"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
There is another one. "The problem with making something idiot proof is that as soon as you do it the universe creates a better idiot". Don't know who said it though.
@@gordonlawrence4749 That somehow contradicts the Darwin's theory and similar ones where natural selection picks those who survive (are more able). Fools evolve into more incompetent ones by the means of self-destruction.
He’s using a variation from Twain’s _A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court_: “The best swordsman in the world doesn't need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he doesn't do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn't prepared for him; he does the thing he ought not to do; and often it catches the expert out and ends him on the spot.”
@@bharnden7759 i think it applies differently to different sports and i think the original expression was a bit of an exaggeration of the concept. That said, i have heard a professional mma coach say that a complete novice may be more likely to beat a pro than an amateur with just a little experience. It's a very small chance of course.
Well put, I feel like I've heard that phrase before, maybe in my MMA classes. It's definitely true that the rookie boxers and grapplers can often throw off the more skilled fighters with their wild, erratic struggling. Of course typically the skilled fighter wins out, but I've seen some strange things. The unpredictability of an untrained individual is what makes them dangerous.
@@RedSky-vf8bf which is why a well taught conscript army and volounteer militia can be far more lethal in the tactical theatre than a professional army while the professional army will always win on a strategic level and psychological endurance.
@@SonsOfLorgar Add in other variables to the scenario you're describing- militias tend to be fighting to defend or retake their own home lands. This psychological motivation has an enormous impact on the performance of even untrained guerillas. That's the main factor in militia success, really. The invaders probably do not want to be where they are, away from their families, fighting in some shit war for reasons he doesn't understand. But the defenders... they're fighting to PROTECT their families. One thing that I've learned about fighting, is that typically the side/individual that *wants* the fight has an advantage. The person who doesn't want to fight will be squeamish, flinchy, and distracted by trying to think of ways out of the fight. But the guy who wants to fight is only thinking of one thing- defeating the opponent in front of him. This is why the Viet Cong defeated the US troops over time. Yes, the US forces were better equipped, better trained, better funded, and so on. But not many of them really *wanted* to be there fighting. Most of them wanted to be home screwing their girlfriends and taking LSD. But the VC? They saw defeating the Americans as their DUTY. Their wives and children can wait- they needed to set booby traps and prepare ambushes for the US convoy coming the next night. And then the sleepy men in the convoy are rolling through, daydreaming about home, when suddenly.... Suddenly all that training and equipment isn't worth as much as simple "will to fight", aka morale.
"The best swordsman in the world doesn't need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he doesn't do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn't prepared for him; he does the thing he ought not to do; and often it catches the expert out and ends him on the spot." Mark Twain
This is why "beginners luck" is a thing. A person well versed in a contest will (intentionally or not) expect their opponent to use the optimal strategy, and can easily caught of guard when their unskilled opponent rushes them with something usually considered weak.
Well, I'm not going to say that isn't true in a a lot of cases. To any extend, it's wise always consider an opponent to be at least adequate in meeting whatever you'll be able to throw at him, if not outright better than you. But what you say, frankly translates to a trained melee fighter having a humhum-moment while the adversary charges him arms and legs flailing, to figure out whether he's bluffing or not. I don't believe that. Sidestepping, dodging and counterthrusting are all reflectory responses to an incoming crazy person hurtling himself at you.
@@WormholeJim I think it's more for the offensive. One might feint an attack to provoke a parry before attacking differently, and this may work against most opponents. But you might be facing the lobotomite that doesn't understand what you were doing, or not know how to parry right, and ends up trying to swing blindly at you to defend themself instead. The experienced swordsman might not expect a tactic so illogical, and might suffer a double hit if they were not prepared. But you are still correct, as a good swordsman can protect from the unexpected, and knows to commit to an attack as little as is necessary.
reminds me of my dads story of being invited into a dominos game in a pub as they were a player short. Having no clue about playing the game he won many games in a row. This annoyed his opponents so much and he was accused of cheating at one point. to prove his innocents he exposed his hand the opponents then realised they could not work out his strategy because he simply did not have one. He lost every game after that.
Its like the classic tactic for knife violence in American prisons. Simply run at the person with maximal momentum and move your weapon around the gut back and forth. It doesn't have to be skillful or safe to be damn effective and difficult to defend against, especailly if the aggressor has a mentality of relying solely on his constitution to survive the encounter rather than any regard to self defense.
Yeah, and if that's the calculation of the one who's being super aggressive then they aren't just being unskilled kamikazes. However, I've fought people dramatically less skilled than I, not that I'm particularly skilled, that use that kind of tactic and won pretty much every time for the simple reason that they are predictable. So long as you don't have your head stuck up your butt about the "right" way to do things it's not a tactic that's going to be successful with any reliability.
David Sheffler I assume that the fight was over when you landed a blow. but unless you decapitated your opponent, you really can't be sure of that being the outcome. adrenaline is a hell of a drug you know.
Otto Pike that doesn't negate what I've said, it changes the moment you choose not the basic reality that the way you deal with an aggressive unskilled opponent is to defend and retreat and wait for the right moment to strike. If you're opponent is sufficiently unskilled then you can defend yourself and take them apart until they've slowed down or bled out.
As an Estoc user, I disagree. You have to insert pauses between thrusts or your attacks won't track well enough. Mash R1 when you land a hit, sure, but mindlessly spamming R1 is more likely to simply deplete your stamina than get you parried. Tested numerous times in PvP with a Refined Estoc +10 in Dark Souls 3.
Back in college, I took fencing. One of our teachers was trying out for the Olympic team. I got 2 points on him right away. Low guard lunges got him both times. Then he got serious and cut me to pieces. But in real duel you don't get a second chance.
John Koeberlein a touché rarely ended a duel. I got 3 Sabre touches on Oscar Barrera at the Duel at Dallas in 1978, he then went in to clean my clock. But I still have that Sabre. Prieur bell and fluer de lis blade. Epee is a lot more painful and a lot more real. But you aren’t really a fencer until you have mask mesh engraved on your bell.
Insider gossip: I'm only wearing a hat here because I was in the sun all day and got my head burned, so it was covered in cream. I didn't think the viewing public could handle my head being even shinier than it normally is.
exactly, mistake to assume the opponent will fight fair. Never believe a gentleman, no need to fight fair of you own. PS: i am sure they are a lot of stories about "french defeat british". It was a bad move to tell nationalities, would be enough to say "two opponent". Especially it let look british as sneaky, not that the history didn't teach us not to believe in good words/speeches of our "friends".
Certes! Les britanniques sont tellement durs au combat qu'ils préféraient se défiler la plupart du temps pour ne pas avoir la joie de se faire trucider par des français. Toujours votre vantardise presque légendaire que vous aimez attribuer aux français. Ça ne coûte rien de discuter entre-vous au mépris des récits historiques!
AU FAIT! Rappelez le nombre de médailles que la Grande-Bretagne a gagné en escrime. On vous rappellera celles que les escrimeurs français ont autour du cou. Mais ce n'est pas particulier à l'époque moderne sauf que précédemment cela se terminait part le nombre d'anglais partis en enfer après les duels les opposant aux français!
Reminds me of what my driving instructor used to say: "If you expect everyone to follow the law, you'll hit someone within a week.", which is useful advice when it comes to just about anything, really. If you expect everyone to follow the same rules as you or have the same limitations as you (be it physical or moral) you're inevitably going to run into someone who doesn't and man are you gonna have a bad time. On a side note, I now wonder how effective a bar stool would be in a duel. I image quite a bit. Sure, it's slower, but I'd say it has about the same reach as a smallsword and it's great for defense. Also, good fucking luck parrying that thing.
Awesome comment. As for a barstool, I've heard people say they're great for defence against knives which makes sense given their reach. Maybe they'd be particularly effective against a thrust centric sword. I'll probably do some experimentation with one against knives and swords at some point.
Bar stool vs Sword wouldn't exactly be a duel. The person with the stool will need to be extremely aggressive. Perhaps ram the swordsman and proceed to pummel him very quickly. Best to do this before the swordsman realizes he's being attacked with a bar stool and figures out a way to stab past it.
If the seat of the stool is sturdy enough you can block thrusts with it. Besides, if the stool is shaped somewhat like the one in this pic below, it would be rather difficult to get past. I think one can easily use the circular metal parts to parry. s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/19/8a/42/198a42040b98d481e77437148f8e9963.jpg
The guy with the stool, if smart enough, may win by closing the distance into grappling and making the sword ineffective. Use like a buckler, close mercilessly, in grapple range the stool is an effective bludgeon while the sword is no good. Obviously do not do that if the opponent also has a knife or a dagger...
Barstool defence is covered in the book Get Tough. Also covers what to do if you suddenly realise you are sitting next to a Nazi in full uniform. Make sure you get illustrated edition.
One of my major criticism of martial arts teaching in general is how aggressiveness is not trained into students to go straight for the kill, nor is dealing with the psychologically intimidating aggressiveness found in real dangers (something not found in posturing bro-fights). This is the reason why bayonet training is still crucial in the likes of the US Marines and a lot of armed forces training. There are extremely few situations when a bayonet charge is useful on modern battlefields, but bayonet training teaches aggression - to go in for the kill with no hesitation, as a split second hesitation comes with the cost of blood.
When I did HEMA for a short time one of the veteran instructors had a tactic where he random shouted and did a motion like he is going to charge without actually charging, it could especially the younger beginner completely strugger for a short moment and he would go for a safe blow. It was funny and you could get used to it, but worked almost everytime against first timers.
sukotsutoclone true. The person you should fear is the aggressive type who - without any thought or hesitation - is willing to destroy you, erase you. The only way to deal with such a person in an one on one is to become such a person.
This is exactly right and its why i think Matt is actually completely wrong in this video. If you're not training to fight in a real world setting where people dont follow whatever the "proper" way of fighting is, then you're not actually training to fight. You're just training to play a game that has a facsimile of combat. If you dont teach violence of action, and how to deal with it, you're not teaching them how to fight. If you go watch street fight videos where untrained meat heads fight trained boxers or kickboxers or grapplers what happens? The untrained idiot rushes in with aggression and ends up on the floor not knowing what happened. Because the trained fighters know how to deal with it If trained HEMA guys are consistently losing to novices who act with aggression then the trained guys dont actually know how to fight
@@oORoOFLOo he was feinting, it's a pretty common thing to do in fencing. Pretty much the idea behind it is to telegraph a false attack to get a nervous defensive posture for that attack and go for an actual attack while the opponents blade is in a disadvantageous position.
@@lancemannly Violence of action, probably my favorite term from the military. Ties hand in hand to initiative and how that's imperative to success on a tactical or strategic scale.
This just reminds me of one my favorite book quotes. "I did not come here to win," Lan whispered , smiling. "I came here to kill you. Death is lighter than a feather."
This reinforces an experience I had years ago in fencing. I was a complete noob in fencing and the instructor who was a medal winning fencer paired me off with himself. It was just so I could get a taste in fencing, nothing serious. He told me to attack, so I did, very aggressively with no style or class. I beat his guard and won all 3 rounds. He half grudgingly admitted that I beat him fair and square even though I had no experience and he had years of experience under his belt. It was from that point on that I believed style and form have their place, but unpredictability and aggression can beat it. I have no doubt that an extremely experienced sword fighter would win the day against a noob such as myself but there is alot to be said about aggressive spirit.
roger Rumble One of my hand to hand instructors pointed out to me that training in any one specific way is very counter productive. You get used to moving and reacting to the same things so it better to do a wide variety of different things. For example he recommended taking a completely different type of training all together to offset what you know like go take a gun course and play ping pong. Just to develop your body reacting differently. I would assume the same could be applied to any martial arts. Maybe take a boxing class or play baseball.
I used to do Shaolin Wu Shu in college (a basic variety of Kung Fu) where you progress by demonstrating you know how to combine moves. And then the master would take us to watch all the other martial arts being practised - he'd be saying 'that's useless, pointless waste of energy, oooh - we're stealing that' - it's all well and good knowing the classic move/riposte but IRL you're not going to be fighting another person from your discipline. And never rest on your laurels. You can't stop the battle and say 'I say chaps - I'm only trained to fight sabre v sabre, would you mind awfully getting your sabre chap - and stop hitting me with that mace'. One of the best examples being in Die Another Day - where Graves gets more and more unhinged as the fight progresses - it's a proper fight, not fencing (which is polite, rule laden, training to minimise injury). At college we used to have inter disciplinary matches - nobody ever watched us training, but we knew a lot about them. They came on in the same old way and we defeated them in the same old way, as Wellington said. And fitness in round three. Never underestimate how many mistakes you make when you're tired - so be less tired.
@@Handle35667 It's because the man who has already accepted he is dead doesn't have any sense of self-preservation whatsoever. You block and parry because you don't want to die. He will just keep attacking until you manage to incapacitate him. Think about why fighters like the Viking beserkers were so feared back in the day.
