A sword for the day

[Justin Blackford]

In my honest opinion, if swords, rapiers, daggers, staffs and the like were legalized weapons for walking the streets in the modern day, I think quite a few people would begin to carry them. The only thing is that we would need some kind of an ordinance which prevented cheap wallhangers from being sold as "real" swords. But, otherwise I would think that there would probably be quite a few people re-developing the martial skill of the Medieval and Renaissance masters for the sake of personal defense.
Sports and such for swordsmanship would surely evolve(probably as a new primetime reality TV show), but I think that the use of the swords for a martial art would certainly overshadow it.
As far as training with reckless people, I've had that problem a few times before, but I've developed some ways of countering it(much do to the advice of Mr. Jake Norwood). In a real fight with Medieval weapons, a "brutal" man as Capo Ferro states or the "Buffalo" as put by Johannes Liechtenaur could be easily countered by a well-trained fencer.

Justin

[david welch]

6 foot halberd with a butt spike for my primary weapon, with a arming sword and buckler for a backup.

Good call, and I was going to go the same route... except the trouble is having to drag a halberd around all day. That is why I carry a small gun. If it is too much trouble I just won't do it, and then I won't have it when I need it.

However, the Polish have a thing called a Ciupaga ("chew-pa-ga") that is basically a 34" tomahawk used as a cane. I think I will go with it, and then an arming sword and buckler.

[s_taillebois]

M Blackford, Quite true about dealing with the unrestrained and undisciplined. Usually a few well placed words, or a few well placed thrusts will end that manner of conduct. It's just that kind of thing wears on the minds edges, enough vexating idiots in the day to day, without having to train with them.
On the sword issue, interesting concept about the qaulity issue. The defining line there would be functional quality versus affectation-whether that would be in bad design, or the assumption that to be functional a sword must be perfect. Would be a little worried if the guv'ment developed standards on these things...methinks it wouldn't be anything like the old royal warrents.
As for the legalities, well some places that seems not to matter. In those environs, it would seem the knowledge of how to use a stylet, dagger, or staff could be useful.
On the training issue, seems to be a lot of developing interest in that arena...for various reasons. Runs the range from ARMA to the Up Guard people.
From a pragmatic view, a fair amount out there regarding en-suite/Main Gauche/Roundel daggers, fairly little about stylets.
From museum pictures, and contemporary repros, the nature of the quillions/breadth is such that these would be virtually useless as a defense...and the nature of the blade implies a distinctly linear approach. From occasional practice with the ones I've got about, stylets would seem to be almost entirely reliant on strikes coming in from unexpected angles, times and strong linear thrusts. Mayhaps the reason there seems to be so little written about these, is either because they were an under the table weapon, or a dress item?. Or just not suitable for cutting bread...historical weapons often ended up in uses for which they were not intended. Daggers,Bills, and falchions being good examples.

[Jeremy Martin]

Forest bill, arming sword, and punch dagger.

[Matt Blalock]

Greetings all.

First time poster, so hopefully I won't step on any toes.

Personally, I think that "best" is extraordinarily relative to the environment and the defender. A lot of people have advocated a staff or sword, but at the same time, would you necessarily have an easy time of it swinging a polearm, staff, or longsword in a crowded bar?

Which brings up a second concern with modern sword carry: personal injury lawsuits which people in the US like to sling around. I myself would be concerned with injury to bystanders; if I whipped a longsword around and injured someone else, I'd be financially ruined from such lawsuits.

A third modern-day reality is the nature of violence that might lead one to carry a weapon in the first place. My understanding is that much of the violent crime committed in the modern day is often by ambush, where the perpetrator tries to sneak up on the victim without his knowledge. Thus, if one isn't expecting the attack, he has to rely on his training (which hopefully is well-ingrained at this point) because his higher mental functions probably won't be so great in that moment of panic.

Therefore, my opinion is that the best weapon is the one that allows one easy access without risk to bystanders, and one that you have the most familiarity with. In such a case many different weapons would suffice; success or failure would rely instead on the defender rather than his weapon.

Matt Blalock

[Mike Chidester]

I'd stick with the short bastard sword. It can be used quite effectively in confined areas, it can be drawn quickly and employed effectively directly from the draw. And I live in a state with little tolerance for frivelous lawsuits.

