Physiology, passion, and choice of weapon?

[leam hall]

How much influence does physiology and passion play in choosing a weapon to spend time with? For example, is there a more natural agreement between us old and slow folk and the larger weapons? Are there a natural physical traits that favor rapier over longsword?

Second to that, how much passion for the particular blade style or the historical context helps attune the individual and the weapon? Not in a mystical sense, but in the congruence of pre-ARMA involvement and Study Group activities. For example, if someone had been studying Landsknecht history because that was their passion, how much does actual work with the Landsknecht weapons multiply their progress?

I will confess this is a personal as well as general question. We grow up being told "you can be anything you want to be", which is hokum. Given time, resources, physical constraints, interests, genetics, and the whole lot of things that make us individuals, we can do only a limited number of things. Much fun is to be had when we align how we are created, where we are placed, and what we spend our thoughts on. I'm looking for ways to identify those predispositions.

[s_taillebois]

Probably more a matter of modifying the weapon and its use to adapt to physiology, age injuries and etc.

Old and slow, might modify how a given sword, dagger etc is used as to compensate for being somewhat older or slower. Larger weapons well those are a matter of personal preference and relative effectiveness.

In the historical use of these weapons many who were proficient with them were more busted up than we would generally be, simply because of the harder training and battlefield use. And at burials such as the Towton find the medical people have noted the dead there had physical problems resultant from the changes on the body by their weapons and old injuries and etc. So its very probable these men (some in their 40's) had been modifying their use of the weapons by which they fought and later died.

For example shoulder impingement and distortions of the wrists and arms were common amongst the dead they assumed to be archers. No doubt they still carried axes, mauls, falchions and the like but had to modify how to use them to compensate.

As far as body type and weapon for example a Dane Axe/Great axe could be weilded and learned by anyone who buys one and trains well with it. However it would be somewhat easier to use by someone who had the height and reach to use it to its best advantage.

As far as historical interest and choice of weapon, well that is inevitable. In its own manner equivalent to those who chose a weapon due to nationality (Eastern Europeans for example seemed very fond of flails), class, or local tradition. The Welsh fondness for the longbow and dagger, the Italian love for the rapier, and the German/English tendency to cutting swords.

[leam hall]

Steven,

In my head there's the image of a rapier fighter; nimble, fast, and flexible. I'm 0 for 3. So the question is mildly a case of "accept the obvious" or is it "realize you're going to have to work a lot harder at this"?

I've gotten beat up by the North and South NJ crowd and Tim "the occasional visitor" Sheetz. Mostly with the longsword though we did a few pole arms as well. There's got to be a better way to enjoy life than pulling off a glove and spraying blood all over the floor...

Part of me realizes there's just too much fun to be had and I'm trying to pick one thing to work on for a while. Rapiers just look interesting as heck.

Leam

[Benjamin Parker]

And at burials such as the Towton find the medical people have noted the dead there had physical problems resultant from the changes on the body by their weapons and old injuries and etc. So its very probable these men (some in their 40's) had been modifying their use of the weapons by which they fought and later died.

For example shoulder impingement and distortions of the wrists and arms were common amongst the dead they assumed to be archers. No doubt they still carried axes, mauls, falchions and the like but had to modify how to use them to compensate.

I read on some thread on myarmoury that that's actually an illusion created by the fact the archers were only drawing on one side of their bodies, weight training does the same thing it's just it happens on both sides of your body.

[Tom Reynolds]

Leam Hall wrote:

How much influence does physiology and passion play in choosing a weapon to spend time with? For example, is there a more natural agreement between us old and slow folk and the larger weapons? Are there a natural physical traits that favor rapier over longsword?

Second to that, how much passion for the particular blade style or the historical context helps attune the individual and the weapon? Not in a mystical sense, but in the congruence of pre-ARMA involvement and Study Group activities. For example, if someone had been studying Landsknecht history because that was their passion, how much does actual work with the Landsknecht weapons multiply their progress?

I will confess this is a personal as well as general question. We grow up being told "you can be anything you want to be", which is hokum. Given time, resources, physical constraints, interests, genetics, and the whole lot of things that make us individuals, we can do only a limited number of things. Much fun is to be had when we align how we are created, where we are placed, and what we spend our thoughts on. I'm looking for ways to identify those predispositions.


Tom Reynolds wrote:

Very good question, Leam. "Passion" is certainly one word, but I also think it's perfectly natural to have an "aptitude" for a particular weapon or type of weapons. Perhaps, in a sense, all you're talking about is how to decide whether or in which weapon to specialize.

