None of the weapons discussed here were actually primary combat weapons, so, not a whole lot. Rapiers were backup weapons for people armed with arquebuses or muskets (although they were also popular civilian self-defence weapons until reliable pistols came around) and katanas were the backup weapon of primarily mounted archers. When they actually were used for duels, odds are that the combat went fairly honourably, but the number of duels to the death is necessarily low in any society. (think about it, you'd have to kill half the population for everyone to be in only one duel to the death during their whole lifetime)Hagi said:
Poll: Katana and Rapier: An Objective Comparison
- Thread starter demoman_chaos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In other words, when it comes to what weapon works best, it's contextual. These sword vs sword debates cut out how battles actually work for a legit duel scenario. When you do that it really just becomes about preference.Hagi said:
Rapier would win, fuck, everything wins against Katanas, even in the prime age of Katanas. Contrary to popular belief, they were extremely bad. The katana was only used as a last resort weapon, if your Naginata or other weapon had failed. They were extremely brittle and would often get destroyed if they were dueled with, unlike the other medieval swords. At anything other than cutting peasants, it was really bad at.
What has folding steel got to do with anything? Any movie that ever says the blade was folded "a thousand times" is full of shit. You MAY see a sword whose original billet was folded 16 or so times. What people probably confused with folding is the number of layers. Each fold created a geometrically higher amount of layers (15 folds = 1->2->4->8->16->32->64->128->256->512->1,024->2,048->4,096->8,192->16,384 layers). All folding does is make the metal more uniform in its microstructure. If you've ever smelted iron and then tried to work with it (as I have), you'll note that the first billet form you get is really rough with large grain structure that practically screams crap. But as you fold it, that structure gets more and more refined and quickly becomes useable. Every time you fold the billet, you are essentially forge welding it to itself. Each time it's folded, the billet loses material as well. So for someone to be able to fold it a 1,000 times you'd have to start with some kind of mile long (exaggerated guess that may be underestimated) billet to end up with enough material to forge a sword.demoman_chaos said:
So their folding technique is a necessary technique, but it isn't all that special. What was special was the carbon content of the steel and their heat treat/tempering techniques. The reason why the blade curves (they are forged straight) is because they are rapidly cooled from a high temperature and the spine of the blade is thicker and cools slower than the edge of the blade. That rapid cooling changes the structure of the grain in such a way as to make the blade a LOT harder. Then oven heat treating can bring the structure to a level that maximizes the blades strength and brings the hardness (martensite) down to a level that is no longer as brittle. Hardness here is the same kind of term as you'd use for a diamond or another rock. Resistence to abrasion. It literally changes the structure of the metal to be crystaline and then the further tempering brings the amoutn of martensite down to appropriate levels for the tool.
The Romans did not have tempering which makes all the difference. The reason for that is because Romans didn't have Steel. At least, not high quality high carbon steel. As such, they also didn't know how to temper steel as that only works with high-carbon steel. That the Japanese did was figure out how to make a high quality blade using the right amount of carbon and combining that with cutting edge (haha) tempering technology.
If you want to look at higher quality steel production even earlier, you'll have to look at India for their Wootz steel production. But the Romans never figured it out.
So, crappy steel if steel was ever accidentally produced, no good tempering as tempering requires higher carbon contents of steel. So the Romans are a piss-poor route to go. India would be much better
Oh, and the Japanese seem to have actually understood the properties of high-carbon vs low-carbon steel. The blades weren't just one type. For example, they'd use lower carbon steel as a core. The Japanese understood steel carbon content in a way the western world wouldn't figure out for some time afterwards and even then western smithing didn't commonly use different types of steel within the same blade to make it better.
Having forged tanto blades and damascus blades (high ticket items for us to sell as quick as we could make them) I can tell you that understanding the properties of different metal types and how they can benefit the finished product differently can do wonders. For example, I'd often make a tomahawk with a wrought iron outside/jacket and a high carbon core (52/100 steel). This meant a very strong bit that could hold an edge like few other types of steel while having a jacket that can be etched to have a wood-like pattern and is resistent to corrosion like rust.
