Postby Richard Strey » Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:29 am
Eddie, your post addresses two different things. First, you ask for *evidence* regarding half-swording. On this topic I have nothing to add to Jeffrey's, Allen's and John's replies. They sum it up very well.
The second sentence of your post takes us away from evidence into the realm of speculation (or, hypothesis, as we scientists would call it). Luckily, we are in the position to make educated guesses. My own experience and watching other practitioners tells me this: If the need arises and there are no other tactical considerations contradicting it, half-swording is a very natural thing to do. I -personally- have no doubts whatsoever that half-swording was well known from very time, the ape picked up a stick and consequently applied. It was refined, off-hand objects like a shield, a buckler or a dagger may have modified its application or frequency of use, but it was *there*. Even though the argument "People were'nt stupid, back then" has been overused in the past to explain almost anything, I really do believe it applies here. Half-swording as a tactical concept of using leverage is too simple to not have been used. Heck, I've seen little boys use it on one another five minutes after getting their first wooden swords.
Thus then I would say it is a safe guess that half-swording was in full-swing by 1350 -- if not far earlier.
) then I think it's pretty safe to assume they tried it or at least considered it for most other weapons. It's obviously more important in longer swords because you have a bigger 'weak' portion of the blade due to it being so far from the source of power, your hands.