Being more interested in one historical period than another is one factor, for sure. Physical predispositions are another. Like you, perhaps, I am a larger and older person, and I just don't move as fast as some of these young whipper-snappers . But then I have other advantages, too, like a lot more reach than some, and a body mass that could be difficult for some to "tip over." I have literally been able to pick up and toss some fighters who tried to grapple with me.

Advantages and disadvantages like these certainly could influence a fighter's disposition to favor one weapon over another. Not knowing you personally, I can't be much more specific than to just agree with you in principle that it does happen.

But there's more to it than just personal predisposition. As you probably know, this martial art in a sense comes down to solving one problem: how to win fights, and stay alive, using any and all available means. Specifically, in this case, any and all means that were available during the Renaissance.

So to speak, if someone is trying to kill you and all you can find to defend yourself is a broken bottle or an old chair leg, then you need to know what to do with those things. Or, on the other hand, what to do if you are facing an opponent who is much larger or smaller than you. Or what to do if you are facing someone with a pole arm, and all you have is a dagger. And so on.

In other words, there's nothing wrong with specializing in a particular weapon, but there are some very good reasons for still maintaining a working familiarity with other weapons. Like, for an analogy, there's nothing wrong with specializing in automotive fuel systems, or even just carburetors, but in order to do that well you still need to know how the rest of the car works. And how the carburetor fits into it.

So to try and answer your question directly, I think most people learn the general principles of fighting with Renaissance weapons first, and then pick a specialty over time as they get more familiar with those weapons. And, yes, most people get "that part of their anatomy upon which they sit" kicked more than once in the process. I know I sure have!

[leam hall]

Tom,

Yes, I'm taller than some, rounder than most, and happy to accept where I am. Okay, not really happy, but change will come slow. Nothing to do but accept it and work for it.

A friend and I are thinking about a study group. Our sons, though underage, like Narnia and are prime candidates for some father/child bonding.

Your use of the word "aptitude" is spot on. It's the word I should have used. The question then becomes one of physiology being a significant player in aptitude, or not as significant as practice and study. For example, I'll never be a pro basketball player because I don't have the aptitude for getting the ball in the goal and running back and forth. I do have an aptitude for writing on forums and learning from them so I'll keep with my strengths.

The more I think about this the less I feel it's an answerable question. It started out as "do I have what it takes to play rapier", given that "what it takes" is undefined. Given the boys, and the commonality of the longsword, that might be the best place to start. If I get antsy I can add rapier on my own time.

[Tom Reynolds]

Leam Hall wrote:

Yes, I'm taller than some, rounder than most, and happy to accept where I am. Okay, not really happy, but change will come slow. Nothing to do but accept it and work for it.

A friend and I are thinking about a study group. Our sons, though underage, like Narnia and are prime candidates for some father/child bonding.

Your use of the word "aptitude" is spot on. It's the word I should have used. The question then becomes one of physiology being a significant player in aptitude, or not as significant as practice and study. For example, I'll never be a pro basketball player because I don't have the aptitude for getting the ball in the goal and running back and forth. I do have an aptitude for writing on forums and learning from them so I'll keep with my strengths.

The more I think about this the less I feel it's an answerable question. It started out as "do I have what it takes to play rapier", given that "what it takes" is undefined. Given the boys, and the commonality of the longsword, that might be the best place to start. If I get antsy I can add rapier on my own time.


Tom Reynolds wrote:

Well spoken, Leam. I like what you said.

So it sounds like your question is at least in part, "do I have what it physically takes to learn rapier?" And, yes, part of answering that question is to determine just what it physically takes.

Sometimes physiology is indeed a total barrier to learning a skill. There is no way I can ever be a caver, for example, because I am simply far and away too big. End of story. But on the other hand, it may influence how you learn a skill - but not complete forbid it. As another example, I am a lifelong lover and student of weight lifting. But I have hereditarily fragile joints that are very easily damaged. Doesn't mean I can't lift weights at all, or even reasonably heavy weights, but it does put absolute upper limits on how much.

It also sounds like you may be concerned about whether you have what it takes to learn these weapons because you are getting thrashed in practice (Mr. "Living Pell" ) Please don't worry about that - EVERYONE who is sincerely trying to learn gets their behinds kicked in practice. No exceptions. That's how we learn.

Just keep doing what you said. Take your time mastering the basic principles of longsword, because they really are transferable to other weapons. Then when you have begun to master those principles, other weapons will make more sense. And you will be able to see more clearly which weapons interest you enough to specialize in them, or for which you are best suited.

Give it time, Leam. It will work.

[s_taillebois]

"I read on some thread on myarmoury that that's actually an illusion created by the fact the archers were only drawing on one side of their bodies, weight training does the same thing it's just it happens on both sides of your body."