[Jake_Norwood]

Now if we could just figure out exactly what constitutes a Welch hook, I might be inclined to change my answer...

There's a drawing in Anglo's MA of RE. It's a cross between a fork and a hook-bill. But since we're talking Silver, it must be "of a perfect length."

Jake

[Richard Strey]

Here in Germany, swords, polarms and the like are legal to publicly carry. German law basically works along the line that you are allowed to arm yourself (with cutting and thrusting weapons), if you are an adult, not in violation of any other law (weapons are, for example forbidden to carry at public events and on the way to/from there) and that weapon is not disguised as an object of everyday use (swordcanes, swordbelts, pen-guns). There is an ever-growing list of "banned objects", though.
So, I would be allowed to wear a dagger or longsword to fend off thieves when I go shopping at the mall. Unless said mall had a regulation about shopping armed and they kicked me out. I have yet to see a civilian do that, though. The reason seems to be social pressure, as well as laziness.
At about two occasions, when our faculty had organized a party and subsequently several thousand Euros in cash to take to the bank, I have accompanied the "courier" with my longsword or arming sword and buckler. Sword in sheath, belt wrapped around it, carried in the left hand for immediate deployment or half-swording. Buckler, if present, in the same hand.
As an everyday tool I carry what the American public now seems to call a "tactical folder," used primarily to cut pizza and steaks at places where they don't have decent cutlery, open envelopes, remove staples and open beer bottles. Anything else is just too bothersome and if I really *expected* to get into that kind of trouble, I'd 1) Not go there, 2) Move away, 3) Get myself a firearm.
Now, at a rennaissance fair (pertaining to this discussion, since it gives me an excuse to lug the weapons in question around for days at a time), I usually go for arming sword and buckler. Sheath belted to my hip, a short leather thong tied into a loop and attached to the buckler's grip. Said loop goes over the sheath's mouth and is locked in place by the sword. When drawing the sword, my left hand grabs the upper part of the sheath and automatically slips into the buckler's grip, as well. This equipment is -to me- the perfect mix of ease of carry and effectiveness against most opponents. What good is a large weapon that I leave behind, because I got stuck in the crowd all the time? <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[JeanryChandler]

This is an interesting discussion, I've been mulling this through a week of hellish mold mininig in my former house, so I hope y'all will forgive a long-winded post. I thought it might be helpful to identify some of the tradeoffs here.

1) would be that of intimidation versus surprise, the whole staff vs sword thing.

Growing up in New Orleans I could see arguments for both approaches. It's often good to be underestimated if there is a likelyhood you are going to have to fight anyway. On the other hand, depending on the environment your in, a display of force is often sufficient to avoid a conflict. Thats the basic reason why some hornets are bright yellow or orange, or why rattlesnakes rattle. It's really a calculus of whether you are in the type of environment like the 9th ward in New Orleans where people are more likely to attempt to prey upon you if you seem comparatively weak and wealthy, or say somewhere like gang country in East LA where any kind of a challenge to locals hegemony is likely to bring trouble.

In New Orleans my experiences were largely in the former category. I used to work as a bus-boy, walking home at night a lot of the time after the busses stopped running, I was often sought out due to my uniform because people assume you have tip money. After some close calls, I experimented with a variety of weapons, ranging from small pistols to big knives, and other odd things. I never actually had to use anything on anybody, but when people approached me I would make a demonstration and then be left alone, either quickly or after some hesitatin. I actualy found the most effective weapon was actually a really big rusty, scary looking bayonett. People just seemed very leery of that.

And even in LA though, I have observed that a pistol revealed in the appropriate manner to a group of very bad people approaching with extremely hostile intent can make them stop and re-evaluate their priorities, even if they are also armed.

So I would personally go with intimidation, though I agree its a personal decision.

2) would be utility vs reach. It's certainly true that in tight or crowded spaces, a larger weapon could be quite a liability. But on the other hand, those of us familiar with sparring know that a longer weapon, particularly a longer cutting weapon, is at a huge advantage in the chance that you may get into a fight in any kind of relatively open space.

3) would be defense vs offense

Here a staff is very good at actually fending off attacking blows, especially if facing more than one opponent. A shield is even more valuable for this. The downside in both cases is portability, bulk.