Mr Ben or learn some basic leg work and hand to hand. You donvt even need a sword to knock the fuck down some idiot charging. It is one of the first thing you learn in any hand to hand sport. Idiots charging completely negate their weapon reach advantage and completely opeb themselves up to evasive leg work and an inevitable counterblow. All it takes is not lose your wits which absolutely should not happen if you had any decent training, like bare minimum...
Mr Ben or learn some basic leg work and hand to hand. You don't even need a sword to knock down some idiot charging. It is one of the first things you learn in any hand to hand sport by merely practcing and getting some muscle memory. Idiots charging completely negate their weapon reach advantage and completely open themselves up to evasive leg work and an inevitable counterblow. Like, within seconds. All it takes is not lose your wits which absolutely should not happen if you have some practice sparring/fencing. Otherwise, you are bad and have no reason to complain...
@BigDave Exactly. Which I find hilarious personally. @Prana Khan Haha yeah pretty much. Every influential group on the planet ever has done the same thing of course (political, ideological, financial or otherwise). He who controls the most plebs and all that. The British Empire is probably the best example though, I'll grant you that. Or possibly the major religions. @darthioan You appear to have missed both the joke and the point. I'm not qualified to lecture on humour so I'll leave that. The point however, was that facing the aggressive idiot in a fair and manly duel is a great way to have both your and his guts on the floor. The best way to avoid the conflict in the first place is to have more friends than the other guy. Make yourself stronger by all means, but never assume it will guarantee your safety (having more friends won't either, but it's more reliable). And NEVER underestimate aggressive idiots.
Sure sure just keep watching something FOR FREE that someone puts an incredible amount of their personal time, money AND expertise into. Even just 10 years ago someone with Matt's level of focus would only be available to a select few university students. If you want to act like a little arse wipe at the very notion that you could, not should, give something back then you should sod off. TH-cam channels are getting smashed for ad revenue at the moment. Matt could VERY easily have set up subscription based members only areas ages ago. Grow up and learn you reap what you sow in this life. Show some respect.
This may or may not be interesting to you Matt, but this is also true of BFM, or dogfighting as it's more commonly known. Since BFM is basically just applied mathematics, there is a well established fighting doctrine for each aircraft that details the most effective speeds, angles of attack, and G loading to enable the tightest turn radius or the fastest rate of turn. Similar to chess (and perhaps fencing, although I know far less about that subject) there are optimal "moves" and "counter-moves" that are disadvantageous if *not* made (hence the applied mathematics part; all aircraft are subject to the laws of physics,) and so nine times out of ten, the pilot who can adhere to these regimes most efficiently will win, given a level playing field, since they will slowly over time gain positional advantage over their opponent. There is however a very small amount of room for surprise; pulling a much harder turn then is optimal can sometimes allow you to get your nose (and therefore guns) pointed at your opponent faster, at the cost of reduced airspeed. If your opponent is not expecting this, it can allow you to get a snapshot at him, even though he flew more "correctly." Apologies if this was dull, I'm aware my subject is very niche.
Hey don't knock the falling out of the sky uncontrollably aspect of a warplane, it was one of the famous features of the F-105 Thunderchief. Pilots referred to it as the "Triple Threat" - it could bomb you, strafe you, or fall on you.
reminds me of something out of the Hagakure. if you practice the "art" of fencing you are an artist. killing is a simple matter and there are no need for many refinements of it.
@Mister Guy People do get too wrapped up in the "artistry" of violence, though. Using your tool of choice requires a skill set, true, but it's a fairly simple skill set, and no matter how well-practiced someone is, the will to use violence will almost always trump skill. You can train in the sword from the time you walk and some dumbass with a crossbow can end you.
@Mister Guy I do wonder about their tactics though. SWAT tactics are optimized to take on an individual who really isn't prepared to fight 6 armed officers. They really want to catch you with a bowl of cereal on your lap while watching TV.
Had this problem in modern fencing class. There was some wild 6'2" wacko that just swung the epee like it was a claymore. He won every engagement and remained undefeated for the remainder of the course. He didn't care to learn anything about technique or anything, just wanted to win.
Daniel Shue the same thing happened in my college elective fencing course. The class psycho won a large number of matches due to crazy aggression instead of skill. He flunked out of school later and moved back in with mom and dad.
I think that result was largely due to the selection of weapon. Smallsword is a perfect weapon for madmen. 1 it doesnt have enough stopping power for the skilled one to stop his opponent even if the skilled one penetrated first. 2 it is very light, so the unskilled one is very unlikely to make the mistake of over swing or putting too much power in one strike. 3 it is a specifically thin thrusting weapon. So it would be very hard to defend the attack and defend with it. 4 it is very nimble. So even a unskilled user can easily aiming the thrust toward the right direction, and tracking his opponent when the opponent was trying to evade. 5 it is long enough to make wrestling hard, but not long enough to stop the suicidal charge. If the skilled one chose something like long sword or two handed sword, Im pretty sure the skilled one would win most of the times.
I seem to recall a memoir from a British Officer (can't remember whose) travelling to Khiva during the Russian campaign against the Khivan Khanate. He was set upon by a man with a sword, and rather than fight him, the officer pulled out a revolver. At this point the swordsman turned and ran away. So, pulling out a better weapon is always an option to curb aggression.
+Osmorosvo - Indeed. I thought it interesting that there are apparently historical parallels to the iconic Hollywood scene. Apparently, Harrison Ford wasn't the only person who couldn't be arsed to fight a seemingly accomplished swordsman.
I was mistaken regarding the party involved in the story. It was in "Muraviev's Journey to Khiva Through the Turcoman Country, 1819-1820". Quote: "11th December. - Before reaching the well I had a strange adventure. Day had not yet broken and I was riding on ahead, my sleepy comrades lagging behind, when I suddenly came on a Turcoman leading two camels. I rode up to him and asked him whence he had come and whither he was bound. On being thus accosted he took refuge behind his camels for a moment, and then sprange out with a naked sword in his hand shouting, "Be off or I shall cut you to pieces." He was so rapid in his movements that I had hardly time to draw my pistol, but when I did so and pointed it at him, the poor wretch was so terrified that he dropped his sword and lost all power of utterance.' So not exactly as I portrayed, but as a lawyer friend once told me, "never let the truth get in the way of a good story".
Well, the background there is that Ford had a serious case of the stomach flu and really truly couldn't be bothered with what was scripted as a long melee. So he suggested that maybe Indy could pull his gun instead so Ford could quickly run back to the bathroom. :-)
Boxing//MMA is different than a real fencing duel, if someone's on a mission to land a strike at any cost and is in decent shape they'll land a blow on any fencing master and the only real defense is to run the aggressor through as well or outlast the storm for a minute and let them tire to blood loss and being winded, which isn't reliable. Like how if you've ever been hunting and the beast runs off after the arrow or bullet hit them for a bit before they die, same with a human and a rapier wound.
If your skill does not allow you to overcome dumb-headed rushing in, then it's useless skill. I mean, the account mentioned that Englishmen won more duels with their straight-on aggression than Frenchmen with their skill. Also, if something looks dumb but works, then it's not dumb.
I don't think it's quite that simple, this is very similar to a game of hawk-dove. If both combatants behave like the English then both die every duel, the French style works when both parties are attempting to keep themselves alive.
I don't think that aggressive rush will ensure death of both combatants, but even if it did, a skill that only works against other people using this skill, and actually dropping in effectiveness when used against aggressive amateur, is useless. I understand that it was developed to keep you alive, but it kinda fails at this task if it actually kills you when the other guy has no idea about fencing, doesn't it? What's worse, many of those English officers WON their duels, so they successfully killed and survived. So if your assumption that rush will kill both combatants is correct, it's still more beneficial to use it - at least you have a chance of both of you dying, instead of only you going down. And in addition to all that, duel to the death of two skilled swordsmen will still one alive and other dead. Why not just get over it and rush down the other guy, hoping for the best? Matt's assumption that using proper swordsmanship will keep you alive to hopefully fight multiple opponents only works if all of those opponents also use your fighting style, because as the example of French and English officers shows us, the guys that rush you down have greater chance of winning than you. And just to mention it - I don't actually know if rushing someone down in a duel with weapons gives you greater chance of winning, I'm just going by the example shown by the book.
I don't think so either. Actually, when you see that most guys rushing their opponents down aggressively come out victorious, it's apparent that that's what actually gives you the best chance of survival. So it's idiotic to use useless skill that will get you killed unless someone else doesn't adhere to the same useless skill.
The problem is, swords are lethal weapons given enough time, but they usually are not able to incapacitate opponents instantaneously. You could be extremely skilled in the context of fencing with tempo (kind of like the meta so to speak,) but the point Matt is making here is that if you are suicidal, you are going to ignore your own defences. But in the context of a duel where the suicidal person's goal is to only kill his opponent, ignoring defences doesn't matter too much because unless he is struck in the brain or the neck or somewhere immediately vital, they are rarely put out of action (especially considering that the French were using smallswords.) Here's an excellent article about the stopping power (or lack of) of swords, read summary for TL;DR: www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php
Both combatants were using the same weapon. The book does not mention the British officers winning the duels and then dying due to injuries, so I cannot assume that they did. Therefore, going by the example provided by the book, ignoring your defence is actually a smart thing to do since it gives you an edge in a duel. Again, I don't know if it is really the case that forgoing defence actually gives you an edge in a duel, and if the victory in a duel meant that English guy lived or died 3 days later due to wounds. I'm just taking the data I'm presented, and stating my opinions on that basis.
For some reason I'm reminded of the story of Musashi being challenged to a duel on an island, and when he arrived by boat he found his challenger waiting for him on the shore...so he grabbed an oar and rushed the beach, braining his challenger with the oar. The point of a life or death struggle is to win, not to follow rules. If it works it's not stupid.
Well then you don't understand the duel fencing in the 18th century with the smallsword. There was an exact etiquette to uphold. This wasn't some "bullshido doesn't work in real life hence do juijutsu or anything that works best" bullshit
You run into this with fighting video games even. An unskilled "button masher" can be difficult to read, behaving chaotically and often pulling off moves by accident. The skilled player, having practiced for hours upon hours, can get very frustrated with this as there's no longer any patterns to watch for so countering the button masher's chaos becomes very difficult.
If you follow martial sports ( kick boxing/ MMA) you'll see people with one unique technique dominates until people figure out how to defend against it. It works because it's new and nobody has trained against it. Watch a well trained club competes against another club who trains a different way. The second club kicks butt in their first encounter. The first is by far more skilled, but the technique the other club is using is do different they don know how to react. Once they learn to defend it the first club will win.
If the English officers won and survived then they weren't suicidal, they were unconventional. The French had unrealistic expectations, a serious mistake that has lost battles, fortunes, empires, and clearly duels. There is a big difference between mastering a art form and being a good fighter, the two are not mutually exclusive, in fact they can be complimentary. Like wise there is a difference between a contest and a fight. A contest is lost by default if rules are broken. In a fight there is only one rule, survive. Duels had very few rules and the case of the Waterloo duels the English were both good fighters and good lawyers. They won the duel by fighting well, not necessarily skillfully, and their seconds had pistols when the French were irate at unconventional methods. The French presumed the English would fight as they did, the English agreed to no such thing so there were no rules against a different style fighting. This is why I love bad Asian martial arts films of the sixties and seventies. There were never any rules only a fight to see whose style was the best. There was only a winner, a loser and the only presumption was that the styles may have influenced the outcome more than the fighters.
Time to ramble: I've always put it this way when it comes to skill of swordsmen. A beginner will do the wrong thing and maybe win. An intermediate level practitioner will endeavor to do the right thing but may lose tot he wild attacks of the beginner. A master will know how to do the right thing with enough skill to win, even against an unskilled opponent. One of the teaching of Japanese sword schools is that a truly skilled teacher can always win, but do so just barely so their student can learn. When looking at how this applies to HEMA and the passage you read, this is where Fiore's Audatia holds true, or the German master talk about how it favors you to be the first to attack. Sometimes it gives you the edge you need. Indeed, probably the best insight this gives us is that we can look at the more common soldier's sword skills at various time periods and understand that not everyone had full mastery.
Matt, I have long been a devoted fan of your excellent, comprehensive and thoroughly down-to-earth, practical, realistic (as to common sense and the realities of actual combat) instructive posts (I have just now hit the "subscribe" button, der). I am reaching out now, because as a 61 year-old instructor/man-at-arms (all weapons) I have been making this point (unskilled fencers) tirelessly with my students. Sometimes, even opponents with some skill just crack under the pressure of a contest and start swinging like lunatics. The only approach, given such an event, which I have found practical in teaching defense in such a situation, is based upon Hutton's comments on "commanding." This is to say: bind, grapple, and push (in real life one would finish with a pommel or shell strike (sabre) to the face), but the push makes the point, even if your opponent lands on his butt. While this method is not "allowed", "legal" in contest, it makes a very impressive point. Yes, there are many other ways of defending oneself against a Berserker, but these are so complex that only solid experience can hope to master all of the possible permutations of how the unskilled will, or, may behave, that in the essence of time, one must learn a method for a situation that one will encounter very much sooner than later. The bottom line then goes to you, sir: 'stay on your toes, stay loose, keep fluid.' The mad slash and stab can't keep up with a blade that doesn't stop moving with skill (the bedrock of the moulinet). Thank you, sir Robert Kenneth Dator, L'Academie des Armes “Audaces fortuna iuvat - Fortune favors the bold." Virgil Greensboro, NC, USA
Hi Matt, I don't know if you know the youtube channel "The Great War". They are doing a day-by-day amazing documentary of WWI following the 100th anniversary and it's very cool. Seeing that they do collabs with other youtubers to study the guns of the war, for example, I suggested it could be great if you joined for a swords&sabers special. They answered that they contacted you but never got a response. Just leaving this here in case you never saw it. Cheers!