M. Parker. Weirdly enough it also applies to swordsmen. At a early colonial burial in Virginia they identified the remains of one man as having been a soldier because of the buildup of the radial and ulna due to repetitive practice with a sword.

Possible with modern practitioners after a period of some years they could leave some very anomalous remains for future generations.

"In my head there's the image of a rapier fighter; nimble, fast, and flexible. I'm 0 for 3. So the question is mildly a case of "accept the obvious" or is it "realize you're going to have to work a lot harder at this"? "

M Hall. Well the rapier contingent has a different approach, so of ones working in longsword some of their tricks could be problematic. So they may not be that much more nimble and etc, but more a pattern of movements which are unfamiliar.
But given a rapier is a point weapon, once inside that point one could use various binds, traps and winding and the rapier fighters got a problem.
So it could be a matter of using the weapon to its best advantage rather than a marked superiority in either form.
Haven't sparred with a whole lot of rapier people, but some do seem to carry their thrusts too low and too extended. Once committed to that some are quite vulnerable...

Although by reputation M. Sheetz is apparently quite formidable.

[Jonathan Newhall]

Steven,

In my head there's the image of a rapier fighter; nimble, fast, and flexible. I'm 0 for 3. So the question is mildly a case of "accept the obvious" or is it "realize you're going to have to work a lot harder at this"?

Physical dexterity and strength are trained feats, not inherent. Nobody was born looking like Arnold Schwarzaneggar and nobody was born as fast as Usain Bolt - they both trained to become what they are, and although the bodies they had to begin with defined their results, just because you think you can't be the world's best rapier fighter because your arms are short or something doesn't mean you can't be AMONG the world's best rapier fighters.

People fought at disadvantages all the time - a nobleman who was particularly short, for instance, would of course be disadvantaged in the knightly arts of combat, but it is unlikely that he would forego them entirely, it was his place, after all! So, if you think it's your place to learn rapier, then go learn it! Nobody is naturally skilled with a sword, it's an effective outside context problem for the natural human to attempt to conquer. No human is born with a sword, after all, so learning to use one is an acquired trait, just like being nimble, fast, or flexible.



Case in point, while my frame is of a good size for swordfighting (I'm roughly 6 foot flat, give or take a half inch either way with long arms and legs), my muscle tissue is not very interested in becoming tougher! Obviously a weak swordsman is a poor swordsman! But, even though I am at a disadvantage, I know I can still train to encompass that aspect of myself while working on it as best I can. It's not as debilitating a physical weakness as, say, having short arms might be (since obviously you can't "train" your arms to become longer whatsoever!), but I think you get the idea that most of what swordsmanship is can be trained and is not based on your physical stature quite so heavily as you think.

[Jonathan Hill]

There is a gentleman I train with who will kill your idea of a rapier fighter, 6’2 I’ll give him about 280lb. Not the fighter who will chase you across the room to hit you but you will rarely get a hit on him and if you get too close you will be hit, and he is not the size you want to grapple with as he knows how and has the size. I’ve even heard of a very large small sword fighter who is insanely good.

My sport fencing teacher use to tell me I was born to fence saber, cutting was much more intuitive to me, than the thrust. I think this is more normal and it was one argument on training the common soldier to cut rather than thrust because they would ‘get’ it faster.

At this point we can choose what we want to do, this is a luxury that was not available in the past, you trained the weapon that worked. You wouldn’t take a Rapier to fight a knight in armor, naturally we developed weapons that worked for what they were intended for and you learned what you needed to.

As to skeletal remains, frankly my right arm is bigger than my left. I like single handed weapons best, and I am starting to work left handed to even myself out. If I needed to survive by the blade I would have evened out when I was ten. Thus hearing that skeletal remains had the ‘anomalies’ does not surprise me. An archer uses different muscles on the right and left and most likely would develop differently.

[s_taillebois]

'There is a gentleman I train with who will kill your idea of a rapier fighter, 6’2 I’ll give him about 280lb. Not the fighter who will chase you across the room to hit you but you will rarely get a hit on him and if you get too close you will be hit, and he is not the size you want to grapple with as he knows how and has the size. "

Good observation...

Well a good rapier fighter, or for that matter a good longswordsman is more determined by efficiency than simple speed. The rapier people are a problem when they get their timing and distance just right, and weirdly enough rapier seems almost based on intuitive geometry (I'm not a rapier adherent, longsword and dagger already have taken years to understand...and not finished yet)
Winding and quillion tricks are a problem for the rapier crew. The longswordman can go both cut and thrust, and bind better which is trouble for the rapier gentry.

So its a matter of use it well, in a hurry than just speed.