggression and intimidation, but also many openings for someone with the calm and timing to exploit them.
Academy of Historical Fencing thanks for the response!
nick seems extraordinarily willing to take his point off line, why is this?
+Alex Riner Because when you fight a blade you cannot dominate as you normally would in rapier, you do not want to seek blade engagements. He has leverage under almost every situation, even when you apply good blade displacement techniques, and also with the shorter blade, the sabre wants to seek an engagement in order to be able to close safely.
The only reason to keep blade on line it to bait him to engage it, to encourage a disengage. That works well against fencers who use a parry riposte style of engagement and displacement, but against a fencer who uses continuous cutting arcs, a strong cut is likely to follow that attempt at an engagement.
It is a very different fight to fighting another rapier.
+Academy of Historical Fencing source?
+Alex Riner Experience. I teach rapier and teach on line fencing an awful lot according to Capo Ferro, aside from fifth and sixth guard, which are both used here. But there are very limited sources on mixed weapon fighting. But with any experience using a longer point based weapon against a shorter one, you will find exactly this. Same when you use rapier vs longsword, or spear vs sword.
darn I was hoping for a new book to buy. The mixed weapon videos are very interesting, thanks for sharing.
+Alex Riner As far as I know, the only source for sabre vs rapier is by Francesco Antonio Marcelli, 1686. You can find it online and some translations with a quick search.
I wonder if rapiers can or can not cut...
They most definitely can. Many had an edge at the top that went for a few inches.
+Rico Towers I really think that cutting blades are usefull, even speareads had them.
They can, but it's not what they're built for. Some didn't have an edge at all.
Yes they can. There are examples without edges, but those are in the minority. A look at renaissance era treatise will show that the rapier used plenty of cutting technique, just less of it than thrusting.
so olympic fencing do work?...
Not sure what you mean?
Academy of Historical Fencing weren't you "fencing" with the rapier? Isn't it the style use in Olympic fencing?
In real life that rapier wouldn't penetrate through armor. The saber would face fewer challenges with an armored opponent....though either one would fail relatively the same against shield & plate armor.
Penetrate what armour? Swords aren't intended or capable of penetrating most armours. Sabres have been typically unpopular against armour, as the thrust is more useful. Against shield and plate armour? How much armour? Rapiers and shields were used very effectively against partial armours, and any kind of sword and shield is relatively ineffective against full armour.
Swords don't penetrate armor is your argument....& then you go on to say that the rapier was used against armor....& the rapier is a sword.....
& then you use cover terms relating to probability, chance, "relativity"....
& then you say a shield is ineffective against armor....
Where is the guy saying he will shoot us both? Cuz I need a mercy killing.
If you are meaning that the rapier struck unarmored area's....then no shit...that's what it most frequently faced & could minimally be used against. There is NO INSTANCE where a rapier successfully penetrates the actual armor itself unless it's cloth or leather....
Also, sabers & even some spadroons of lesser curve are rigid enough to be able to be thrusted, punctured through & then pushed through the plate armor as the armor is harnessed on the body & just as much be able to strike where there is no armor or light armor such as gambeson or leather.
The Rapier cannot cut through any armor except light cloth & plain leather....& it cannot penetrate steel armor of any kind that was ever used or ever would be used.
If the rapier can penetrate duct-metal, I'm confident that the saber would have better success in both the thrust & even a super strong cut.
The rapier would never be able to cut metal. If it turns into anything close to an ESTOC, then it's really difficult to consider it to still be a rapier cuz then we are dealing with either a VERY EARLY EVOLUTION that was still rejected by the users of the rapier....or a VERY INFREQUENT OR LATE EMERGENCE that clearly had nothing to do with the trend of idiots thinking that The Rapier was worthy....& that generally people shouldn't be carrying a standard shield that could stop a halberd.
The tacticians of the day, even if they over-lapped with other professions that generated the rapier....they were still fucking retards & they got numerous people to basically dress naked & attempt to kill eachother free-form using long-pointy-flimsy-metal-sticks.
I own combat knives & dirks. I own axes. I own swords. I owned & tested with strips sheets of various thickness & material, plain & layered.