I heard some very questionable information in their show so I don't watch it anymore since I don't think I can believe them enough to be educated by it
I'd be interested in knowing what information you found questionable on their show. I've found some rather sketchy information too, and some bias that influences them to make hasty characterizations sometimes, but that is mostly with regard to Austria-Hungary, and is therefore understandable, if still lamentable - Austria-Hungary is sadly under-researched and almost no proper, historical and researched books are dedicated to her in the English language.
...I don't now much about him but I know that he married one (not for his benefit and his family was against it) and the reason that he was in the car at the moment he was killed is that he wanted to visit a hospital with people injured by previous assassination attempt on him by a bomb (hand thrown), which were mostly slavs
Fiore's Exchange of Thrusts technique might work. Take their point aside using your weapon o you are safe, then while still binding against their sword, perform a thrust of your own. See: wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:Pisani-Dossi_MS_20b-c.png
Big and quick step or jump to the side followed by some quick and low level (meaning low as lower part of body) attack. Ex: groin kick, kickbox style lowkick, knee strike or in case of weapons and no armor: thrust to the leg or pelvis, than just as fast retreat. Key factor is speed and distance (you want to have enough distance but not too much).
This honestly reminds me of an assertion made on occasion in the books of the late Sir Terry Pratchett: The most dangerous opponent to a master swordsman is a fellow master; the second most dangerous is a rank amateur, because they're unpredictable and likely to do things that are suicidally stupid but still effective (at least in terms of harming their target). A gross over-simplification, sure, but there's definitely the same core point, that even untrained opponents can be quite dangerous, even if their own odds of survival aren't particularly high.
One of the more interesting things that I learned from my kendo instructor was that you train fights first, and learn theory later. People would ask him, "Why are we doing X or Y, and not Z?" And he would always just say not to ask questions, just do it. He was training muscle memory, skipping the mental step of identifying an attack and then picking a guard. The "theory" that determined why we did certain things could come later. He always reiterated that he was the teacher, we were the students; we were there to learn how to fight, not to learn how to teach. He also gave us a lot of chances to experiment as we gained skill. So we didn't learn an advanced technique at the same time we learned the counter; we would learn the technique and then go spar to figure out the counter on our own. When he was satisfied, he'd bring pairs up to demonstrate the counters, and ask the class to consider the pros and cons of each, and then he would tell us which method was correct or would teach us the correct counter. It meant that we were always drilling against the unexpected in most of our lessons. Usually, by the time we started learning theory, we already understood it from the basis of practical experience.
The exact same thing happens in hand to hand combat. Some idiot weighing 120kgs will just start bashing you in the face, and there's not much you can do about it, unless you're super-skilled, which I am not [or it's a street fight, and you're out in the open - then your chances are actually pretty good as you just let them swing themselves to death/fatigue]. It's usually that, or they'll just charge you and knock you over and pin you to the mat for three minutes. Sure, you can hit them, but some people are just generally more resistant to strikes than others. Fun fact, I actually won a street fight in the way I described above. This psychotic drunk guy came charging at me, throwing haymakers, and I just kept backing away and slipping them, until finally he gassed out. I said "Are you alright mate? Because you can't fight for shit". In between deep gasps for air, he told me to go fuck myself, then shuffled away. Best fight ever - I never even touched the guy!
That's one of those things that someone who has never done any kind of real martial arts wouldn't realize until it's way too late... if you go get a pillow, put it on your bed, and beat the ever-loving piss out of it, time yourself and see how long you can keep going at full intensity, trashing that pillow. Average person, no fighting background, not in terribly great or bad shape... less than a minute, every time. Big props reading the situation right and ending the fight with a joke rather than a straight cross to the bridge of the nose when he was all tuckered out xD good on you
@@JimRFF so true. I win every fight I am in as an adult for the first about 10-20 seconds by either pinning them on ground or landing haymakers or doing some kind of a judo takedown. After that I give up and get my as% kicked because I am out of breath a few years back I went to a judo school and was able to take down black belts almost my size. But the problem was that after I use all my energy to take em down, Ive none left to keep them down
So this is a British author writing about an account of British soldiers from a war 50 years earlier--a war which the British were VERY proud of having won. And in these accounts, the French are made to look silly and fancy while the Brits are made to look heroic and tough. Gee, I wonder if this perhaps isn't the best source.
I think one of my favorite "scenes" from a fantasy book I once read, was of a swordsman who was fighting another in an arena for sport so with practice weapons. First to 3 strikes won, and after the first pass he knew he could in no way beat the other guy, or even score a point, and remarked to himself that at least an idiot or newbie might throw his sword and at least score a point by luck. At which point he realized damn the swordplay, charged the guy picked him up and threw him from the ring, winning by disqualification as the other guy had "left the field of competition".
hey love the videos have been watching for some time now. I was wondering if it is at all possible could you do a video on medieval Russian martial arts I quite like Russian armors and weapons as they seem to be an odd half way between being European and Asian
I'd be interested to know what primary sources on historic slavic martial arts are available. I've found primary 19th century sources on sabre (shashka), and a 1950s study on Georgian swordsmanship (appears to include sword and buckler work) that I've never found time to read. There are some monumental works on the actual weapons, but I can't find much on how they're actually used. Lots of the Russian youtube videos on the shashka are primarily focused on exhibition work rather than real swordsmanship (or people beating the crap out of each other with foam covered sticks, which also isn't real swordsmanship).
Sabres appeared in the Eurasian steppe in the 7th-8th century. So in a way, historical sabre systems probably represent the evolution of medieval slavic swordsmanship, but finding English-language sources is fairly difficult. Russian sabre system form the 19th century (as far as I can tell) is largely similar to the contemporary British sabre system (linear footwork, lunge / recover, etc). Some old soviet publications on the topic are available online. For instance "Weapons of Ancient Rus - swords and sabres, 9th to 13th centuries by A.N. Kirpichnikov" is available for free online, but finding an English translation may be difficult. Even if you can't find one, it contains quite a lot of diagrams , charts, and figures. For what it's worth, the following is the Section "Historical Overview of Swordsmanship in the USSR" from "Fencing"by K.T. Bulochko, 1966: [note that it paints everything in very broad, and possibly incorrect, strokes]. "Swordsmanship in Ancient Rus in the 7th-16th centuries was predominantly utilitarian in character and was taught in the family and military. It focused on preparing the people to defend their homeland from foreign invaders. The most advanced was the original system of military and physical training in Kievan Rus. By the 10th - 15th centuries, possession of bladed weapons was a distincitve feature of the Russian military. Swordsmanship training was focused on preparing troops for hand to hand fighting in defense of their homeland. Ukrainian Cossacks in the Zaporozhian Sich also created their own unique system of combat and physical training in which the art of using the sabre and sword were predominant. In Georgia, fighting with sword and shield (p'arikaoba), and fighting with sling and wooden sabre (saldasti) was widespread among the nobility and the entire population. The Russian national militia in defending the independence of their country, adapted hunting and household tools to fight off foreign invaders and thus created various distinctive weapons. The stick was turned into a cudgel, the axe into a pick or a war hammer, a pole into a javelin, war spear, poleaxe. Various pole weapons were widely used, such as halberds, which are a combination of spear, axe, and hook. Common people, especially artisans, fought with knives in close quarters. The Russian one-handed sword in the Middle Ages was distinguished by its large blade width, length, and mass. Sabres were light and slightly curved. Instead of the smallsword they used a koncerz - a one-handed weapon with a triangular or quadrilateral cross-section, and a length of up to one and a half meters. The koncerz was intended to inflict thrusts on opponents wearing plate armor [perhaps lamellar?] or chain mail. The appearance of the firearm in the 14th century did not displace bladed weapons. The first flintlock firearms had lots of problems and were unsuitable for battles. Hence bladed weapons still played the decisive role in time of conflict." So, not terribly informative, but it gives some key terms to use in googling. :)
I'm not involved in HEMA at all, but I keep coming back to these video's because I have a huge amount of respect for this guy as a teacher. Very professional and insightful. Thank you for this content!
I defeated my brother by rushing in like an idiot, I have to say, as long as you're arm is outstretched and your opponent isn't expecting it, charging in and screaming is pretty affective.
Training in any martial art should include how to deal with the unskilled/wild/suicidal opponent. Often self defense class's will show you really great self defense moves that require the attacker to do the expected. An attacker (trained or not) will seldom do the expected so you need to know how to modify your defense to deal with the way they actually attack.
Many years ago when I did sports fencing, I met an opponent that surprised me with a very odd move. She scored a point against me fairly easily. One I realized what she was doing she wasn't able to do it again and I scored the rest of the points. But if it'd been for realsy she would have had my guts for garters.
I don't have a source, but I am almost certain that I have read things along these lines with regard to the fighting mindset and training of samurai. That is, that they aimed to rid themselves of the fear of death, since a warrior who does not fear death is extremely hard to defeat. Not that they were suicidal (despite seppuku etc), but a certain focus on offense and disregard for ones own safety is often a winning strategy. "The best defense is a good offense" as it were.
As an aggressive, and highly unskilled opponent since I haven't been able to go to lesson frequently, I can confirm that it does work on occasion. If I am facing a newer person I often find that being very aggressive works since they can just be overwhelmed and forced onto the defensive. This has however started to teach them very rapid counter attacks once they parry my blow so I try to justify myself that way. However when I am facing better and years more experienced opponents I tend to be very careful. This isn't as effective since I am out of practice however it does usually allow me to get in one or two hits but throwing in a fury of attacks at an unexpected time does play to my advantage.
When I was into sport fencing I came across a lefty who had terrible footwork and only did eighth guard, but it was all so far from what a normal fencer should do I couldn't beat him.
Ask them if they're a very tall midget, and whilst they're confused about what the fuck you just said, you can run, counterattack, or even jack their booze!
As a martial artist myself I have to say that if my opponent looks weak against someone who doesn't follow any "rules of skill" I will promptly fight a whole lot more agressive. Just being carefull is not always the best strategy. There is no 1 best strategy in fights other than probably don't fight. And if you have to fight you have to win. No matter what. Granted the more tactics and techniques you know the bigger your bag of tricks will be. The more unpredictable you can be and the better you will be able to read your opponents.
I know this sounds irrelevant but as a college wrestler and young Wrestling coach who has been wrestling for 15 years, this is very true. For example I have a much easier time wrestling trained wrestlers that are doing techniques I know, (and can even teach) as oppose to some random idiot who is going to do God knows what!
In smash bros terms, the french practiced frame perfect SHFFDL with fox while the english just picked marth and spammed f-smash. Basically, the french need to git gud
I think you already mentioned this in a past video, but I find that the best way to deal with unskilled aggressive opponents is to provoke them into attacking. Which is fairly easy since they are, well, aggressive. Since one knows they will attack as a response to provocation, one can easily respond accordingly with a counter. Unskilled people generally are poor at feints and follow up cuts, so it's also a bit safer.
I've first hand experience in this. I joined a fencing club in college, having had some sword fighting experience though not fencing (kendo and straight sword). Naturally I easily bested my fellow new recruits (they were all cautious and tried to parry). So the instructor with many years of actual fencing experience pulled me aside for a dual. Knowing my fewer years of non fencing experience were no match, I resolved to put all my eggs into a lunge the instant it started, and it worked. He was incredulous of course, complaining about the poor form and how I hadn't done that with my classmates. I simply said "And that's why you lost". He started expecting it though and it rarely worked in future duals against him, but IRL it's only the first fight that counts.
Man this video hits home. I currently have a student who has one default setting which is blindly charge in swinging with no regard to bodily harm. Though he is stubborn and always has an excuse we are working with him to get him to be a little more disciplined. Thanks matt this video made me smile.
Jura Josef I was eating and gagged on my cereal when I seen the profile picture..Please for the sake of mankind change that..Banana hammock should be a felonu, especially bright pink ones
I read somewhere that the same thing happened post-Waterloo, the French persuading some of their fencing masters to masquerade as French officers and challenge British officers in Paris. With much the same results, until at length the fencing masters refused to participate in the business any longer.
Sometimes a ferocious charge is the best way to win a fight or battle, but not always or even often, I think the battle of Gettysburg pa in the civil war very clear example of that, with successful victorious charges by the union and a failed all out charge by the confederates costing them the battle, some say the war
the time period and the technology being used really does determine whether your statement is true or not. At ghettsburg it was a terrible idea because both sides had rifles which had such a long range that the rifles could fire too many shots before the potential enemy could engage. However, if you look at the 15th century arquebus, its rate of fire and range and accuracy was so low that charging a person using it may not be a bad idea. What are your thoughts?