I'm not saying that Japanese blades are some mythical superhuman feat. Just that they were a very advanced technology in their era.
Depends on the amount of pressure you apply. But yes, edges generally require some motion to slice.
What I created with my chisel was a paper thin edge. That will break and warp easily. I actually made it curl the first time I tried to use it.
But harder does not always make something brittle. Not when the sword recieves further tempering to reduce the martensite. I'm not familiar with how the Japanese temper their blades after the initial rapid cooling or if they did that at all. From what I've seen, their work was no more brittle than other high carbon blades.
If you practiced iaido you'd know the length of the shinken depends on your height and arm length. And you wouldn't worry about the other two aspects you considered either. Besides, it depends on who is using each of the weapons. They are both equally fit for killing well, it's how you use the tools that matters. Oh and if you pull out the "a fencer would have a dagger too" thing, then I sugest you take up kenjutsu (not kendo) aswell. And the weight varies aswell. Women usually go for the lighter ones, for example.
This reminds me of the pointlessness of "martial art a" vs "martial art b" matches.
This reminds me of the pointlessness of "martial art a" vs "martial art b" matches.
We're basing the discussion off of average weapon lengths. The rapier as what is essentially a long large needle is long by the virtue of its function. Rapiers may also vary by the height of the wielder.___________________ said:
With the parameters being set to which weapon is most capable of landing a blow, the answer is inevitably the longer weapon. Where both lenghts are the same then the answer is usually which weapon may be manuevered the most efficiently. Seeing as the rapier is typically longer and was specifically designed for rapid manueverability it generally "wins" the arbitrary conditions of the thread.
Now, damage potential, specific fighting styles, etc. You may arrive at a different result. But the conditions in the onset are very specific and so this really isn't a qualitative comparison of the blades as a whole. Both blades are very capable weapons. I could give several scenarios where one may be preferred over the other and other scenarios where the opposite one would be better. Any armor? The rapier is screwed. Fighting a weapon with a lot of reach? The Katana is at a disadvantage.
What's funny is I don't really consider the Katana to be very different than several of the double bladed, double hilted varieties in Europe. Not functionally. The type of steel has its advantages but the curve doesn't create as big a slicing advantage as some may think. It's moreso the type of edge its steel could hold that less non-tempered steel couldn't dream of.
Well, the wielder of the rapier would be the snooty noble, and snooty nobles are always the villain. If you're in a situation where the snooty nobleman is the villain, he will always get his comeuppance.
On the other hand the guy with the rapier gets to do cool stuff like swinging from chandeliers so I say it's a tie.
On the other hand the guy with the rapier gets to do cool stuff like swinging from chandeliers so I say it's a tie.
Most rapier manuals I've seen definitely include cuts (e.g. Swetnam, Giganti, etc.). EDIT: Although I need to point out I don't mean the same kind of cuts as you'd do with say a backsword or sidesword, much snappier little cuts usually to tendons.Lightknight said:
I'm yet to see any evidence that they cut better than other blades of the same era. During the main period of use of what we'd now consider to be a katana, the Europeans had developed a great many different types of swords, for different purposes, made of spring steel. Yes, the edge was not quite as hard and so lost its cutting ability slightly faster, but y'know, then you just resharpen the blade... Which you'll have to do anyway because when you use it, the edge inevitably gets damaged, regardless of where you stand on the whole flat vs edge parry thing. I've never heard anything about the sharpening techniques one way or another, so until I see sources I'm not inclined to form an opinion.
I've never heard the term used in that manner. What most people are referring to when they say foil is either the modern fencing foil or a smallsword/spadroon, though.
We more or less agree on the rest, other than me getting slightly sad at the ARMA reference, although it looks like one of their better articles.
1st - That's possible. Still renders it an inconclusive test though (in terms of cutting power).demoman_chaos said:
2nd - My point was that to attain that speed he used the sword in a way that's analogous to using two hands.