I'm confident that the rapier is totally ineffective against any implemented steel armor & will always fail to penetrate unless it is basically some other different kind of sword.
I only see the rapier as a duel weapon still. It doesn't even cut flesh effectively even if you're on a skirmish.
I can't even imagine a serial killer at an ice-cream parlor actually using a rapier.
We have heard of guns, knives, axes, long-swords, sabers, katana's....it's as if even all the deranged minds of people of greater education don't even consider the rapier to be worthy of killing people with....
There are a lot of people with a USE IT OR LOSE IT philosophy....& I'm observant....people of practical taste seem to lose this type of sword before its even given presentation to be considered.
Perhaps that has meaning.....
@@truepremise2053 I suggest you read his reply again, because you clearly didn't read it properly the first time. If you find some plate armour that can be penetrated by a sword, it isn't real armour or it rusted away. Armour exists to defend against the weapons it was likely to encounter. If it can't do that, then wearing armour is a hinderance and wouldn't be worn. It's why plate armour largely fell in to discuss when firearms appeared. Metal plate armour is only pierced by swords in movies and video games.
@@truepremise2053 I suggest you read his reply again, because you clearly didn't read it properly. If you find some plate armour that can be penetrated by a sword, it isn't real armour. Armour exists to defend against the weapons it was likely to en. If it can't do that, then wearing armour is a hinderance and wouldn't be worn. It's why plate armour largely fell in to discuss when firearms appeared.
@@another3997 No cuz he's all talk. Rapiers don't penetrate wood or plate material. Firearms were also not in wide use & armor was still worn during the time of the rapier. Why can't you just accept that historical usage of certain weapons isn't always based in intelligence?
What's your favorite discipline?
+Tom Rundell The Channel is run by the two instructors, so this is from my perspective (Nick). Capo Ferro is still what I have put the most research and work into, ten years now, and I love it. However many years of sabre practice now have brought my love of sabre to an equal degree. We teach from Rowarth because we appreciate the Georgian period, and some of the earlier sabres used then, as well as the methods of the manual. Those two are my favourite and the reason I teach from them. However I am always reading and researching, sometimes just for fun, sometimes taking whole elements from other manuals and teaching them in the club. Like the way we recently ran a six week block on Polish sabre.
So Rapier (With dagger), and Sabre. However I also love sword and buckler and fence with it regularly. Even though we do not have time to teach a dedicated system with it, the information in Giganti is quite clear how it is used the same as the dagger, that and sabre training combined make for a great generic sword and buckler system for having fun with.
Academy of Historical Fencing
Very nice.
I have Taylor's Art of Defense on Foot, and do what I can. Love the saber systems, but much prefer the look and feel of a lighter backsword/broadsword.
How drastically does Polish saber differ from British saber?
+Tom Rundell We use basket hilted backswords and broadswords as well, they are taught under the same system. At tonights session I was using one with a buckler against longsword, and that video will be posted soon. Though they are a good bit heavier than the equivalent sabres. When most infantry sabres in the Georgian period weighed 800-850 grams, the basket hilts were 1.1-1-3kg. It really is noticeable when using them, though the increase in hand protection is too of course.
The Polish sabre system is very different. An emphasis is placed on withdrawing the hands to protect them, like you would typically with a longsword, or grosse messer. This changes the stance to begin with. As a result, less moulinets are used because the hand is not out in front to make such rotations. In stead they often cut from the shoulder, something not normally seen in British sabre. They use constant rotations far more than British sabre. They counter cut rather than parry, where you cut into and across a blade to displace it rather than parry it dead.
They also use the back edge far more, not just to parry thrusts as in British sabre, but also in large sweeping actions like a Krumphau in longsword. They also use these back edge engagements as hook parries.
They also use more passing steps and offline footwork, more in common with messer and dussack.
There are more techniques for attacking the hands, in part because they are more vulnerable due to the lack of hand protection, and they use thrust techniques that use the curvature to work around the opponents blade rather that displace with the front edge.