Technology has nothing to with it. It has everything to do with Matt's favorite word: context! If you're taking fire and can't fire back but can close the distance, it may be worth it to charge as fast as possible.
A ferocious charge (even by a smaller force) generally works better if it is to overrun an enemy who has less morale or who isn't expecting it and doesn't have time to counter it. Tell El Kebir is an example of both, where both sides were armed with breechloading rifles.
This story is a good example as to why "courage" is one of the essential pillars of any melee combat. That way, if an unexperienced man charges, you can do it better, or dismantle his charge with skill, such as parrying, evasion, and bindwork. A fighting art is of no use to you if you are too much of a coward to use it when it counts. But, like everything else, courage can be learned and practiced.
At my Kung Fu Club, I've talked to my students quite a bit about how you deal with a skilled opponent way differently than an unskilled opponent, and many times they are surprised to hear me say that an unskilled person is not necessarily easier than a skilled person. I also talk a lot about being careful to define what's victory for you. A fight can be lengthened and brutalized by not knowing what your goal is and shortened and softened if you do know what your goal is.
As much as I hate to side with the english, I got to say it makes sense. As someone with real fighting experience (not studio martial arts, but was a bit of a brawler in my younger days.) I can tell ya aggression can make up for a lack of proper skill or really just closing the gap in a far superior skilled opponent. Especially in real fights where you win or you potential die. At which point you have to decide if you want to focus on trying to survive or trying to drop your opponent before he/she can drop you. All in all this is the biggest difference between studying the arts and learning how to actually fight. In short like Matt said (paraphrasing) don't expect to only fight someone with the same refined sense of fighting as you get in basically every martial art. If you are studying for self defense learn to fight someone who will have no regard for their own safety as they try to hurt you.
in my history of outside brawls aggressiveness actually hurts. Examples: 1) This russian guy and I are fighting, like 10 people watching. He hits me first to my chin, I drop. As soon as I got that hit, my adrenaline pumped. I got up and charged at him. he was down in a second and I was beating him. his friends called the cops so that the fight be stopped 2) I have beef with a black guy. He is very quiet. For some reason I decide to attack first and hit him but not too hard. He immediately goes from 0 to 100 berzerker mode. I overwhelm him eventually but only after like 20 quick punches All in all, I would say that being the defensive fighter is better because you are fighting for your life and because you get hit first which should pump your adrenaline
"A professional fighter, a combat artist, could be defeated by a cantina brawler who knew nothing about form, but everything about ending a conflict quickly. Without a thought toward winning gracefully or elegantly. Enslavement to form opened one to defeat by the unforeseen."- Count Dooku
Shadilay brother. Is there any chance of you making a video on Kekistani weapons and armour? Anyway, lookin forward to your next upload, have a nice day and may kek be with you.
Also, in a true life or death scenario, unless you end your opponent quickly, all enemies become kamikaze warriors at some point. Humans are tenacious. Fear the man who has nothing left to lose, he will lay down his life to end your own.
Great video, Matt. Related question: How much of a factor is the weapon proficiency of the individual on a battlefield with infantry and cavalry fighting in tight formation? In the case of infantry using a phalanx or testudo formation, for example. Are other factors, such as soldiers' ability to hold their ground or fight as a team (e.g. maintaining formation, changing positions as the front line gets tired) or even just straight aggression far more significant on the battlefield? How important were the weapon skills of the individual, historically speaking, on the medieval battlefield or in antiquity? I imagine military officers had to make decisions about how much time a soldier should spend training to use their weapon, specifically, as opposed to how to fight in formation.
Carl Erik Lechner Stinessen my own opinion is that soldiers in medieval and ancient times were probably mostly concerned with group fighting! for example alot of people think that common medieval soldiers were not trained in fighting, that is because people usually training think of individual combat like hema but the training that would occur mostly with common soldiers would be group fighting, the thing with common soldiers is that they are mainly used in groups thats when they become effective! group fighting is all a commander needs from his soldiers to be good at in a battle or skirmish not be a good duelist or one on one combatant like knights! the thing is common soldiers should never fight individual one on one combat like in hollywood battles! the whole jist is to stay together and excel in that, then to try and beat a knight one on one who has trained all his life to kill people.
There's an old joke, the Soviets during the Cold War would say the nice thing about the Americans is you can always read their manuals to know exactly what they're supposed to do in war... but the problem with fighting the Americans is that the Americans don't read the manuals.
Attacking aggressively in a manner that ruins the composure of an opponent is a skill in-and-of itself. A fight isn't just a display of tempo like a machine playing drums, but a combat between the wits of the combatants. If you lose the power to rightly move your muscles so finely tuned by all those technical drills when someone charges you with victory in their heart, then their so-called 'suicide charge' was hardly so idiotic.
Miyamoto Bennosuke became the greatest Japanese swordsman partly because he used unconventional tactics during duels. Sometimes he would pretend to be drunk. Frequently he would be disheveled and unwashed to trigger contempt of snooty samurai. Doing the unexpected skillfully can be powerful.
That's why whenever I feel I get too caught up in fencing formula, I always go back to Silver's lessons. At least he knew the hidden strength of a random untrained fool charging at you with a chair or table-leg.
When a King's guard is described as being made of "Berserkers", it's much more likely that it means "Champion warriors who also have some sort religious role" rather than "Crazy naked dudes". I mean, having a personal guard made of crazy murderers sounds really counter-productive.
When a King's guard is described as being made of "Berserkers", it's much more likely that it means "Champion warriors who also have some sort religious role" rather than "Crazy naked dudes". I mean, having a personal guard made of crazy murderers sounds really counter-productive.
Good that you linked to a specific edition of the book, which I finally purchased. On your previous links there were too many versions / editions so I was never sure which one to buy.
Very true view on martial arts in general, practicing with trained opponents simply hones your reflexes but you need to be prepared for the unpredictablility of the beginner
I've definitely dueled against crazies (mainly cause I ask if people wanna join me and my friend while we're sparring). I used to always be confused but I think one trick is to just back off let them "figure out" what they're doing them, go into a parry, closing distance is super effective after they attack (since the unpredictableness eventually gets old) mainly because movies don't teach them how to deal with a threat that closes. Eh, but idk too much so yeah, that's just what experience has revealed to me for now. Great video as always!
A valuable lesson for any martial art. The more the contest is limited with rules and you perfect yourself within it to outcompete others within that ruleset the more vulnerable you become to outsiders. No matter if it's fencing, boxing, jiu jitsu, whatever. You have to put yourself through reality checks.
In the Sharpe series there was a part where Sharpe is in a duel against a fencer and in the beginning Sharpe is faltering but then he charges in without following the niceties of the form and he beats his opponent. I know the author of the series is a historian and I wonder if he took some of his ideas from what was just described here.
Hi there I have a question, I am selling what is left of my militaria collection and I am down to a few treasured pieces, How should I go about finding a legitimate buyer for a bronze age sword,? - thank you.
Interesting to hear, that this kind of kamikaze style fighters have such a "long tradition". I myself encountered such a person once during a Judo tournament. He was a massive guy, and his strategy was immediately after the referee had commenced the fight charging towards his opponent, taking them by surprise and score an immediate victory with a violent throw. Since I was in the opposite bracket and I used to carefully examine all the other fighters, I saw him succeed three(!) times with this strategy! When we faced off in the finale, I easily countered his reckless assault and the fight was over in about 2 seconds - a bit anticlimactic for a finale, but who cares;). I am not sure though, if I would have been prepared when fighting him in the very first fight!
I was never a history guy nor was i ever especially interested in the weaponary, the only interest i share with your videos is martial arts, however, after watching couple of your vids I got more and more interested in the subject and i've learn lots of interesting things, keep up the good work, subscribed :)
Every time I've done (Well, basically re-enacted) this, I won by drawing them into over-extension. Tried to get their back, but usually flanked to the weak (shield) side. Because that's what untrained, or neophyters tend to do in their first few bouts: Get excited, and overextend. weak/Shield/Bucker/Main Gauche/(Support arm if 2 handed) side to cut off Reach, and Angle of Attack. Their weapon/arm tends to get caught in their defense, which invariably leaves an opening behind it. in fact, one of the first thing you learn is how to defend your weak side, what shields are for. So, it also makes a good test to see how far along they are. (Since you can't tell by looking at them, unless youknow them.) Doesn't work every time with say SCAdians, but more often than not, pretty damned reliably. Just for example, it doesn't work worth a damn against ranked modern fencers.
@scholagladiatoria So... will there be another video where you explain techniques for dealing with kamikazes? Very curious. I'm assuming a lot of defensive postures and awaiting counterattacks to killing blows.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." - Douglas Adams
There is another one. "The problem with making something idiot proof is that as soon as you do it the universe creates a better idiot". Don't know who said it though.
@TeamHansen19 I'm not the originator.
@@gordonlawrence4749 Terry Pratchett perhaps?
@@Vandal_Savage It does sound like something he would say but it pre-dates his publishing by decades. It's been around since the 50's at least.
@@gordonlawrence4749 That somehow contradicts the Darwin's theory and similar ones where natural selection picks those who survive (are more able). Fools evolve into more incompetent ones by the means of self-destruction.
For years, my fencing coach has told me: “the best swordsman in France does not fear the second best, he fears the worst.”
May I ask the name of your instructor, if he was french I would be very interested.
@@12dougreed Must be the great Doutreval de Dijon.
He’s using a variation from Twain’s _A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court_: “The best swordsman in the world doesn't need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he doesn't do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn't prepared for him; he does the thing he ought not to do; and often it catches the expert out and ends him on the spot.”
By this logic, Iron Mike Tyson should be afraid of me.
@@bharnden7759 i think it applies differently to different sports and i think the original expression was a bit of an exaggeration of the concept. That said, i have heard a professional mma coach say that a complete novice may be more likely to beat a pro than an amateur with just a little experience. It's a very small chance of course.
Fighting is like driving a car: Know how it's done "properly" but be prepared to be the only one who does.
Well put, I feel like I've heard that phrase before, maybe in my MMA classes. It's definitely true that the rookie boxers and grapplers can often throw off the more skilled fighters with their wild, erratic struggling. Of course typically the skilled fighter wins out, but I've seen some strange things. The unpredictability of an untrained individual is what makes them dangerous.
@@RedSky-vf8bf add a sword or knife in the mix and the idiot just has to get lucky once.
I really know what you mean, with your driving metaphor. 👍🏽🤝😊😊💕
@@RedSky-vf8bf which is why a well taught conscript army and volounteer militia can be far more lethal in the tactical theatre than a professional army while the professional army will always win on a strategic level and psychological endurance.
@@SonsOfLorgar Add in other variables to the scenario you're describing- militias tend to be fighting to defend or retake their own home lands. This psychological motivation has an enormous impact on the performance of even untrained guerillas.
That's the main factor in militia success, really. The invaders probably do not want to be where they are, away from their families, fighting in some shit war for reasons he doesn't understand. But the defenders... they're fighting to PROTECT their families.
One thing that I've learned about fighting, is that typically the side/individual that *wants* the fight has an advantage. The person who doesn't want to fight will be squeamish, flinchy, and distracted by trying to think of ways out of the fight. But the guy who wants to fight is only thinking of one thing- defeating the opponent in front of him.
This is why the Viet Cong defeated the US troops over time. Yes, the US forces were better equipped, better trained, better funded, and so on. But not many of them really *wanted* to be there fighting. Most of them wanted to be home screwing their girlfriends and taking LSD. But the VC? They saw defeating the Americans as their DUTY. Their wives and children can wait- they needed to set booby traps and prepare ambushes for the US convoy coming the next night. And then the sleepy men in the convoy are rolling through, daydreaming about home, when suddenly....
Suddenly all that training and equipment isn't worth as much as simple "will to fight", aka morale.
"The best swordsman in the world doesn't need to fear the second best
swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some
ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he
doesn't do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn't prepared
for him; he does the thing he ought not to do; and often it catches the
expert out and ends him on the spot." Mark Twain
in swordsmanship there is no rules so, an expert could've switched everything up to keep the unskilled guessing
@@steve00alt70 The whole point is that fools do things experts never would. Therefore, such maneuvers are not feasible for an expert to attempt.
well, brainless moves can kill a master
@@Jianju69 Play Mordhau and you will see how true this is.
@@thepainkiller4939 It's mostly about expecting them to attempt blocking your feints/morphs and they just don't see them and keep attacking.
This is why "beginners luck" is a thing. A person well versed in a contest will (intentionally or not) expect their opponent to use the optimal strategy, and can easily caught of guard when their unskilled opponent rushes them with something usually considered weak.