3rd - Possible. That still makes it easier to cut with...
I'll refrain from commenting on the video.
Do you mind if I give you some constructive feedback? You did say that this was before you really used your false edge a lot, so I'm not really sure how long its been since this video was taken. Plus I dont really want to be rude or anything.demoman_chaos said:
Try pulling your Ochs up higher. I have seen lower Ochs done before, but I've yet to see it be done well (this could be due to me not having fought a wide variety of people). Try pulling your crossguard above your head so that your sword is angled down at your opponent and your point is aiming between their eyes. Make you can still see the crossguard out of the corner of your own eyes, similar to the Hangenort you did at about 3:05.
Also, experiment with putting your thumb on your blade when in the Ochs/Pflug guards. Note this would be your right handed thumb, and it would be on the inside of your sword (the side facing you). I've found them to be far easier to control and a lot sturdier when doing this.
And as for the one handed thrust, be very careful with that
A nice little flick of the wrist could throw that entirely off, and leave you open. Using your longsword with one hand is certainly a thing, but like half-swording its very situational.
Of course, this is all just my opinion and feedback. What works for me wont necessarily work for everyone else.
Also, experiment with putting your thumb on your blade when in the Ochs/Pflug guards. Note this would be your right handed thumb, and it would be on the inside of your sword (the side facing you). I've found them to be far easier to control and a lot sturdier when doing this.
And as for the one handed thrust, be very careful with that
A nice little flick of the wrist could throw that entirely off, and leave you open. Using your longsword with one hand is certainly a thing, but like half-swording its very situational.Of course, this is all just my opinion and feedback. What works for me wont necessarily work for everyone else.
Goddamn, now I feel pressured to find a video of me fighting, but the only one I know I have is 3 years old when something went horribly wrong
Of course I don't mind, I don't mind being told I am wrong as long as there is decent evidence to support the claim.Tuxedoman said:
It was done about a year ago. I was aware of the false edge cuts but only recently have I started to really use them. In that bout, I was trying to use different guards and tactics rather than just outright fight. I didn't aim Ochs at his face as the face was not a legal target in what we were doing (no masks after all). I have taken a wooden sword to the face (a rapier, and yesterday at time of writing), it isn't fun.
The one handed thrust was used to give me the reach and isn't expected by most. When they think they are safe, they get struck. It is a situational tool, but not one to ignore.
The only other video I have is the most epic Shieldwall fight I've ever had. Most of the time in viking group things don't go so well for me. On THIS [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HevwbsTFZj0]day I had the favor of the gods.
The heavier the blade the harder it is to manage fine point control in a thrust - of critical importance if an enemy is wearing any kind of armor. The reason is relatively simple - in any formalized fencing style, when holding the blade with one hand, only two fingers are responsible for directing the blade (the thumb and index finger). The others are simply there as assists to hold on to the blade.cerebus23 said:
Now, in comparison to a rapier, this doesn't really equate to a disadvantage since, as I've pointed out already, the rapier is an ungainly transition weapon and not the light and fast dueling weapon people imagine. But the Epee, small sword or Sabre are each capable of delivering the point in a single action to an area the size of a quarter. Indeed, in sport fencing (which, if you fence Epee, means you're effectively using a dueling weapon made safe), this is an incredibly common drill!
And, it should be noted, blade is particularly likely to penetrate plate armor in a thrust - it simply takes more force than such a weapon could apply before simply being deflected.
It honestly depends upon the context and the relative skill of the participants. Even in Epee, which at one point attempted to simulate the duel down to being a single touch affair, brief exchanges were relatively common. Extended exchanges are less common but it largely boils down to the fact that one cannot fully commit to an attack when their life is on the line. Couple that with the fact that fencing in the second, third or even fourth intention is increasingly difficult regardless of personal skill (any given action could produce one of several reactions thus I'm rarely inclined to believe someone is fencing in the third intention much less fourth or beyond) and it's easy to see why the lengthy exchange is a myth outside of sport. When you're life is on the line, chances are good you'll simply disengage if something as simple as attack-parry-counter parry-reposte fails to land. Hell, even in sport fencing you rarely see exchanges longer than a half dozen or so discrete pieces of blade work.cerebus23 said:
So, in short, I agree with you on principle but considering just how much of the classic fencing manual is dedicated to actions that could only be be offensively applied as a second intention (that is, literally any action save for a direct attack) it suffices to say that complex pieces of blade and foot work have been strung together in practical application.