In fact, if you combined British sabre with dussack/messer you would have something quite close to Polish sabre. We have been having a lot of fun with it recently. It really is a very different style to what you will see in Rowarth, Angelo, Hutton etc.
Academy of Historical Fencing
Thank you for the obviously well thought reply.
Do you think polish saber possesses any distinct advantage over British saber? I know attempting to qualify systems isn't always fair/productive, but these two were contemporaries using generally the same weapon (with small, noted differences), so I think it's a reasonable comparison to make.
And as for the backsword/broadsword compared to the saber, since it seems I have your ear, which do you prefer? What are the virtues of each in your eyes? And why (if at all) does one appeal to you over the other?
+Tom Rundell If you compare the open stirrup hilted swords in use by the British up until 1822 then they have a lot in common with Polish sabres, hence why the Black Fencer synthetic we use represents both well, so these can be compared quite fairly.
The Polish style protects the hands a lot more by withdrawing the hand and using counter cut and sweeping displacements rather than dead parries. It is also a lot more intimidating as far as power goes. But the British style has finer feints and changes of direction due to the parry riposte system. When dealing with poiintwork they both have pros and cons. The Polish style discourages thrusting with the intimidation of large powerful cuts, and the British sabre engages with more finesse and and counter some multiple disengages far better as a result.
Do I think one has an advantage over the other? Not really. We have been using both recently. However, we have found that a lot of our new students are finding it easier to pick up the Poiish system rather than British. Probably because of the focus on striking from the shoulder and using more of the body, rather than refining movement down to the wrist.
About the backsword vs sabre. I have been using both a lot recently, and it is very clear the differences between the two. The basket hilt is heavier, and slower as a result. Both my sabre and basket hilt are made to match original weights and handling characteristics. As a rule you will find the basket hilts are about 20-30% heavier. This really makes a difference to rotational movements like the moulinet, and can make countering feints much slower too.
This problem is made worse still by the slightly more restrictive grip and guard. The guards tend to clamp the hand in a more rigid grip than the sabre, and the pommel further adds to this. Whereas with the sabre, you have a massive range of movement and extra leverage is provided by the recurved grips or birds head style backstraps.
However, the basket hilt counters all this with hand protection. The difference is vast in this regard. The baskets are tough enough to take hits that most sabre guards could not, as well as covering much more of the hand and also wrist. I would typically choose sabre because it is faster and can deliver just as much power on the cut, BUT...we are training for fun with blunt weapons and protective equipment. That hand protection of the basket would mean so much more if that were not the case. I think ultimately I would still choose a sabre in most circumstances and rely on speed and technique, but there is no doubt there is more room for error with the basket. Choosing between the two isn't easy and I love both, they are a subtle variation on a theme really.
That sabre guy sucks. Always leaves himself too open. It's a shame the rapier couldn't get to him during those times
He doesn't suck, it is just a very different style to the British military style we teach. More akin to what the early Polish methods were like, or what they were likely like anyway, as no manuals remain for them. The problem with facing such as aggressive style where the blade is in motion a lot of the time is that even if you land a thrust on them, there is a very good chance of receiving a powerful afterblow, so openings must be chosen very carefully.
Why does that saber style teach you never to use your wrist to move the weapon?
Academy of Historical Fencing man look at 1:17, rapier homeboy got him like 3 or 4 times because he left himself wide open. Why teach something that leaves you open?
This isn't a style he has been taught by us. This is his own style adopted from a range of different styles he has learned over many years, though is in many ways close to what some believe the older Polish styles looked like, as well as middle eastern styles, like the Tulwar. It has a lot of power and intimidation, but lacks refinement, and the ability to quickly stop, start and feint. This is precisely why the British found Indian swordsmen vulnerable to the feint and the thrust.
We teach people specific styles, but how they then choose to fight is their own decision, just as it would have been historically. I'd prefer he took on board more of our British sabre style, but I am also glad to have someone with such a different style to fight against. It is actually effective against a great many people, as it is intimidating, and requires excellent distance and timing to counter.
are sabre's light?