Well, I'm not going to say that isn't true in a a lot of cases. To any extend, it's wise always consider an opponent to be at least adequate in meeting whatever you'll be able to throw at him, if not outright better than you. But what you say, frankly translates to a trained melee fighter having a humhum-moment while the adversary charges him arms and legs flailing, to figure out whether he's bluffing or not. I don't believe that. Sidestepping, dodging and counterthrusting are all reflectory responses to an incoming crazy person hurtling himself at you.
@@WormholeJim I think it's more for the offensive. One might feint an attack to provoke a parry before attacking differently, and this may work against most opponents. But you might be facing the lobotomite that doesn't understand what you were doing, or not know how to parry right, and ends up trying to swing blindly at you to defend themself instead. The experienced swordsman might not expect a tactic so illogical, and might suffer a double hit if they were not prepared. But you are still correct, as a good swordsman can protect from the unexpected, and knows to commit to an attack as little as is necessary.
reminds me of my dads story of being invited into a dominos game in a pub as they were a player short. Having no clue about playing the game he won many games in a row. This annoyed his opponents so much and he was accused of cheating at one point. to prove his innocents he exposed his hand the opponents then realised they could not work out his strategy because he simply did not have one. He lost every game after that.
Its like the classic tactic for knife violence in American prisons. Simply run at the person with maximal momentum and move your weapon around the gut back and forth. It doesn't have to be skillful or safe to be damn effective and difficult to defend against, especailly if the aggressor has a mentality of relying solely on his constitution to survive the encounter rather than any regard to self defense.
"If it's stupid and it works, it ain't stupid."
^ THIS. SO MUCH THIS.
Yeah, and if that's the calculation of the one who's being super aggressive then they aren't just being unskilled kamikazes. However, I've fought people dramatically less skilled than I, not that I'm particularly skilled, that use that kind of tactic and won pretty much every time for the simple reason that they are predictable. So long as you don't have your head stuck up your butt about the "right" way to do things it's not a tactic that's going to be successful with any reliability.
clearly wasn't luck if it happened so often that they put it in a book.
David Sheffler
I assume that the fight was over when you landed a blow. but unless you decapitated your opponent, you really can't be sure of that being the outcome. adrenaline is a hell of a drug you know.
Otto Pike that doesn't negate what I've said, it changes the moment you choose not the basic reality that the way you deal with an aggressive unskilled opponent is to defend and retreat and wait for the right moment to strike. If you're opponent is sufficiently unskilled then you can defend yourself and take them apart until they've slowed down or bled out.
Spam R1 and don't stop.
Get parried, casul.
YOLOOO
As an Estoc user, I disagree. You have to insert pauses between thrusts or your attacks won't track well enough. Mash R1 when you land a hit, sure, but mindlessly spamming R1 is more likely to simply deplete your stamina than get you parried.
Tested numerous times in PvP with a Refined Estoc +10 in Dark Souls 3.
*than*
Keep your distance throw some fireballs, keep hydrating.
Back in college, I took fencing. One of our teachers was trying out for the Olympic team. I got 2 points on him right away. Low guard lunges got him both times. Then he got serious and cut me to pieces. But in real duel you don't get a second chance.
CUT MY HEART S TO PIECES
John Koeberlein a touché rarely ended a duel.
I got 3 Sabre touches on Oscar Barrera at the Duel at Dallas in 1978, he then went in to clean my clock. But I still have that Sabre. Prieur bell and fluer de lis blade.
Epee is a lot more painful and a lot more real.
But you aren’t really a fencer until you have mask mesh engraved on your bell.
difference is though, in a real fight he'd be serious from the start.
@@berno8535 would he though?
Plenty of real life or death duels tended to end that way.
Look at that lunatic, Musashi
@@enriquecabrera2137 He wasn't entirely mad: he was skilled enough to know how/when to use to his advantage.
Insider gossip: I'm only wearing a hat here because I was in the sun all day and got my head burned, so it was covered in cream. I didn't think the viewing public could handle my head being even shinier than it normally is.
Ah, the tactic of blinding the opponent.
Are you still not being sponsored by superdry? This is getting a little bit out of hand...
Apparently Superdry nearly went bankrupt. Clearly this is because they are still NOT sponsoring me.
I'd suggest using a brimless hat in the future. The way your face is shaded in this video is less than ideal.
Don't worry, we like your shiny head!
Seems like the French wanted to duel while the British wanted to fight - big mistake on the French's part.
exactly, mistake to assume the opponent will fight fair.
Never believe a gentleman, no need to fight fair of you own.
PS: i am sure they are a lot of stories about "french defeat british". It was a bad move to tell nationalities, would be enough to say "two opponent". Especially it let look british as sneaky, not that the history didn't teach us not to believe in good words/speeches of our "friends".
Just like Brawl in For Honor
Certes!
Les britanniques sont tellement durs au combat qu'ils préféraient se défiler la plupart du temps pour ne pas avoir la joie de se faire trucider par des français.
Toujours votre vantardise presque légendaire que vous aimez attribuer aux français.
Ça ne coûte rien de discuter entre-vous au mépris des récits historiques!
AU FAIT!
Rappelez le nombre de médailles que la Grande-Bretagne a gagné en escrime.
On vous rappellera celles que les escrimeurs français ont autour du cou.
Mais ce n'est pas particulier à l'époque moderne sauf que précédemment cela se terminait part le nombre d'anglais partis en enfer après les duels les opposant aux français!
"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!" :-D French insults.
@W Winterheart - "Umm... you fight like a cow" - Guybrush Threepwood
if I are in a fight that could result in your death etiquette would not be my first priority
"you pooey bum" is another good'un lol (i made that one up)
Reminds me of what my driving instructor used to say: "If you expect everyone to follow the law, you'll hit someone within a week.", which is useful advice when it comes to just about anything, really. If you expect everyone to follow the same rules as you or have the same limitations as you (be it physical or moral) you're inevitably going to run into someone who doesn't and man are you gonna have a bad time.
On a side note, I now wonder how effective a bar stool would be in a duel. I image quite a bit. Sure, it's slower, but I'd say it has about the same reach as a smallsword and it's great for defense. Also, good fucking luck parrying that thing.
Awesome comment. As for a barstool, I've heard people say they're great for defence against knives which makes sense given their reach. Maybe they'd be particularly effective against a thrust centric sword. I'll probably do some experimentation with one against knives and swords at some point.
Bar stool vs Sword wouldn't exactly be a duel. The person with the stool will need to be extremely aggressive. Perhaps ram the swordsman and proceed to pummel him very quickly. Best to do this before the swordsman realizes he's being attacked with a bar stool and figures out a way to stab past it.
If the seat of the stool is sturdy enough you can block thrusts with it. Besides, if the stool is shaped somewhat like the one in this pic below, it would be rather difficult to get past. I think one can easily use the circular metal parts to parry.
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/19/8a/42/198a42040b98d481e77437148f8e9963.jpg
The guy with the stool, if smart enough, may win by closing the distance into grappling and making the sword ineffective. Use like a buckler, close mercilessly, in grapple range the stool is an effective bludgeon while the sword is no good.
Obviously do not do that if the opponent also has a knife or a dagger...
Barstool defence is covered in the book Get Tough. Also covers what to do if you suddenly realise you are sitting next to a Nazi in full uniform. Make sure you get illustrated edition.
One of my major criticism of martial arts teaching in general is how aggressiveness is not trained into students to go straight for the kill, nor is dealing with the psychologically intimidating aggressiveness found in real dangers (something not found in posturing bro-fights).
This is the reason why bayonet training is still crucial in the likes of the US Marines and a lot of armed forces training. There are extremely few situations when a bayonet charge is useful on modern battlefields, but bayonet training teaches aggression - to go in for the kill with no hesitation, as a split second hesitation comes with the cost of blood.
When I did HEMA for a short time one of the veteran instructors had a tactic where he random shouted and did a motion like he is going to charge without actually charging, it could especially the younger beginner completely strugger for a short moment and he would go for a safe blow. It was funny and you could get used to it, but worked almost everytime against first timers.
sukotsutoclone true. The person you should fear is the aggressive type who - without any thought or hesitation - is willing to destroy you, erase you. The only way to deal with such a person in an one on one is to become such a person.
This is exactly right and its why i think Matt is actually completely wrong in this video. If you're not training to fight in a real world setting where people dont follow whatever the "proper" way of fighting is, then you're not actually training to fight. You're just training to play a game that has a facsimile of combat.
If you dont teach violence of action, and how to deal with it, you're not teaching them how to fight.
If you go watch street fight videos where untrained meat heads fight trained boxers or kickboxers or grapplers what happens? The untrained idiot rushes in with aggression and ends up on the floor not knowing what happened. Because the trained fighters know how to deal with it
If trained HEMA guys are consistently losing to novices who act with aggression then the trained guys dont actually know how to fight
@@oORoOFLOo he was feinting, it's a pretty common thing to do in fencing. Pretty much the idea behind it is to telegraph a false attack to get a nervous defensive posture for that attack and go for an actual attack while the opponents blade is in a disadvantageous position.
@@lancemannly Violence of action, probably my favorite term from the military. Ties hand in hand to initiative and how that's imperative to success on a tactical or strategic scale.
This just reminds me of one my favorite book quotes.
"I did not come here to win," Lan whispered , smiling. "I came here to kill you. Death is lighter than a feather."
jerithil and duty is heavier than a mountain or so they say in the marches
Good god, that scene was satisfying.
This reinforces an experience I had years ago in fencing. I was a complete noob in fencing and the instructor who was a medal winning fencer paired me off with himself. It was just so I could get a taste in fencing, nothing serious. He told me to attack, so I did, very aggressively with no style or class. I beat his guard and won all 3 rounds. He half grudgingly admitted that I beat him fair and square even though I had no experience and he had years of experience under his belt. It was from that point on that I believed style and form have their place, but unpredictability and aggression can beat it. I have no doubt that an extremely experienced sword fighter would win the day against a noob such as myself but there is alot to be said about aggressive spirit.
roger Rumble One of my hand to hand instructors pointed out to me that training in any one specific way is very counter productive. You get used to moving and reacting to the same things so it better to do a wide variety of different things. For example he recommended taking a completely different type of training all together to offset what you know like go take a gun course and play ping pong. Just to develop your body reacting differently. I would assume the same could be applied to any martial arts. Maybe take a boxing class or play baseball.
I used to do Shaolin Wu Shu in college (a basic variety of Kung Fu) where you progress by demonstrating you know how to combine moves. And then the master would take us to watch all the other martial arts being practised - he'd be saying 'that's useless, pointless waste of energy, oooh - we're stealing that' - it's all well and good knowing the classic move/riposte but IRL you're not going to be fighting another person from your discipline. And never rest on your laurels.
You can't stop the battle and say 'I say chaps - I'm only trained to fight sabre v sabre, would you mind awfully getting your sabre chap - and stop hitting me with that mace'.
One of the best examples being in Die Another Day - where Graves gets more and more unhinged as the fight progresses - it's a proper fight, not fencing (which is polite, rule laden, training to minimise injury).
At college we used to have inter disciplinary matches - nobody ever watched us training, but we knew a lot about them. They came on in the same old way and we defeated them in the same old way, as Wellington said. And fitness in round three. Never underestimate how many mistakes you make when you're tired - so be less tired.
There's an old saying, "The most dangerous man is the one who is already dead".
Why? Does his corpse carry some deadly but easily communicable disease?
@@Handle35667 dude you do *not* want to fuck around with corpse plague...
@@Handle35667 It's because the man who has already accepted he is dead doesn't have any sense of self-preservation whatsoever. You block and parry because you don't want to die. He will just keep attacking until you manage to incapacitate him.
Think about why fighters like the Viking beserkers were so feared back in the day.
@@Schwarzvogel1 yeah they probably loved to fight and in Valhalla they would fight and drink for an eternity
@@Handle35667 RIP Alexander The Great
"Attitude without technique beats technique without attitude." - my Silat Guru
The best way to deal with an aggressive idiot is to find two of your own aggressive idiots and stand behind them.
Which is what the British did when the French complained.
Mr Ben or learn some basic leg work and hand to hand. You donvt even need a sword to knock the fuck down some idiot charging. It is one of the first thing you learn in any hand to hand sport. Idiots charging completely negate their weapon reach advantage and completely opeb themselves up to evasive leg work and an inevitable counterblow. All it takes is not lose your wits which absolutely should not happen if you had any decent training, like bare minimum...
Mr Ben or learn some basic leg work and hand to hand. You don't even need a sword to knock down some idiot charging. It is one of the first things you learn in any hand to hand sport by merely practcing and getting some muscle memory. Idiots charging completely negate their weapon reach advantage and completely open themselves up to evasive leg work and an inevitable counterblow. Like, within seconds. All it takes is not lose your wits which absolutely should not happen if you have some practice sparring/fencing. Otherwise, you are bad and have no reason to complain...
... and the British Empire was born.
@BigDave Exactly. Which I find hilarious personally.
@Prana Khan Haha yeah pretty much. Every influential group on the planet ever has done the same thing of course (political, ideological, financial or otherwise). He who controls the most plebs and all that. The British Empire is probably the best example though, I'll grant you that. Or possibly the major religions.