I honestly think there is a fair argument to be made that the reason such manuals make such common reference to cuts wasn't because it was a particularly effective way to deliver the blade (a large and cumbersome weapon like the rapier would be fearsomely hard to redirect to any useful end were you cut to miss the mark) but rather because the style, like the weapon, was in transition. From any standpoint of practical application, the Rapier is a severely flawed weapon that required complex and convoluted footwork along with a secondary defensive implement in order to make it a truly viable weapon. The existence of descriptions of the cut simply point to a weapon and style that had yet to be truly defined. Simply put, a host of factors make the rapier poorly suited to the cut and while one could certainly cause damage with such an attack, it would require full commitment to an offensive action when this precise action was as foolhardy as could be imagined. Worse still, the cut is easier to parry or evade, and, even if it should land, is not terribly likely to deliver a fatal blow.Wyes said:
Though, it should be noted that in spite of the fact that sport fencing declares the foil must be delivered as a thrust, an incredibly popular maneuver is to instead deliver the attack as a cut. Done properly, this causes the blade to bend making it a challenge to parry. Such an attack is capable of delivering touches to normally out of reach areas like the top of the shoulder.
This in no way is a defense of the cut as a useful part of the history of European dueling weapons, nor to say that the cut is a foolish move given the proper weapon.
While I agree that the rapier is not the light weapon most people are expecting, I also think you're over-stating the ineffectiveness of the cut. It's certainly not a primary tool of the rapier, but it is there and it can work effectively for disabling blows (unlikely to be useful for fatal cuts). As for missing with the cut - it's really not that hard to roll up into some kind of hanging guard as you retreat, or if you continue in to come to grips.Eclectic Dreck said:
That said, the rapier is far from my favourite weapon.
I don't have much to say about sport fencing, because of the kinds of rules you mention. At this point there's not much of the original art in it, other than some of the techniques and a subset of the principles. Which is not to say it's not a great sport, I'm sure it is, I just have no interest in it other than as a sport.
Apples and oranges?
A Katana is a weapon you swing in wide arcs.
A Rapier is a weapon you swing in short rapid thrusts.
Maybe a Katana's easier to use... maybe.
If both fighters didn't know anything about sword fighting I'd give the ad to the guy with the Katana because you could swing it like a baseball bat.
Someone skilled with the Katana vs someone skilled with the Rapier, and otherwise completely physically matched (And mentally matched) It would come down to their respective builds.
If they were both tall and lanky I'd say Rapier
If they were short I'd say Katana
A Katana is a weapon you swing in wide arcs.
A Rapier is a weapon you swing in short rapid thrusts.
Maybe a Katana's easier to use... maybe.
If both fighters didn't know anything about sword fighting I'd give the ad to the guy with the Katana because you could swing it like a baseball bat.
Someone skilled with the Katana vs someone skilled with the Rapier, and otherwise completely physically matched (And mentally matched) It would come down to their respective builds.
If they were both tall and lanky I'd say Rapier
If they were short I'd say Katana
I would say the rapier personally. If we include historically accurate armor. Samurai armor is....plaited cloth,leather and wood? Maybe with relatively thin frontal armor plates of iron.