4) another is lethality vs. utility

You might actually prefer a less lethal weapon if you think a certain type of encounter is going to happen. If you go out drinking in certain parts of the French Quarter in New Orleans, IMHO you were much wiser to bring brass knuckles or a really strong stun-gun than a knife. A knife may cause serious injuries that the victim isn't even aware off. The knuckles can drop people and disorient them without necessarily killing.

On the other hand, if it's very late at night and you are in a bad neighborhood where you could be attacked and killed (many muggers feel its better than leaving a witness when armed robbery is 99 to Life) a weapon which can kill quickly is called for.


Thinking about all this for entertainment as I muck out my former home this week, my thoughts keep returning to this little 42" Albion bastard sword we test cut with a couple of months ago. I think it was the Castellan maybe? It was dainty and sharp as a needle, almost better than a rapier for thrusting, and yet it cut like an expensive chefs knife. Long enough to have a chance against most hand weapons, but short enough that (especially with halfswording) you could use it in close quarters. I think that would be my baby.

[s_taillebois]

M Chandler,
Your post (and the rusty bayonet) bring up an interesting cultural difference between our society and that of the time of the original fechtbuchs.
Although there are knife/edged weapons oriented cultures in our society (ie here on the reservation)...on the whole these things and their effects are considered to be beyond the pale.
A good example is what happened in ww-2. Patton compelled his troops to carry bayonets, not because they were really of that much use in a war involving auto weapons, tanks and aircraft...but because of the psychological unease he knew it would cause in the Wehrmacht.
In the period which this forum studies, a very different attitude.
Those people were intensively status oriented. It would have been more a matter of being respected, or ridiculed based on the qaulity of the weapon, and the presumed status of training behind it all. For example, although the British yeomanry routinely shot up the French aristocracy, the French never did quite lose their contempt for the lower orders, or their weaponry.
So in that sense, if one had a dagger...so what, who didn't have something sharp and dangerous ...the utility of weapons as a deterrent... in their sense seemed to have been closely linked to the status of the training, and the type of weapon.
Perhaps, in that regard, some of the aristocrats probably hated the first printed fechtbuchs...it brought the training, and status...to people whom earlier it was much easier to treat as a neglible threat, or with contempt.
Also, good point about discretion...probably good advice in 1450 also...it seems the fechtbuch writers (and people like Talhoffer) did say the same.

[Jaron Bernstein]

"At about two occasions, when our faculty had organized a party and subsequently several thousand Euros in cash to take to the bank, I have accompanied the "courier" with my longsword or arming sword and buckler. Sword in sheath, belt wrapped around it, carried in the left hand for immediate deployment or half-swording. Buckler, if present, in the same hand."

That is great. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" /> I would have loved to see it. I get funny looks at my local YMCA for my sword.

[Richard Strey]

Ah, this is Cologne. You could probably drive a main battle tank down the road and people would still assume it's part of some carnival costume/preparation or whatnot, depending on the time of year.
There's a saying here: "Jeder Jeck ist anders." roughly meaning "Every fool (carnival participant) is different" and expressing the Colognians' appreciation of mutual tolerance.
Fine with me. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[Grant Hall]

Justin, a thought has also popped into my head...

...What about armour?
I know that one would not conceivably walk arround wearing plate mail all day, even the most paranoid individual would soon tire after wearing 75lb armour all day, not to mention the time needed to get into and out of it.

However, since the question is set in modern days one might ask about the usage of Kevlar. I may be wrong but I read somewhere that lb for lb Kevlar is FIVE times stronger than steel. This means one could conceivably make armour as good if not better than fullplate that only weighed arround 15lbs, and that would be distributed over the whole body.

If this was plausible (and you are all more than welcome to correct me in any way) how would this change what people would carry?

Just a thought, thanks for listening(reading.... wuteva <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /> )

Cheers

[Brian Hunt]

kevlar isn't really much good against a cutting weapon, it is good against bullets because the fibers aren't easily spread apart and can absorb a lot of impact, but you can still cut it.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Grant Hall]

True, but what about ceramic plates? would they be more effective?

As I stated I am not an expert in this area, it was just a thought.

Cheers again.