@darthioan You appear to have missed both the joke and the point. I'm not qualified to lecture on humour so I'll leave that. The point however, was that facing the aggressive idiot in a fair and manly duel is a great way to have both your and his guts on the floor. The best way to avoid the conflict in the first place is to have more friends than the other guy. Make yourself stronger by all means, but never assume it will guarantee your safety (having more friends won't either, but it's more reliable). And NEVER underestimate aggressive idiots.
Oh, and the hats are available through Spreadshirt: shop.spreadshirt.co.uk/scholagladiatoria/
You would get pommeled long before that ever happens..
You'll be safe as long as you stay on Schola gang's turf.
scholagladiatoria psst, go away. I don't need your merchandise!
Sure sure just keep watching something FOR FREE that someone puts an incredible amount of their personal time, money AND expertise into. Even just 10 years ago someone with Matt's level of focus would only be available to a select few university students. If you want to act like a little arse wipe at the very notion that you could, not should, give something back then you should sod off. TH-cam channels are getting smashed for ad revenue at the moment. Matt could VERY easily have set up subscription based members only areas ages ago. Grow up and learn you reap what you sow in this life. Show some respect.
This may or may not be interesting to you Matt, but this is also true of BFM, or dogfighting as it's more commonly known.
Since BFM is basically just applied mathematics, there is a well established fighting doctrine for each aircraft that details the most effective speeds, angles of attack, and G loading to enable the tightest turn radius or the fastest rate of turn. Similar to chess (and perhaps fencing, although I know far less about that subject) there are optimal "moves" and "counter-moves" that are disadvantageous if *not* made (hence the applied mathematics part; all aircraft are subject to the laws of physics,) and so nine times out of ten, the pilot who can adhere to these regimes most efficiently will win, given a level playing field, since they will slowly over time gain positional advantage over their opponent. There is however a very small amount of room for surprise; pulling a much harder turn then is optimal can sometimes allow you to get your nose (and therefore guns) pointed at your opponent faster, at the cost of reduced airspeed. If your opponent is not expecting this, it can allow you to get a snapshot at him, even though he flew more "correctly."
Apologies if this was dull, I'm aware my subject is very niche.
Plus you can totally fly upside down and get next to their cockpit and give them the finger, then buzz the tower on your way home.
End them rightly by ejecting directly into their cockpit.
Ah yes, the "surprise fall uncontrollably out of the sky firing all guns" trick, earned me many a victory in Rise of Flight
Hey don't knock the falling out of the sky uncontrollably aspect of a warplane, it was one of the famous features of the F-105 Thunderchief. Pilots referred to it as the "Triple Threat" - it could bomb you, strafe you, or fall on you.
I don't suppose it matters as much now, but, it did WWI (maybe lesser extent WWII). Some pilots were near uncanny marksman.
Next time you're in the sun, just remove the grip from a buckler and wear it as a hat, it will parry the sunlight and protect your skin.
Lol, fuck yeah
reminds me of something out of the Hagakure.
if you practice the "art" of fencing you are an artist. killing is a simple matter and there are no need for many refinements of it.
@Mister Guy People do get too wrapped up in the "artistry" of violence, though. Using your tool of choice requires a skill set, true, but it's a fairly simple skill set, and no matter how well-practiced someone is, the will to use violence will almost always trump skill.
You can train in the sword from the time you walk and some dumbass with a crossbow can end you.
@Mister Guy I do wonder about their tactics though. SWAT tactics are optimized to take on an individual who really isn't prepared to fight 6 armed officers. They really want to catch you with a bowl of cereal on your lap while watching TV.
Leeeeroooy Jenkins!
Had this problem in modern fencing class. There was some wild 6'2" wacko that just swung the epee like it was a claymore. He won every engagement and remained undefeated for the remainder of the course. He didn't care to learn anything about technique or anything, just wanted to win.
He probably also had a good sense of timing. And his opponents next to none...
Daniel Shue the same thing happened in my college elective fencing course. The class psycho won a large number of matches due to crazy aggression instead of skill. He flunked out of school later and moved back in with mom and dad.
Impossible, Do you know anything about fencing?
Whats the point of the technique if it causes you to lose? He was using more effective tactics, which means the "proper" technique is useless
When you roll a Barbarian but want to be fancy af
I think that result was largely due to the selection of weapon. Smallsword is a perfect weapon for madmen.
1 it doesnt have enough stopping power for the skilled one to stop his opponent even if the skilled one penetrated first.
2 it is very light, so the unskilled one is very unlikely to make the mistake of over swing or putting too much power in one strike.
3 it is a specifically thin thrusting weapon. So it would be very hard to defend the attack and defend with it.
4 it is very nimble. So even a unskilled user can easily aiming the thrust toward the right direction, and tracking his opponent when the opponent was trying to evade.
5 it is long enough to make wrestling hard, but not long enough to stop the suicidal charge.
If the skilled one chose something like long sword or two handed sword, Im pretty sure the skilled one would win most of the times.
The problem is that being French duelling enthusiasts, they would probably also have got wrecked with anything but a smallsword.
I seem to recall a memoir from a British Officer (can't remember whose) travelling to Khiva during the Russian campaign against the Khivan Khanate. He was set upon by a man with a sword, and rather than fight him, the officer pulled out a revolver. At this point the swordsman turned and ran away. So, pulling out a better weapon is always an option to curb aggression.
Absolutely! Though not an option in a duel :-)
A certain scene from a certain Indiana Jones movie comes into mind :)
+Osmorosvo - Indeed. I thought it interesting that there are apparently historical parallels to the iconic Hollywood scene. Apparently, Harrison Ford wasn't the only person who couldn't be arsed to fight a seemingly accomplished swordsman.
I was mistaken regarding the party involved in the story. It was in "Muraviev's Journey to Khiva Through the Turcoman Country, 1819-1820". Quote:
"11th December. - Before reaching the well I had a strange adventure. Day had not yet broken and I was riding on ahead, my sleepy comrades lagging behind, when I suddenly came on a Turcoman leading two camels. I rode up to him and asked him whence he had come and whither he was bound. On being thus accosted he took refuge behind his camels for a moment, and then sprange out with a naked sword in his hand shouting, "Be off or I shall cut you to pieces." He was so rapid in his movements that I had hardly time to draw my pistol, but when I did so and pointed it at him, the poor wretch was so terrified that he dropped his sword and lost all power of utterance.'
So not exactly as I portrayed, but as a lawyer friend once told me, "never let the truth get in the way of a good story".
Well, the background there is that Ford had a serious case of the stomach flu and really truly couldn't be bothered with what was scripted as a long melee. So he suggested that maybe Indy could pull his gun instead so Ford could quickly run back to the bathroom. :-)
We had a saying when we sparred. It only takes one lucky punch.
A reminder to never underestimate an opponent, no matter their skill level.
Boxing//MMA is different than a real fencing duel, if someone's on a mission to land a strike at any cost and is in decent shape they'll land a blow on any fencing master and the only real defense is to run the aggressor through as well or outlast the storm for a minute and let them tire to blood loss and being winded, which isn't reliable. Like how if you've ever been hunting and the beast runs off after the arrow or bullet hit them for a bit before they die, same with a human and a rapier wound.
A perfect example of one of Murphy's Laws of Combat:
Professionals are predictable...but the world is full of amateurs.
If your skill does not allow you to overcome dumb-headed rushing in, then it's useless skill. I mean, the account mentioned that Englishmen won more duels with their straight-on aggression than Frenchmen with their skill.
Also, if something looks dumb but works, then it's not dumb.
I don't think it's quite that simple, this is very similar to a game of hawk-dove. If both combatants behave like the English then both die every duel, the French style works when both parties are attempting to keep themselves alive.
I don't think that aggressive rush will ensure death of both combatants, but even if it did, a skill that only works against other people using this skill, and actually dropping in effectiveness when used against aggressive amateur, is useless. I understand that it was developed to keep you alive, but it kinda fails at this task if it actually kills you when the other guy has no idea about fencing, doesn't it? What's worse, many of those English officers WON their duels, so they successfully killed and survived. So if your assumption that rush will kill both combatants is correct, it's still more beneficial to use it - at least you have a chance of both of you dying, instead of only you going down. And in addition to all that, duel to the death of two skilled swordsmen will still one alive and other dead. Why not just get over it and rush down the other guy, hoping for the best? Matt's assumption that using proper swordsmanship will keep you alive to hopefully fight multiple opponents only works if all of those opponents also use your fighting style, because as the example of French and English officers shows us, the guys that rush you down have greater chance of winning than you. And just to mention it - I don't actually know if rushing someone down in a duel with weapons gives you greater chance of winning, I'm just going by the example shown by the book.
I don't think so either. Actually, when you see that most guys rushing their opponents down aggressively come out victorious, it's apparent that that's what actually gives you the best chance of survival. So it's idiotic to use useless skill that will get you killed unless someone else doesn't adhere to the same useless skill.
The problem is, swords are lethal weapons given enough time, but they usually are not able to incapacitate opponents instantaneously. You could be extremely skilled in the context of fencing with tempo (kind of like the meta so to speak,) but the point Matt is making here is that if you are suicidal, you are going to ignore your own defences. But in the context of a duel where the suicidal person's goal is to only kill his opponent, ignoring defences doesn't matter too much because unless he is struck in the brain or the neck or somewhere immediately vital, they are rarely put out of action (especially considering that the French were using smallswords.)
Here's an excellent article about the stopping power (or lack of) of swords, read summary for TL;DR:
www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php
Both combatants were using the same weapon. The book does not mention the British officers winning the duels and then dying due to injuries, so I cannot assume that they did. Therefore, going by the example provided by the book, ignoring your defence is actually a smart thing to do since it gives you an edge in a duel. Again, I don't know if it is really the case that forgoing defence actually gives you an edge in a duel, and if the victory in a duel meant that English guy lived or died 3 days later due to wounds. I'm just taking the data I'm presented, and stating my opinions on that basis.
For some reason I'm reminded of the story of Musashi being challenged to a duel on an island, and when he arrived by boat he found his challenger waiting for him on the shore...so he grabbed an oar and rushed the beach, braining his challenger with the oar. The point of a life or death struggle is to win, not to follow rules. If it works it's not stupid.
Well then you don't understand the duel fencing in the 18th century with the smallsword. There was an exact etiquette to uphold. This wasn't some "bullshido doesn't work in real life hence do juijutsu or anything that works best" bullshit
You run into this with fighting video games even. An unskilled "button masher" can be difficult to read, behaving chaotically and often pulling off moves by accident. The skilled player, having practiced for hours upon hours, can get very frustrated with this as there's no longer any patterns to watch for so countering the button masher's chaos becomes very difficult.
If you follow martial sports ( kick boxing/ MMA) you'll see people with one unique technique dominates until people figure out how to defend against it. It works because it's new and nobody has trained against it. Watch a well trained club competes against another club who trains a different way. The second club kicks butt in their first encounter. The first is by far more skilled, but the technique the other club is using is do different they don know how to react. Once they learn to defend it the first club will win.
With sword you only get one chance
If the English officers won and survived then they weren't suicidal, they were unconventional. The French had unrealistic expectations, a serious mistake that has lost battles, fortunes, empires, and clearly duels. There is a big difference between mastering a art form and being a good fighter, the two are not mutually exclusive, in fact they can be complimentary. Like wise there is a difference between a contest and a fight. A contest is lost by default if rules are broken. In a fight there is only one rule, survive. Duels had very few rules and the case of the Waterloo duels the English were both good fighters and good lawyers. They won the duel by fighting well, not necessarily skillfully, and their seconds had pistols when the French were irate at unconventional methods. The French presumed the English would fight as they did, the English agreed to no such thing so there were no rules against a different style fighting.
This is why I love bad Asian martial arts films of the sixties and seventies. There were never any rules only a fight to see whose style was the best. There was only a winner, a loser and the only presumption was that the styles may have influenced the outcome more than the fighters.
Time to ramble:
I've always put it this way when it comes to skill of swordsmen. A beginner will do the wrong thing and maybe win. An intermediate level practitioner will endeavor to do the right thing but may lose tot he wild attacks of the beginner. A master will know how to do the right thing with enough skill to win, even against an unskilled opponent.
One of the teaching of Japanese sword schools is that a truly skilled teacher can always win, but do so just barely so their student can learn.
When looking at how this applies to HEMA and the passage you read, this is where Fiore's Audatia holds true, or the German master talk about how it favors you to be the first to attack. Sometimes it gives you the edge you need.
Indeed, probably the best insight this gives us is that we can look at the more common soldier's sword skills at various time periods and understand that not everyone had full mastery.