I would say this leans slightly more towards the rapier user. A rapier would easily be able to penetrate the frontal armor that the samurai wears with a thrust that has a decent amount of strength/body weight behind it. However, it would have to be a fluid or sudden thrust in an area that would immediately incapacitate the Samurai such as the heart ( how dramatic ) or maybe the lungs. Otherwise the samurai would probably be able to bisect the rapier user at such a close range and both would bleed to death horribly. ( Judging from the obvious cutting power of a katana, I doubt the armor the rapier user wears would matter unless hes wearing solid oak plates on his shoulders. )
I'd honestly say this match is a coin flip. IF the rapier user strikes the abdominal cavity in an area that prevents the Samurai from bisecting him, he would probably emerge unscathed. IF the samurai manages to side-step,parry or otherwise foul the strike in question ( Such as catching the rapier tip in his shoulder or arm instead of his chest or gut ), the rapier user is almost certainly dead.
In my opinion it boils down to the rapier user. Is he skilled enough to land a single solid thrust and not be seriously injured with the counter attack? ( The katana wielder probably would not be able to out-move the fair fleeter and agile rapier user )
( I'm assuming this is the traditional pointed tipped rapier, not those "cutting" edge rapiers. The ones with a solid metal point that can penetrate nearly all armor of that tip period with suitable strength and body weight put into the thrust. )
I would say this leans slightly more towards the rapier user. A rapier would easily be able to penetrate the frontal armor that the samurai wears with a thrust that has a decent amount of strength/body weight behind it. However, it would have to be a fluid or sudden thrust in an area that would immediately incapacitate the Samurai such as the heart ( how dramatic ) or maybe the lungs. Otherwise the samurai would probably be able to bisect the rapier user at such a close range and both would bleed to death horribly. ( Judging from the obvious cutting power of a katana, I doubt the armor the rapier user wears would matter unless hes wearing solid oak plates on his shoulders. )
I'd honestly say this match is a coin flip. IF the rapier user strikes the abdominal cavity in an area that prevents the Samurai from bisecting him, he would probably emerge unscathed. IF the samurai manages to side-step,parry or otherwise foul the strike in question ( Such as catching the rapier tip in his shoulder or arm instead of his chest or gut ), the rapier user is almost certainly dead.
In my opinion it boils down to the rapier user. Is he skilled enough to land a single solid thrust and not be seriously injured with the counter attack? ( The katana wielder probably would not be able to out-move the fair fleeter and agile rapier user )
( I'm assuming this is the traditional pointed tipped rapier, not those "cutting" edge rapiers. The ones with a solid metal point that can penetrate nearly all armor of that tip period with suitable strength and body weight put into the thrust. )
And on a side note.
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon)
1d12 Damage
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.
( Also that is a joke. Please don't quote that lol )
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.
Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.
Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:
(One-Handed Exotic Weapon)
1d12 Damage
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork
(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.
( Also that is a joke. Please don't quote that lol )
It is ok you can bash kendo i do, since 90% are sport games and so far removed from actual combat they are pratically worthless as far as actual combat is concerned. But that is a whole other issue with "martial" arts forms in this day and age and what passes for them. There has been far too much disneyfiying of martial arts, and just too many bad teachers or fraudlent schools.Tuxedoman said:
Real "kendo" is seldom taught, actual samurai fighting kendo is only taught in NY, san fran places like that, it is very difficult to get a real education in this country at lest.
The katana is not garbage, really getting tired of people making that claim, it is one of the best "engineered" swords on the planet, its sharp, its flexible, and its pure geometry is about perfect if you want to create a strong light cutting blade.
It was a second tier in a series of weapons, their real backup would be their short sword, but yes on a battlefield situation neither was top choice on the front lines when most of the armies were armed with rows of guys weilding spears and polearms.
Far as honor is concerned, was musashi honorable for psyching out his opponents and showing up late to duels? was he honorable using wooden swords vs his opponents? wood is far lighter, can be swung faster, and can be made longer, and can recover easier from a swing. Japan was big on honor there were many in his day that saw musashi wholly unhonorable in his actions.
Bottom line he fought about 60 duels, fought in several wars at lest 2 if i recall correctly he was on the loosing side and his side was hunted for days. Tied once in all his duels vs a sickle and chain guy, and eventually beat him on a rematch, throwing his short sword at the sickle guy and killing him as he wrapped up musashis sword with his chain, musashi's secret technique. And ended up dying of old age.
