Chances of survival of a duel or battle

[Matt_Bruskotter]

Does anyone know where I can find any stories or accounts of duels? Any culture or time period would be fine. I am interresting in the nature of a sword duel. I've read a couple of renn and japanese duels, most of which both die. Some people tell me that it was very likely or probable that both duelists would die in the duel. Isn't the point of learning how to fence so you can kill and not be killed? Why learn to fight with a sword if the chances of both participants dying are high? If it's highly likely that you're both going to die anyways why not just point the sword at him and run at him?

I'm not questioning the legitimacy of any particular sword art. People wouldn't learn any sword art if it resulted in thier death. I'm just curious as to why so high of a double kill rate in the stories I read. Am I misinformed?

I'd also appreciate direction to battle accounts with swords, spears, pikes, etc.

[Lance Chan]

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php

http://home.att.net/~hofhine/Samurai.html

[Derek Gulas]

Likely that both parties would die? I'm not sure. I think it would be more likely for one to be wounded somehow and the other to die. Sometimes the winner would get skewered, later get an infection and then died, but at least they'd have a chance, and that's *if* the winner got skewered. Is duelling dangerous? Yes. Is it a death sentence? Not necessarily.

Just because you get in a duel doesn't mean that both parties die. JC has said that the art of fencing is to practice striking without being struck. If you don't get hit, how are you going to die?

[Jaron Bernstein]

Silver has some interesting points on this. First he bashes the rapier for many reasons, one of which is that he says it leads to a great many "double kills" since you can get skewered and still live long enough to skewer the other fellow, where a heavy cut is more incapacitating. Secondly, he urges you to defend yourself first before going after the other fellow. This seems contrary to the Lichtenaeur tradition of grabbing and keeping the initiative.

I may be wrong on those masters (if so please correct me! <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /> ), but that is my current sense of what they say on the topic.

[Will Adamson]

By the Sword by Richard Cohen has lots of duel stories. Also, The Last Duel by Eric Jager is fiction only so far as to make for an better telling of a real historic event that has much documentation.

[Steve Ames]

Secondly, he urges you to defend yourself first before going after the other fellow. This seems contrary to the Lichtenaeur tradition of grabbing and keeping the initiative.

I expect that getting cut or stabbed is a sure way of losing initiative <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> By keeping the initiative your oponent is kept defensive. Defense is trickier and leaves less room for errors than attacking so if your kept on the defense your likely going to lose. Lichtenaeur would certainly want you to defend yourself if you find yourself without the initiative. But he would also want you to recapture the initiative in the Nach or Indes... or so my current understand has it.

[Claus Sørensen]

"The Secret History of The Sword"
J. Christoph Amberger

A good book that deals with duels.

[Allen Johnson]

I've read excerpts from that book (Secret History of the Sword) and I remember having some major disagreements with it though I can not recall what they are just now.

[philippewillaume]

Hello
I would say that cut and trust duel would be much more prone to show a clear winner than trust based duels. I think as well that a longsword (or sword of that type) will produce a winner more easily. I would not like to be at the receiving end of a blow from a longsword. But the more I have practiced the more clear win (and clear losses) starts to appear. That being said we train so that we hit the opponent without being hit.
I think that technique and training with a weapon like the longsword minimize the chance of double kills.

On lichtanauer, it is a tad difficult to make a clear difference between offense and defense.
Only Dobringer seems to be really concerned with the vorshalg the other glossators seems to be more along the line offense defense it is all the same and one thing.
If you are in the vor you use the masterhau in you are in the narch you use the masterhaw.


phil

[terry hamilton]

Hi, read you're post ; the question you ask is one which we all will have to deal with at one time or another in I lives. I feel as do you where swords and knives are concerned. I was drafted into the US Army in 1971 . After indocrationing to the military life the very first martial arts traning was that of the bayonet. It was simple and its goal without question. Must go into town, the wife is calling; will be back .. sincerely terry. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Matt_Bruskotter]

Phillip

I suppose the more clear a winner is, the more the art is taking hold. That's the whole point! I thought these "rapierists" would be more skilled, but apparently it's the nature of the rapier and being stabbed. My friends who tell me about samurai duels are mostly japanese swordsmanship students and I'm not sure how much of what they know is correct. I'll look into those books. Thanks guys.

[terry hamilton]

Hi Matt, the four main questions about learning to fence, double kill rates , skill in killing, and why not just charge the enemy with all you got. The military starts a new recruit by calling him a maggot or some other useless thing. Then when the maggot knowes he is a maggot he is introduced to the weapon of choice. He understands that without the weapon he is just a maggot. What is your weapon Matt; is it in you hand this very minute. Can you reach out and touch it. A soldier is a weapon carrying maggot. Without a weapon you become a maggot. Your life expectancy as a maggot without a weapon is zero. With a weapon it is better than zero; however don't expect to live forever . Youre weapon is a multi dimentional slab of steel and wood that can project a killing blow at 48 inches and further, as that distance shrinkes things get pretty hairy. The lesson here that the military is trying to convey is that any weapon is better than no weapon, and no weapon you are a maggot. Swords, knives, bow and arrow, pistoles at twenty feet ; the weapon you choose is not important. The most deadliest weapon I know is the ICE PICK. It's low teck. no malfunctions and sure to kill before the doctor can figure out what alies ya.

Double kill rate is intresting and a little Hollowood. Most peopl get a scratch and are ready to throw in the towl. I know grown men who faint at the sight of their own blood, other peoples suffering seems not to disturbe them. It would be intresting to see if such a event could be measured in fencing with a system of graded blowes judged. Later Matt.

[Will Adamson]

Personally, I was a weed! <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[John_Clements]

Actually...I have over one hundred pages of historical sword combat accounts as the central chapter of my next book, due out as soon as I can finish it. I will be presenting a lot of material and much that is not widely known and distinguishing these combats from street fights, formal dules, and battlefield encounters over a roughly 600 year period.

Otherwise, see Hutton's "The Sword and the Centuries" for good dueling stories as well as assorted other titles under the heading of "duel."

I have seen evidence of double kills occurring only infrequently.

Oh, and that article link on dubious quick kills is quite fualty as the evidence I will show for quick kills is far more considerable (and consequential) than that material conveys.

JC

[John_Clements]

Uh, actually, Derek, it was a master long before me who originated the definition that the Art of fencing is to hit without being hit. I was just paraphrasing the wisdom.

JC