Matt, I have long been a devoted fan of your excellent, comprehensive and thoroughly down-to-earth, practical, realistic (as to common sense and the realities of actual combat) instructive posts (I have just now hit the "subscribe" button, der). I am reaching out now, because as a 61 year-old instructor/man-at-arms (all weapons) I have been making this point (unskilled fencers) tirelessly with my students. Sometimes, even opponents with some skill just crack under the pressure of a contest and start swinging like lunatics. The only approach, given such an event, which I have found practical in teaching defense in such a situation, is based upon Hutton's comments on "commanding." This is to say: bind, grapple, and push (in real life one would finish with a pommel or shell strike (sabre) to the face), but the push makes the point, even if your opponent lands on his butt. While this method is not "allowed", "legal" in contest, it makes a very impressive point. Yes, there are many other ways of defending oneself against a Berserker, but these are so complex that only solid experience can hope to master all of the possible permutations of how the unskilled will, or, may behave, that in the essence of time, one must learn a method for a situation that one will encounter very much sooner than later. The bottom line then goes to you, sir: 'stay on your toes, stay loose, keep fluid.' The mad slash and stab can't keep up with a blade that doesn't stop moving with skill (the bedrock of the moulinet).
Thank you, sir
Robert Kenneth Dator,
L'Academie des Armes “Audaces fortuna iuvat - Fortune favors the bold." Virgil
Greensboro, NC, USA
Hi Matt, I don't know if you know the youtube channel "The Great War". They are doing a day-by-day amazing documentary of WWI following the 100th anniversary and it's very cool. Seeing that they do collabs with other youtubers to study the guns of the war, for example, I suggested it could be great if you joined for a swords&sabers special. They answered that they contacted you but never got a response. Just leaving this here in case you never saw it. Cheers!
+ for visibility :)
I heard some very questionable information in their show so I don't watch it anymore since I don't think I can believe them enough to be educated by it
Kalinmir what was the questionable information, for example?
I'd be interested in knowing what information you found questionable on their show. I've found some rather sketchy information too, and some bias that influences them to make hasty characterizations sometimes, but that is mostly with regard to Austria-Hungary, and is therefore understandable, if still lamentable - Austria-Hungary is sadly under-researched and almost no proper, historical and researched books are dedicated to her in the English language.
...I don't now much about him but I know that he married one (not for his benefit and his family was against it) and the reason that he was in the car at the moment he was killed is that he wanted to visit a hospital with people injured by previous assassination attempt on him by a bomb (hand thrown), which were mostly slavs
Given Mr. Easton's penchant for innuendo and entendre, what may we infer from his use of the phrase "plumbing issues"?
Discuss.
He's constipated. ;)
Matt got his pipes cleaned out
Erectile disfunction.
Wouldn't it be an idea to come up with some tactics against idiots?
Evasion ;)
Fiore's Exchange of Thrusts technique might work. Take their point aside using your weapon o you are safe, then while still binding against their sword, perform a thrust of your own. See: wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:Pisani-Dossi_MS_20b-c.png
invisivility
Big and quick step or jump to the side followed by some quick and low level (meaning low as lower part of body) attack. Ex: groin kick, kickbox style lowkick, knee strike or in case of weapons and no armor: thrust to the leg or pelvis, than just as fast retreat. Key factor is speed and distance (you want to have enough distance but not too much).
Lilliath Use their lack of skill against them. Mind your distance and footwork, and purr kick the hell out of their ankles when you get openings
This honestly reminds me of an assertion made on occasion in the books of the late Sir Terry Pratchett: The most dangerous opponent to a master swordsman is a fellow master; the second most dangerous is a rank amateur, because they're unpredictable and likely to do things that are suicidally stupid but still effective (at least in terms of harming their target). A gross over-simplification, sure, but there's definitely the same core point, that even untrained opponents can be quite dangerous, even if their own odds of survival aren't particularly high.
One of the more interesting things that I learned from my kendo instructor was that you train fights first, and learn theory later. People would ask him,
"Why are we doing X or Y, and not Z?"
And he would always just say not to ask questions, just do it. He was training muscle memory, skipping the mental step of identifying an attack and then picking a guard. The "theory" that determined why we did certain things could come later. He always reiterated that he was the teacher, we were the students; we were there to learn how to fight, not to learn how to teach.
He also gave us a lot of chances to experiment as we gained skill. So we didn't learn an advanced technique at the same time we learned the counter; we would learn the technique and then go spar to figure out the counter on our own. When he was satisfied, he'd bring pairs up to demonstrate the counters, and ask the class to consider the pros and cons of each, and then he would tell us which method was correct or would teach us the correct counter. It meant that we were always drilling against the unexpected in most of our lessons.
Usually, by the time we started learning theory, we already understood it from the basis of practical experience.
The exact same thing happens in hand to hand combat. Some idiot weighing 120kgs will just start bashing you in the face, and there's not much you can do about it, unless you're super-skilled, which I am not [or it's a street fight, and you're out in the open - then your chances are actually pretty good as you just let them swing themselves to death/fatigue]. It's usually that, or they'll just charge you and knock you over and pin you to the mat for three minutes. Sure, you can hit them, but some people are just generally more resistant to strikes than others.
Fun fact, I actually won a street fight in the way I described above. This psychotic drunk guy came charging at me, throwing haymakers, and I just kept backing away and slipping them, until finally he gassed out. I said "Are you alright mate? Because you can't fight for shit". In between deep gasps for air, he told me to go fuck myself, then shuffled away. Best fight ever - I never even touched the guy!
That street fight sounds like connor McGregor vs Floyd maywether lol
That's one of those things that someone who has never done any kind of real martial arts wouldn't realize until it's way too late... if you go get a pillow, put it on your bed, and beat the ever-loving piss out of it, time yourself and see how long you can keep going at full intensity, trashing that pillow. Average person, no fighting background, not in terribly great or bad shape... less than a minute, every time. Big props reading the situation right and ending the fight with a joke rather than a straight cross to the bridge of the nose when he was all tuckered out xD good on you
@@JimRFF so true. I win every fight I am in as an adult for the first about 10-20 seconds by either pinning them on ground or landing haymakers or doing some kind of a judo takedown. After that I give up and get my as% kicked because I am out of breath
a few years back I went to a judo school and was able to take down black belts almost my size. But the problem was that after I use all my energy to take em down, Ive none left to keep them down
So this is a British author writing about an account of British soldiers from a war 50 years earlier--a war which the British were VERY proud of having won. And in these accounts, the French are made to look silly and fancy while the Brits are made to look heroic and tough. Gee, I wonder if this perhaps isn't the best source.
Indeed :-)
History books tends to be made based on opinions of the winner side.
Thats why is hard to believe 100% on stuff writen about lost civilizations.
Matt said that Wellington's letters confirm the anecdote.
At this point the French should just give up. They're like the south park "Kenny" of Europe.
You might want to check out Matt's "French Military Victories" video, before he has *words* with you ;)
I think one of my favorite "scenes" from a fantasy book I once read, was of a swordsman who was fighting another in an arena for sport so with practice weapons. First to 3 strikes won, and after the first pass he knew he could in no way beat the other guy, or even score a point, and remarked to himself that at least an idiot or newbie might throw his sword and at least score a point by luck. At which point he realized damn the swordplay, charged the guy picked him up and threw him from the ring, winning by disqualification as the other guy had "left the field of competition".
hey love the videos have been watching for some time now. I was wondering if it is at all possible could you do a video on medieval Russian martial arts I quite like Russian armors and weapons as they seem to be an odd half way between being European and Asian
Seconded.
Thirded
Russian? You mean mongolian. Russia is part of mongols.
I'd be interested to know what primary sources on historic slavic martial arts are available. I've found primary 19th century sources on sabre (shashka), and a 1950s study on Georgian swordsmanship (appears to include sword and buckler work) that I've never found time to read. There are some monumental works on the actual weapons, but I can't find much on how they're actually used. Lots of the Russian youtube videos on the shashka are primarily focused on exhibition work rather than real swordsmanship (or people beating the crap out of each other with foam covered sticks, which also isn't real swordsmanship).
Sabres appeared in the Eurasian steppe in the 7th-8th century. So in a way, historical sabre systems probably represent the evolution of medieval slavic swordsmanship, but finding English-language sources is fairly difficult. Russian sabre system form the 19th century (as far as I can tell) is largely similar to the contemporary British sabre system (linear footwork, lunge / recover, etc).
Some old soviet publications on the topic are available online. For instance "Weapons of Ancient Rus - swords and sabres, 9th to 13th centuries by A.N. Kirpichnikov" is available for free online, but finding an English translation may be difficult. Even if you can't find one, it contains quite a lot of diagrams , charts, and figures.
For what it's worth, the following is the Section "Historical Overview of Swordsmanship in the USSR" from "Fencing"by K.T. Bulochko, 1966: [note that it paints everything in very broad, and possibly incorrect, strokes].
"Swordsmanship in Ancient Rus in the 7th-16th centuries was predominantly utilitarian in character and was taught in the family and military. It focused on preparing the people to defend their homeland from foreign invaders. The most advanced was the original system of military and physical training in Kievan Rus. By the 10th - 15th centuries, possession of bladed weapons was a distincitve feature of the Russian military. Swordsmanship training was focused on preparing troops for hand to hand fighting in defense of their homeland. Ukrainian Cossacks in the Zaporozhian Sich also created their own unique system of combat and physical training in which the art of using the sabre and sword were predominant. In Georgia, fighting with sword and shield (p'arikaoba), and fighting with sling and wooden sabre (saldasti) was widespread among the nobility and the entire population. The Russian national militia in defending the independence of their country, adapted hunting and household tools to fight off foreign invaders and thus created various distinctive weapons. The stick was turned into a cudgel, the axe into a pick or a war hammer, a pole into a javelin, war spear, poleaxe. Various pole weapons were widely used, such as halberds, which are a combination of spear, axe, and hook. Common people, especially artisans, fought with knives in close quarters. The Russian one-handed sword in the Middle Ages was distinguished by its large blade width, length, and mass. Sabres were light and slightly curved. Instead of the smallsword they used a koncerz - a one-handed weapon with a triangular or quadrilateral cross-section, and a length of up to one and a half meters. The koncerz was intended to inflict thrusts on opponents wearing plate armor [perhaps lamellar?] or chain mail. The appearance of the firearm in the 14th century did not displace bladed weapons. The first flintlock firearms had lots of problems and were unsuitable for battles. Hence bladed weapons still played the decisive role in time of conflict."
So, not terribly informative, but it gives some key terms to use in googling. :)
One's aim in a fight must be to win. All other considerations are secondary.
Not losing is also nice.
@aboomination win and you won’t lose ;)
@@dannybecker1241 that's what you think
I'm not involved in HEMA at all, but I keep coming back to these video's because I have a huge amount of respect for this guy as a teacher. Very professional and insightful. Thank you for this content!
I defeated my brother by rushing in like an idiot, I have to say, as long as you're arm is outstretched and your opponent isn't expecting it, charging in and screaming is pretty affective.
And thus we have the logic behind the Highland Charge.
Training in any martial art should include how to deal with the unskilled/wild/suicidal opponent. Often self defense class's will show you really great self defense moves that require the attacker to do the expected. An attacker (trained or not) will seldom do the expected so you need to know how to modify your defense to deal with the way they actually attack.
Many years ago when I did sports fencing, I met an opponent that surprised me with a very odd move. She scored a point against me fairly easily. One I realized what she was doing she wasn't able to do it again and I scored the rest of the points.
But if it'd been for realsy she would have had my guts for garters.
I don't have a source, but I am almost certain that I have read things along these lines with regard to the fighting mindset and training of samurai. That is, that they aimed to rid themselves of the fear of death, since a warrior who does not fear death is extremely hard to defeat. Not that they were suicidal (despite seppuku etc), but a certain focus on offense and disregard for ones own safety is often a winning strategy. "The best defense is a good offense" as it were.
It is an old maxim that the best swordsman need not fear the second best, but the worst.
As an aggressive, and highly unskilled opponent since I haven't been able to go to lesson frequently, I can confirm that it does work on occasion. If I am facing a newer person I often find that being very aggressive works since they can just be overwhelmed and forced onto the defensive. This has however started to teach them very rapid counter attacks once they parry my blow so I try to justify myself that way. However when I am facing better and years more experienced opponents I tend to be very careful. This isn't as effective since I am out of practice however it does usually allow me to get in one or two hits but throwing in a fury of attacks at an unexpected time does play to my advantage.
When I was into sport fencing I came across a lefty who had terrible footwork and only did eighth guard, but it was all so far from what a normal fencer should do I couldn't beat him.
So will you be doing a video of dealing with crazy kamikaze people(drunk people)?
Ask them if they're a very tall midget, and whilst they're confused about what the fuck you just said, you can run, counterattack, or even jack their booze!
Shabada Davada or leeroy jenkins
Shabada Davada search youtube for kickboxing or any mma match to figure out how to do that.
The real question is: will he be drunk while he makes the video?
As a martial artist myself I have to say that if my opponent looks weak against someone who doesn't follow any "rules of skill" I will promptly fight a whole lot more agressive. Just being carefull is not always the best strategy. There is no 1 best strategy in fights other than probably don't fight. And if you have to fight you have to win. No matter what.
Granted the more tactics and techniques you know the bigger your bag of tricks will be. The more unpredictable you can be and the better you will be able to read your opponents.
I know this sounds irrelevant but as a college wrestler and young Wrestling coach who has been wrestling for 15 years, this is very true. For example I have a much easier time wrestling trained wrestlers that are doing techniques I know, (and can even teach) as oppose to some random idiot who is going to do God knows what!
In smash bros terms, the french practiced frame perfect SHFFDL with fox while the english just picked marth and spammed f-smash.
Basically, the french need to git gud
I think you already mentioned this in a past video, but I find that the best way to deal with unskilled aggressive opponents is to provoke them into attacking. Which is fairly easy since they are, well, aggressive. Since one knows they will attack as a response to provocation, one can easily respond accordingly with a counter. Unskilled people generally are poor at feints and follow up cuts, so it's also a bit safer.
2 words :
Hat size
It's not my hat.
I appreciate you sharing a historical example of this behavior.
I've first hand experience in this. I joined a fencing club in college, having had some sword fighting experience though not fencing (kendo and straight sword). Naturally I easily bested my fellow new recruits (they were all cautious and tried to parry). So the instructor with many years of actual fencing experience pulled me aside for a dual. Knowing my fewer years of non fencing experience were no match, I resolved to put all my eggs into a lunge the instant it started, and it worked. He was incredulous of course, complaining about the poor form and how I hadn't done that with my classmates. I simply said "And that's why you lost". He started expecting it though and it rarely worked in future duals against him, but IRL it's only the first fight that counts.
Man this video hits home. I currently have a student who has one default setting which is blindly charge in swinging with no regard to bodily harm. Though he is stubborn and always has an excuse we are working with him to get him to be a little more disciplined. Thanks matt this video made me smile.
Matt in baseball hat . . Now I've seen it all
Jura Josef I was eating and gagged on my cereal when I seen the profile picture..Please for the sake of mankind change that..Banana hammock should be a felonu, especially bright pink ones
50 Stitches Steel You liked it didn't you, you dirty boy.
Stas Twinkleton Yeah just a little bit..But dont tell anyone...shhhhh
I was looking for a comment about this. I think it makes him look like a 12 Year old boy.....
Jura Josef's icon image . . Now I've seen it all.
I read somewhere that the same thing happened post-Waterloo, the French
persuading some of their fencing masters to masquerade as French
officers and challenge British officers in Paris. With much the same
results, until at length the fencing masters refused to participate in
the business any longer.
Sometimes a ferocious charge is the best way to win a fight or battle, but not always or even often, I think the battle of Gettysburg pa in the civil war very clear example of that, with successful victorious charges by the union and a failed all out charge by the confederates costing them the battle, some say the war
the time period and the technology being used really does determine whether your statement is true or not. At ghettsburg it was a terrible idea because both sides had rifles which had such a long range that the rifles could fire too many shots before the potential enemy could engage. However, if you look at the 15th century arquebus, its rate of fire and range and accuracy was so low that charging a person using it may not be a bad idea. What are your thoughts?
Technology has nothing to with it. It has everything to do with Matt's favorite word: context! If you're taking fire and can't fire back but can close the distance, it may be worth it to charge as fast as possible.
A ferocious charge (even by a smaller force) generally works better if it is to overrun an enemy who has less morale or who isn't expecting it and doesn't have time to counter it. Tell El Kebir is an example of both, where both sides were armed with breechloading rifles.
komreed00 Yes, but rarely in a duel.
lol i was tired when i commented, forgot that was the whole premise of the video
This story is a good example as to why "courage" is one of the essential pillars of any melee combat. That way, if an unexperienced man charges, you can do it better, or dismantle his charge with skill, such as parrying, evasion, and bindwork. A fighting art is of no use to you if you are too much of a coward to use it when it counts. But, like everything else, courage can be learned and practiced.
This stuff applies to jujitsu a lot, too.
And 5th Level Spells.
At my Kung Fu Club, I've talked to my students quite a bit about how you deal with a skilled opponent way differently than an unskilled opponent, and many times they are surprised to hear me say that an unskilled person is not necessarily easier than a skilled person. I also talk a lot about being careful to define what's victory for you. A fight can be lengthened and brutalized by not knowing what your goal is and shortened and softened if you do know what your goal is.
Yeah exactly, your best weapon is your legs. Disable and run away.
As much as I hate to side with the english, I got to say it makes sense. As someone with real fighting experience (not studio martial arts, but was a bit of a brawler in my younger days.) I can tell ya aggression can make up for a lack of proper skill or really just closing the gap in a far superior skilled opponent. Especially in real fights where you win or you potential die. At which point you have to decide if you want to focus on trying to survive or trying to drop your opponent before he/she can drop you.
All in all this is the biggest difference between studying the arts and learning how to actually fight. In short like Matt said (paraphrasing) don't expect to only fight someone with the same refined sense of fighting as you get in basically every martial art. If you are studying for self defense learn to fight someone who will have no regard for their own safety as they try to hurt you.
in my history of outside brawls aggressiveness actually hurts. Examples:
1) This russian guy and I are fighting, like 10 people watching. He hits me first to my chin, I drop. As soon as I got that hit, my adrenaline pumped. I got up and charged at him. he was down in a second and I was beating him. his friends called the cops so that the fight be stopped
2) I have beef with a black guy. He is very quiet. For some reason I decide to attack first and hit him but not too hard. He immediately goes from 0 to 100 berzerker mode. I overwhelm him eventually but only after like 20 quick punches
All in all, I would say that being the defensive fighter is better because you are fighting for your life and because you get hit first which should pump your adrenaline
"A professional fighter, a combat artist, could be defeated by a cantina brawler who knew nothing about form, but everything about ending a conflict quickly. Without a thought toward winning gracefully or elegantly. Enslavement to form opened one to defeat by the unforeseen."- Count Dooku
Shadilay brother. Is there any chance of you making a video on Kekistani weapons and armour?
Anyway, lookin forward to your next upload, have a nice day and may kek be with you.
Also, in a true life or death scenario, unless you end your opponent quickly, all enemies become kamikaze warriors at some point. Humans are tenacious. Fear the man who has nothing left to lose, he will lay down his life to end your own.
Great video, Matt. Related question: How much of a factor is the weapon proficiency of the individual on a battlefield with infantry and cavalry fighting in tight formation? In the case of infantry using a phalanx or testudo formation, for example. Are other factors, such as soldiers' ability to hold their ground or fight as a team (e.g. maintaining formation, changing positions as the front line gets tired) or even just straight aggression far more significant on the battlefield? How important were the weapon skills of the individual, historically speaking, on the medieval battlefield or in antiquity? I imagine military officers had to make decisions about how much time a soldier should spend training to use their weapon, specifically, as opposed to how to fight in formation.
Carl Erik Lechner Stinessen my own opinion is that soldiers in medieval and ancient times were probably mostly concerned with group fighting! for example alot of people think that common medieval soldiers were not trained in fighting, that is because people usually training think of individual combat like hema but the training that would occur mostly with common soldiers would be group fighting, the thing with common soldiers is that they are mainly used in groups thats when they become effective! group fighting is all a commander needs from his soldiers to be good at in a battle or skirmish not be a good duelist or one on one combatant like knights! the thing is common soldiers should never fight individual one on one combat like in hollywood battles! the whole jist is to stay together and excel in that, then to try and beat a knight one on one who has trained all his life to kill people.
The historical equivalent of being defeated by a button masher.
One of the Murphy's laws of war: Professionals are predictable. but the world is full of amateurs.
A retired cop once told me: "The 'Nice' guys will get you killed, you'll see the bad guys coming."
There's an old joke, the Soviets during the Cold War would say the nice thing about the Americans is you can always read their manuals to know exactly what they're supposed to do in war... but the problem with fighting the Americans is that the Americans don't read the manuals.
Attacking aggressively in a manner that ruins the composure of an opponent is a skill in-and-of itself. A fight isn't just a display of tempo like a machine playing drums, but a combat between the wits of the combatants. If you lose the power to rightly move your muscles so finely tuned by all those technical drills when someone charges you with victory in their heart, then their so-called 'suicide charge' was hardly so idiotic.
Miyamoto Bennosuke became the greatest Japanese swordsman partly because he used unconventional tactics during duels. Sometimes he would pretend to be drunk. Frequently he would be disheveled and unwashed to trigger contempt of snooty samurai. Doing the unexpected skillfully can be powerful.
That's why whenever I feel I get too caught up in fencing formula, I always go back to Silver's lessons. At least he knew the hidden strength of a random untrained fool charging at you with a chair or table-leg.
If that manner of fighting is idiotic, then how come the field was littered with prematurely decomposing Frenchman?
Excellent points! Good reminder for students and teachers alike
Norse berserkers did it it worked for them. "All right lads race you to Valhalla"
Except they didn't.
No such thing as Berserkers
Really? In the Fornalder sagas and in several other sagas, the king’s or the chieftain’s guard is described as made up of berserkers,
When a King's guard is described as being made of "Berserkers", it's much more likely that it means "Champion warriors who also have some sort religious role" rather than "Crazy naked dudes". I mean, having a personal guard made of crazy murderers sounds really counter-productive.
When a King's guard is described as being made of "Berserkers", it's much more likely that it means "Champion warriors who also have some sort religious role" rather than "Crazy naked dudes". I mean, having a personal guard made of crazy murderers sounds really counter-productive.
Happy to find more videos from you in my feed. Had to subscribe this time.
I agree, in self defense also the reckless opponent who is willing to endure injury to get to you is extremely concerning to fight.
Good that you linked to a specific edition of the book, which I finally purchased.
On your previous links there were too many versions / editions so I was never sure which one to buy.
Very well and shortly put lesson. I came across this accidentally, but this has been a curious issue for me as a smallword enthusiast. Thank you!!
Dude, you post more than most..good to see you, no worries. Look forward to your next video.
Ah. The infamous French taunting!
Mighty kings and warriors have turned tail and run at the face of a professionally delivered french taunt.
Very true view on martial arts in general, practicing with trained opponents simply hones your reflexes but you need to be prepared for the unpredictablility of the beginner
I've definitely dueled against crazies (mainly cause I ask if people wanna join me and my friend while we're sparring). I used to always be confused but I think one trick is to just back off let them "figure out" what they're doing them, go into a parry, closing distance is super effective after they attack (since the unpredictableness eventually gets old) mainly because movies don't teach them how to deal with a threat that closes. Eh, but idk too much so yeah, that's just what experience has revealed to me for now. Great video as always!
Agree. Would love to see videos on the subject...Enraged Nutter vs. Skilled Fencer.
A valuable lesson for any martial art. The more the contest is limited with rules and you perfect yourself within it to outcompete others within that ruleset the more vulnerable you become to outsiders. No matter if it's fencing, boxing, jiu jitsu, whatever. You have to put yourself through reality checks.
In the Sharpe series there was a part where Sharpe is in a duel against a fencer and in the beginning Sharpe is faltering but then he charges in without following the niceties of the form and he beats his opponent. I know the author of the series is a historian and I wonder if he took some of his ideas from what was just described here.
Hi there I have a question, I am selling what is left of my militaria collection and I am down to a few treasured pieces, How should I go about finding a legitimate buyer for a bronze age sword,? - thank you.
Interesting to hear, that this kind of kamikaze style fighters have such a "long tradition". I myself encountered such a person once during a Judo tournament. He was a massive guy, and his strategy was immediately after the referee had commenced the fight charging towards his opponent, taking them by surprise and score an immediate victory with a violent throw. Since I was in the opposite bracket and I used to carefully examine all the other fighters, I saw him succeed three(!) times with this strategy! When we faced off in the finale, I easily countered his reckless assault and the fight was over in about 2 seconds - a bit anticlimactic for a finale, but who cares;). I am not sure though, if I would have been prepared when fighting him in the very first fight!
My strongest point in fencing when I was a lot younger to be unpredictable .
The only thing worse than fighting an idiot is losing to one.
I was never a history guy nor was i ever especially interested in the weaponary, the only interest i share with your videos is martial arts, however, after watching couple of your vids I got more and more interested in the subject and i've learn lots of interesting things, keep up the good work, subscribed :)
Every time I've done (Well, basically re-enacted) this, I won by drawing them into over-extension. Tried to get their back, but usually flanked to the weak (shield) side. Because that's what untrained, or neophyters tend to do in their first few bouts: Get excited, and overextend.
weak/Shield/Bucker/Main Gauche/(Support arm if 2 handed) side to cut off Reach, and Angle of Attack. Their weapon/arm tends to get caught in their defense, which invariably leaves an opening behind it. in fact, one of the first thing you learn is how to defend your weak side, what shields are for. So, it also makes a good test to see how far along they are. (Since you can't tell by looking at them, unless youknow them.) Doesn't work every time with say SCAdians, but more often than not, pretty damned reliably. Just for example, it doesn't work worth a damn against ranked modern fencers.
@scholagladiatoria So... will there be another video where you explain techniques for dealing with kamikazes? Very curious. I'm assuming a lot of defensive postures and awaiting counterattacks to killing blows.
What about the fencing duels in 1973's "Three Musketeers" with Michael York?