One of the worst fencing articles I have ever read

[Allen Johnson]

If anyone wants just about every myth and misconception rolled into one article, here ya go!:
http://www.fencingonline.com/academy/duellingtofencing.htm

I've started to write a rebuttal to the website but it's just so massive how much terrible info is in there that I don't think I have the stregnth!

[Ray_McCullough]

I saw that website. I emailed them about it, pointing out the errors. I was not rude with my email but I still never recieved a reply. It's one of those situations where "don't confuse me with the facts, I have made up my mind" kind of things.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Excellent! You deserve a prize for finding one of the worst that the Web has to offer.

Yes, the statement that:

*Vikings were primarily sword warriors.*

Is quite false. If anything, they were primarily spearmen and axemen. Of course they liked the sword; and arguably considered it their most special weapon; and it seems to have had precedence in duel. Yet the spear and various axes (and saxes) were the mainstays of Teutonic battle circa 400-1100 AD.

(BTW - I guess no one is capable of using the term "Norse" anymore -- everything is always "Viking". It would be like preferring the term "Huscarl" to "Anglo-Saxon". Although that is not anything like the dubious malignity of recent neo-revisionary "experts" who say everything is now "Iron-Age" and nothing any more is "Celtic".)

And gee whiz, no mention of Liechtenauer, Talhoffer, von Danzig, Kal, or Ringeck. I guess the Germans had no fencing until the civilised rapier-men showed them how to do it.

Yes, there are more mistakes there than a guy could shake an electrified foil at.

[Allen Johnson]

yeah my favorite part is where he states that the first manual on fencing was written in 1531 by Marozzo.

[John_Clements]

Guys, this is the standard fencing mythology that has filled book after book since the early 20th century, and still fills the heads of countless fencing coaches and modern sport fencers I've encountered ---even the ones who have actually read Egerton Castle still largely subscribe to this kind of 19th century misconception and Hollywood inspired garbage: swords weighed 40 pounds, knights were clumsy and slow and just crudely bashed, all parrying must be an edge to edge block, the cut was "proved" inferior to the thrust, rapiers "defeated" armor, saber fencing is "ancient", the second hand is useless or improper in a fight, true swordsmen don't grapple, all duels were gentlemanly affairs, etc., etc.

For some of them it's as if we and Dr. Anglo don't exist and have proved nothing.

JC

[William Ames]

If the Norse equiped themselves similarly to the Saxons, than then swords were actually more common than axes, although both were seriously outnumbered by spears.

Just looking at their tactics would tell you that there is no way the swords would be the primary weapon of the Norse. It's hard to use a sword over a shield wall.

[Jay Vail]

Just looking at their tactics would tell you that there is no way the swords would be the primary weapon of the Norse. It's hard to use a sword over a shield wall.

I've heard that said very often, but I don't know anyone who's actually proven it to be true.

[John F. Stewart]

I'm just speculating here, but I'd imagine that axes would be more common amongst Vikings (and most Dark Age warriors) if for no other reason besides cost. Axes are cheaper and can be used as or found as a tool.

[Nathan Dexter]

No, the vikings used the sword more for many reasons:
1) The swords were ceremonial, they revered them highly, so if you could, you would buy one.
2) They were effective (duh)
3) The Vikings were not poor, dirty barbarians, (technically they were <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) but instead they were some of the cleanest, and richest people in medieval society.(they also had some of the best swords too <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> .)

(side note) Tool axes are A LOT different than war axes.

[William Savage]

is it just me or was there a copper age before the bronze age.

that artical sucked. how could anyone state so many false facts.

if i ever meet the author of it, im gonna flat out say "I don't respect you".

[s_taillebois]

Oh well, within a specialist field of study, there's bound to be misinformation from those who are outside of that study.
And the idiocy in the article, oh well, there are other places for information.
And anyway, in any study there is a departure point from which complete accuracy is made diffuse.
For example, some could comment that ARMA and like organizations are inaccurate because most do not enact the full context of the period weapons culture. Probably few, if any here, spend their nights sleeping at the doorway, or feel compelled to spend the night in a damp cave (Knights Owen and Tundal at St, Patricks Purgatory), nor spent several days fasting and praying before getting our first sword, or carry falcons around as a career negotiation tactic.
So, some degree of inaccuracy is inevietable, it's just a matter of how much can be tolerated.

[Allen Johnson]

It's worse than I thought- look at who this guy is:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1552694/

He is in a position where people look to him for professional advice on swordfighting.