Most duels in japan were at the very lest announced challenges, some were formal as all hell with notices sent out, postings on the date and time of the duel so people could watch the whole 9 yards, some were i am sure random acts of violence, but most of the time in japan at lest is was not guys sneaking around looking to stab someone in the back.
The problem with a missed cut stems from the length of the blade. In order to quickly redirect the blade to any useful end, this would require a cut along fairly specific lines lest the weapon simply end up on the ground rather than allowing a rapid follow through to the next fencing action. These lines, by and large, would either be far too grand and easily parried (directed at the head for example), or would be maneuvers that simply appear to be cuts but are, in realty, primarily used as attacks on the blade itself (the moulinet for example).Wyes said:
The problem with each of these is that without some preliminary action clearing the blade from a line, this leaves the attacker vulnerable to a simple parry-reposte (parry one, four and five suffice for cuts provided a slight modification of one to allow protection of the head) which should suffice to demonstrate the problem with a cut; the thrusting weapon spawned eight classical parries and only four are necessary for complete defense against the cut while all eight are necessary against the thrust). More troubling, since any cut would by necessity be a moulinet (the quickest way the weapon can be returned to line), any parry leaves the defender in perfect position to reposte as every classical parry has an attack in the same line! As such, the cut simply cannot be the primary method of attack with such a weapon though I can conceed it's use for attacking the blade as part of a complex attack risky though it may be. It has at least a single advantage in that it would be relatively unexpected precisely because of the risk and if used to attack the opponents blade (to move it out of a line), the surprise combined with the relative difficulty both fencers have at returning to any given line may prove sufficient to deliver an attack.
But, spending such time on the cut without at least acknowleding why it is inferior by explaining the utility of the thrust is probably a mistake. As such, it is relatively easy to explain why the thrust is superior for such a weapon. First, the blade can simply be presented (the arm extended) and delivered (via a lunge or other piece of footwork) far quicker than a cut. Second, the thrust originates naturally from a position of parry allowing an easier transition from defense to attack. Additionally, because there are more lines of attack for the thrust with such a weapon, it is comparatively more difficult to defend against. Finally, a thrust can relatively easily have it's line of attack changed mid attack allowing for one of the easiest complex attacks but one that has historically been the most effective (That is, you feint in some line of attack drawing a parry only to disengage and resume the attack in a different line) ways to deliver a blade.
Weapons that were truly developed around the cut lack the weaknesses described above making it not only a viable means of attack but even the most generally useful one. The sabre, for example, allows for a far more aggressive style of attack, owing in part to the utility of the cut and the ease of delivering a fatal or debilitating strike. The cut is, indeed, a wholly useful maneuver when the weapon in question was designed around the act. The Rapier, by contrast, was derived from a cutting weapon but the changes inherent undermined it's capacity to cut while simultaneously saddling it with a host of problems that would take a several centuries of development driven by the pragmatic needs of survival and utility. Seeing where the weapon ended up, as a weapon useful almost entirely for a thrust, light and not reliant on any other implement shows us handily that the problems I've outlined were seen as a problem by many.
Sport fencing has a handful of esoteric rules that make little sense from a pratical standpoint. In sabre, one cannot cross over one's feet - in other words, they may not break into an actual run. Most of the silly rules actually have their roots in praticality. Rules of right of way in foil point to the weapon's roots as a training implement; after all, if your life is on the line, it is generally prudent to defend yourself before attacking in return. Target area rules were likewise derived from practical purpose. In dueling, aiming for the face and head was looked down upon leaving the torso as the only vital spot for a thrust. Sabre, meanwhile, attempts to mimic the target area of a fellow mounted soldier (the waist up). Epee, on the other hand, discards most of those rules giving a freedom that generates an incredibly conservative fencing style. While it seems odd, rules of right of way and restrictions of motion produces, somewhat counterintuitively, a style of fencing with more freedom of action both on attack and defense.Wyes said: