Weapon length differences

[Mike Habib]

Question: What sort of maximum weapon length/size differences have individuals here on the forum encountered in sparring matches? (ie. opponent A has a shorter weapon or weapons than opponent B). For example, has anyone consistently fought single-handed swords with daggers, or sparred against two-handers using short swords, etc.

The subject has come up tangentially in a few threads (for example, in one of the cross-training threads currently active), and some have commented that certain matches have been avoided because of vastly unequal weapon reach. I imagine that some of those favoring shorter blades might have matched up against longer reach weapons, however, and I'd be very interested to hear how that went.

If this has been covered previously, my apologies. I tried some forum searches I thought might work, but turned up nothing.

Thanks to all,
--Mike Habib

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

We always try to match different kinds of weapons as well - Longswords against polearms, dagger against longsword, sword&shield against polearms, etc.
In our experience, weapon length is very important, but knowledge and daring is even more important in this matter.
- Spear against Longsword: our guys are trained to act very fast and with courage. Okay, Spear has it's superior reach and fastness in thrusting, but also a greater recovery time after a longer thrust. Thus, if the swordsman can bring his enemy with the spear to attack him from further away, he may do an überlaufen or überfallen. All in one, single longsword against single Spear, that is 50:50%. (in the video of Cold Steel "More Proof", they are talking about the Spear as if it were undefeatable, and by simple counterthrusts it could defeat everything. Well, No! And again, No! Not even in Mr. Clements' book is clearly written, how damn fast a Spear can be defeated with the right kind of attitude)
- Dagger VS Longsword: Again, the sword could any time cut a man in two, nd it would seem that a dagger has no chances.... Yet, we very often use daggers in sparring matches and it is an important part of our training, so we have some pretty good dagger-fighters in our group. (we make padded daggers the same way than swords, here's a pic: http://www.sword.sg18.net/gallery/G12/images/05.jpg ) Those guys can measure a longsword reach very good, and can strike inside damn fast, one hand on your sword holding hand, the other with dagger on your throat. Like said, this takes even more daring and speed - dunno if they'd do it in REAL life, but in 'safe' matches, Dagger VS Lonsgword 30:70 %
- We never tried Spear against Dagger. Well, speaking of it, this could be interesting <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
But it's very risky, I guess. But even so, it's not completelly hopeless for the dagger. Quite the opposite. If somebody can move his/her weightpoint PAST the tip of the polearm, it looks really bad, for the polearms guy (or girl). I know there are LOTS o things to do even so, but, belive me, when I say, It's one average step from the end of the polearm to your throuat or heart.
- Longsword VS Sword&amp;Shield: 60:40%. The Longsword is an ultimate close combat sword! If know a few things about shields, you may do a lot of things against it. It takes a little more time than a Longsword VS Longsword match, but it's okay. On the Opposite, a shorter sword one handed needs to pass a lot of space to the enemy. It is BEHIND the shield, right leg back, so you must step and thrust full to reach the longsword guy, in an average bout. The short sword needs to be very fast. it's a good idea to 'jump in' on your enemy, with the shield and the sword once. In our matches, ripost (double time) almost never works against a longsword. No wonder, btw.
- Bidenhänder VS Polearm: Whoooa--ho-ho <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> 80:20% <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> If you can catch the poleweapon with the parierhaken, all you have to do is to step in and let the weapon fall. It takes about a second. It's a kind of lunge, sometimes one-handed. A landsknecht reenactment guy (huhh... is that called Re-Actor? <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> ) told me that tat was the primary move against polearms. Even if they came in great numbers, the landsknechts threw their weapon forward and opwards, to the right (or left), catching about 2-3 pole weapons at once and stepped in for a mighty zornhau. That would, in a battle then, decapitate not one, but two enemies at once. 3 Bidenhanders would take on almost 10 polearms, so he said. He was probably a hero in his own dreams, yet the concept is still working.
There is a rather new film in Poland (or Slovakia?) called "With Fire and Iron", where a knight swears to cut down THREE heads at once with his two-hander sword, just like his father once did. He actually manages this in the movie, before being shot down with arrows.... <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />
- Dagger VS Sword&amp;Shield: hmm.... I've seen a move, where the Dagger guy used the shield of the enemy against him. It was quite funny. Anyway, with speed you may even hide behind your enemies shield. But this kind of bout is around 20:80% for the Sword&amp;Shield.

All in One, Weapon Length is not SO important. What important is, always, to know what your enemy's weapon is capable of. If you never fought against a Spear with a sword for example, you'll probably be defeated 10 in 10 times. It must be learned, to fight a longer weapon than yours. But the Truth(TM) is, that a smaller weapon has it's advantages as well, against long weapons, not just disadvantages. The tide is quickly turned, and then it's farewell.

byez,
Szabolcs

[philippewillaume]

I would say yes the length of the weapon is important but not as important as how good each combatant is.

Certainly in medieval manuals, you are taught techniques and principles at all the distance for a given weapon.
So if all things were equal the advantage would go to the longer weapon.
However thing are never equal and this what makes that situation tricky

If both fighters were not very good the advantage would be with the longer weapon
If one fighter is much better than the other, the advantage goes to the better fighter
If each fighters are similarly competent with a each weapon, the longer weapon has and advantage but I would say this advantage ebbs off and strangely increase at the same time proportionally as to how good the fighter are. (I do not mean one compared to the other, we are in a situation where they are of the same level, but I am talking of their mastery in the style relevant to the weapon they use).

The better in their art each fighter is the more they know how to maximize their advantage and relative strength and paradox ally that very fact reduced the said advantage of their opponent

phil

[TimSheetz]

Hi,

I agree with the idea that skill is more important than the weapon length, but circumstances matter and if length didn't matter then no one would ever have long weapons.

I don't know if I agree with Szabolcs' percentages for all the matches he mentioned. I would say that two equally proficient skilled fighters faced off, one with a spear, and one with a longsword, the spear wielder has the greater advantage and the greatest chance of success.

I have never seen a 50/50 ratio of spear vs the sword. It has beena lot worse for the sword wielder.

I highly recommend the the dagger vs the spear. Obviously you would never seek that option but it is not hard to imagine it happening on a battlefield. Certainly as a training excercise it is a worthy thing to practice... then you and your partner should switch weapons... heheh

Tim

[Stacy Clifford]

I agree, spear vs. longsword usually comes out heavily in favor of the spear. Two things to remember about facing a skilled spearman. 1) A spear can be shortened very quickly to face a closing opponent unless you grab the spear and immobilize it. 2) A spear is also a staff and can be used with all of the same offensive and defensive options. Many staffs were described as having a pike on one end anyway. A spear user who is aware of this (and has a little room to fight in one-on-one combat) is going to be very dangerous indeed to even a good swordsman.

[Rod-Thornton]

If the debate ponders the results of weapon length, was not the spear the principal weapon of use with the sword being the secondary weapon employed? For the knight, it was the lance, and for earlier troops (as in Rome), the pila &amp; scutum? In his book, "Storming the Heavens" A. Santosuosso, (2004 Westview Press) indicates the most successful primary assault mechanics (for Roman legions) involved a thrust-weapon attack on ranks...and if we all can agree that combat is a very pragmatic bit of business...then advantage must always go to the longer reach weapons that can bear on quicker. (Else, the bow, firearms, and other 'missile' devices would not have evolved as being such either).

So, to my mind, advantage always goes with reach, and can be "offset" by adeptness of the other, or "ineptness" of the user. THAT is likely the real variable in the ratios of success quoted earliar in the thread with the odds likely always in favor of distance.

[Zach Palfreyman]

Spears being the most common weapon then I think it is obvious that most kills would come from them. But you also need to keep in mind that weapons like the spear were more common not only because they were good and have been around much longer than swords, but also the cost in time and money of making swords. At one time axes were more common than swords on the medieval battlefield. They were easier and cheaper to make. Once swords could be made for less, then they became all the more popular. Not to discredit all the other stuff mentioned, but that is one of the big reasons for so many spears.

[Jake_Norwood]

Vadi says that you should use a weapon custom fitted to your size, but if your opponent's weapon is longer than yours, you best go get one that's the same length as his.

Take that to mean what you will.

Jake

[JeanryChandler]

Good thread, different types of weapons are too often ignored when thinking of WMA, a cue we take from the Masters and their emphasis on judicial combat I suppose. I think to train effectively you should do a great deal of cross weapons sparring.

When I fight EMA guys, I make them use their own weapons first, to see the true differences between us in how we fight. After they lose I let them try a longer and / or two edged weapon <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Four points

1) A good sword and shield guy can trump a spear.

2) I used to see the same kind of results y'all discuss with longsword vs spear, especially with trained spear or staff fighters skilled at the slip-thrust. But last year we practiced this combination a lot and with the use of certain techniques including Krumphau cuts and grasping the haft of the spear (or staff or polearm) and at this point, I think the Longsword actually has a slight edge

3) Daggers and unarmed fighters actually do better against spears or staffs than against swords

4) Spears were used a lot by armies for the initial attack. But in the followup the sword was actually at least the second most most ubiquitous weapon on European battlefields, after the dagger or knife. While the Pilum (javelin) might have been thrown to break enemy ranks before every charge of a Roman Cohort, it was the Gladius which finished off the enemy. The Knights lance was devestating when used en-masse, but often broke in the first charge. Subsequent fighting was frequently done with the sword. The Celts conquered Europe and the Vikings at least the Northern of it half relying primarily on the sword and center-grip shield... Even the steppe nomads of Scythia relied on their Akinakes once all the javelins had been thrown..

Jeanry

[JeanryChandler]

Dagger VS Sword&amp;Shield: hmm.... I've seen a move, where the Dagger guy used the shield of the enemy against him. It was quite funny. Anyway, with speed you may even hide behind your enemies shield. But this kind of bout is around 20:80% for the Sword&amp;Shield.

Me and Jake tried this once on a kind of a dare, back at Southern Knights last year before I had any real WMA training. Jake is much taller and very quick on his feet, and I outweigh him by like 500 pounds.

We went about ten bouts dagger vs sword and nearly 20 of dagger vs sword and shield. The sword was a 3' padded Viking sword with a short grip, accurately weighted and balanced. The shield was a 20" center grip targe or large buckler. The dagger was a twenty inch padded rondel.

Jake tried everything including kicking his shoes at me, and in every bout I advanced on him until we engaged.

He never got a first strike in. I don't remember the exact numbers (and unfortunately there was no film made of this apparently) but against the sword alone he managed about 30-40% mutual death "pyrrhic victory" though the rate of mutual deaths decreased as we kept fighting. Against sword and shield maybe 20% mutual death vs 80% outright defeats. Once my sword had struck I often didn't disengage quickly enough, but it always landed hard, as or before the dagger did.

All in all that event proved to me that while a dagger is always dangerous, a dagger fighter is in big trouble against even a moderately skilled swordsman, especially with a shield. Kamikaze seems to be your only hope.

Jeanry

[Shane Smith]

Silver says that a shorter man should not seek to make his reach longer to match the taller mans by choosing a blade inappropriate to his stature. Why can't those Masters agree on everything <img src="/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />

[Jake_Norwood]

Out of 20 bouts the first 10 were dagger vs. sword and buckler (IIRC). The first 6 were simultaneous kills. After that it was pretty much in the hands of the longer weapon.

Jake

[Benjamin Abbott]

Interesting. I've done only a very limited amount of sparring, but the little experience that I have makes it hard for me to believe the dagger doing as well as some have suggested. Maybe with a long dagger.

The one time I tried unarmed vs. single sword it was a complete failure. As downright blows tend to stop more or less instantly, I never even managed to close (and neither did my partner, when we switched).

By pulling out my "crazy kung-fu moves," however, I did manage to scare my partner into hitting my forearm very hard. That left my wrist sore for a few days. I guess we need to get a good padded dagger and see how much that helps.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

You have to train with somebody who knows something about closing in with a dagger. Size of the dagger really doesn't matter. Like said, simultaneous kills come quite often, but that's for the swordsman not good enough, is it? IF there would be somebody who has only a dagger in some real swordfight (what a hype), ha would have to close in wery fast. That's all we are talking about - underestimating a shorter weapon can lead to failure.

Szab

[Benjamin Abbott]

What do you do about the downright blow to head? Void? Block? Both of those sound very tricky, especially the latter.