Some are, and many more aren't. It is a hugely broad category of swords. The majority fit into about the same weight range as the majority of one handed swords. Typically 800 grams up to about 1.2kg depending on the type. Though they often so not have pommels, their increased width at the tip (for some), or larger hand guard (again on some), balance them off in weight to most sword types. See the video below looking at a range of sword weights including sabres and many other swords.
th-cam.com/video/5_JIv_MG6Ls/w-d-xo.html
To add to that, it also depends on what type of sabre it is, culturally. Typically middle eastern sabres are lighter and faster, whereas European sabres and later the American saber often had more elaborate hilts which do add to the weight. Personally I feel the European ones have more solid defense, but the middle eastern ones have a better built blade themselves (ie damascus layered steel). It also depends on the curvature. Scimitars and shamshirs (which some people technically consider sabres) have a much more dramatic curve than your average sabre, which I personally think delivers in power but takes away from speed as well as maneuverability.
The comparison is much more complex than that. Napoleonic British sabres for example are in the exact same weight range as Shamshirs and Tulwars, and the level of curvature is typically about the same too. British Napoleonic sabres for example are 650-900 grams, the exact same common weight range of tulwars, pulwars, shamshirs, etc. In fact, due to the British service in Egypt in 1801, many officers took on the fashion of the shamshir, and ordered sabres with shamshir blades. I have an original example of one of these that I will display soon.
Many people think of British sabres as very lightly curved with fast cut and thrust blades and large hilts. That is typical after 1821, but before that they were very different, as well as exhibiting much great variety of length, curvature, weight, hand protection etc.
Sabre vs rapier... Rapiers are a bit danky to me so I would choose a saber in a real fight but I would pick a rapier if it was just a 1v1 for fun. Also I love how aggressive the sabre plays in this. Keep that unpredictability against that rapier.
I am not trained with sabre nor am I saying this man is a bad sabre fighter by any means, but I noticed he got stabbed several times because he was either telegraphing his attacks or leaving his body entirely exposed without defending it
Maybe I think that Rapier is light weighted than any other swords.
TheRookies5 nope
The "rapier" is too short and light, more a foil. It should have been a sturdy 15-16 th century rapier with some cutting capacity and a 1 metre blade. But the sabre could be heavier as well.
It isn't too short or light, or anything like a foil. We normally use rapiers of the late 16th and early 17th century style at our clubs. Whereas our sabres are of late 18th and 19th century type. I selected a late period and light rapier here because it was facing such a late sabre. We like to match contemporary weapons where possible. This rapier is 800g, and of a spec common in the late 17th century. In the 18thc many cup hilt rapiers were often much lighter still.
If you want to see earlier weapons on both sides, see the video below. Where the rapier is of the style, length and weight of many in the early 17thc, vs a sabre of the type common in the 17th and 18th century.
Rapiers and sabres have existed in a huge variety of sizes and forms, and we try to match them as closely period wise when they face one another. Incidentally, the sabre isn't heavier in the earlier periods, just typically a little shorter and with different mass distribution.
th-cam.com/video/0bEcg5gV_NY/w-d-xo.html
Yes that video is better. My reasoning is that it should be a rapier from when it was the main military weapon. If the sabres and rapiers are contemporary it is from a time when sabres replace rapiers for soldiers that use them as their main weapons wile the rapiers remain as a back up weapon for other troops or even just a dress sword for civilian use.
It isn't better, it is different. Different weapons from a different time period. Neither of the rapiers used in either of the videos are military weapons. Similar swords were used by soldiers, but they were typically a little shorter and broader bladed. The rapiers used are civilian wear swords, used according to styles for civilian combat.
As for a military usage though, there is loads of cross over period wise for sabres and military type rapiers.
The rapier should have won every point but user did not move . For instance when saber strikes he should avoid blade step to side and skewer him over and over first saber strikes was never in range
In theory yes, but it's what is coming next you got to worry about, even if you do land the thrust. He swings in arcs with multiple cuts, you strike in between them and you're often going to have your head caved in. It is the single biggest mistake a thrust orientated fencer makes when they face someone who cuts a lot. Thrusts lack stopping power, and very powerful cuts can be delivered in quick succession.