Incredible statement about cutting in Mc Bane

[Guest]

Hi,
I'd like to hear what you think about a statement by Donald Mc Bane in "The expert sword man's companion" (I've a copy of the original and the excellent version by Mark Rector too and the statement appears on both)

The statement is that the man with the broad sword is not up to a level with the man with the small sword because the small sword kills, and you can recieve forty cuts and not be disabled <img src="/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" />
In the spadroon section (my favourite) he asserts that if you roll the cloack twice around your arm, you can receive the cuts of the broad sword and that the man with spadroon and cloack is even better armed than the man with broad sword and target. Than he says that the spadroon is up to a level with the small sword because it's light (with this I agree).

Now Mc Bane was mainly a small sword master, but he fought many battles with the spadroon and the broad sword, and in is last duel he broke an arm to his opponent who was circa 30 years younger than him, so he knew how to cut.

Is the cut really so ineffective as Mc Bane asserts?
Is the use of a lighter blade always justified?

His work is dated circa 100 years after Silver's, in the latter statements of the effectivness of the cut (with a lighter weapon than the scottish broad sword) are not difficult to find, did the art of cutting perish in those 100 years?

Regards
Carlo

[Jeffrey Hull]

What if the broad-swordsman strikes the cloak-wrapped arm of the small-swordsman as hard as he can with the broad-sword, and then the small-swordsman can decide whether or not he can fight with his small-sword wielded by his quite-possibly broken arm? If it is still intact, then broad-swordsman may have already stricken small-swordsman in his shins, head, ribs, the same arm or whatever other targets, any whereof, again, if uncut, might be shattered in any case by a flurry of savage blows. Perhaps enough thereof would qualify at last as those that "kill". And gee, maybe not all broad-swordsmen like to move slowly, stand still and/or in line with the dashing effete small-swordsmen. I guess that I therefor disagree with McBane. JH

[Stuart McDermid]

Wow Jeffrey,

I don't know what to say. Your comments betray an ignorance of the source material. Perhaps you should try researching the source material before you comment. Your choice of emoticon is interesting too. Why direct all this ire at a Man who has been dead longer than you or I have been alive and who after 30 years of experience most likely knows more about fencing than anyone in the fencing community today.

Anyway, if you had actually read McBane's work before commenting then you would know that the cloak was to be wrapped around the NON WEAPON arm. This allows a simultaneous defence and attack. As or just after the broadsword is blocked, the return thrust is given. With a weapon like a smallsword that is incapable of parrying a heavier Scots broad, can you think of a better tactic? I surely can't.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Brian Hunt]

If this helps, here is Mcbane's words.

"If you meet with a Man with Sword and Target, and you with your small sword, take off your Coat and Roll it around your Left Hand, and take a wet Napkin and put it under your Hat, and that will prevent his Cuts, in case he Hits you either on the Arm or Head. Save the Blade of your Sword as much as possible, by slipping his Blows, and your Sword Hand making always high Feints to his Face, the he will raise his Targe and blind his sight, that you may have an easy Opportunity to take him in the Belly; I reckon a Man that does not understand a Target, better to want it, than to have it, it would have been better for him to have a cane or Scabbard in his Left Hand, to parie a small sword, than a target to blind him: and when a Man with a Broad Sword, draws against a Man with a small sword, let him stand upon a high hanging Guard at great length, and then he can Parie by the way of Quart or Tierce by Moving his Hand,, and as he Paries let him make a small stroak constantly to his Sword hand, or making a back stroak or under stroak to keep him off, and in Constant Motion, for he will soon be tired, because his Sword is heavier, and have the Left hand always before his Breast to Defend, an if he understands to parie he may change to a Medium, and slip and throw; But still the small sword hath great odds of the broad, for the small Sword Kills, and you may Receive Forty Cuts and not be Disabled."

Could be wrong here, but I wonder if he is discussing a cut and thrust sword, rather than a heavier weapon of earlier times. Mainly I feel he may be talking about draw type cuts rather than the deep cleaving cuts of a heavier weapon. Plus he seems to speak a lot about wearing out your oppenents. Earlier in his discources he speaks of men without enough training who wildly attack because they know not enough about defense, and wearing them out so that you may dispatch them with ease. Certainly not a bad strategy for a man in excellent condition against someone who is not.

Just a thought, do with it what you will. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Brian Hunt

[TimSheetz]

hi,

I am not sure what exactly all the circumstances, but a heavy, quality cutting blade will break an arm, even if it is covered by two layers. Now if the cloak is folded in half (two layers) and then WRAPPED around his arm, sure he could swat the blade aside on a cut if he caught the angle correctly.

I am highly skeptical of the superiority of the small sword, unless the small sword wielder is superior vs a "broad sword" wielder who is decidedly inferior. What exactly is a "Broad sword".

What era is McBAne? 18th, 19th Century? If the "broad swrd" is a [censored] piece as then perhaps it was ineffective. I'd take a heavy GOOD cutting sword over a small sword any day. You won't take many little cuts. Just one or two REALLY BIG ONES. And the small swordsman has only one chance to execute a FULLY INSTANTLY KILLING BLOW to stop a good cut... gravity is still in play and as a downward cut is descending, a stab that kills your opponent even 2 seconds later does nothing to put the pieces of you head back together.

Again, don't know all the specifics, but when it came to fighting in any serious engagement, history supports that men almost always go for a good solid weapon that has enough 'umph' behind it to make a lasting impression.

If they are playing under certain codes and certain controlled circumstances (rules), it affects their choices.



Tim

[Tony_Indurante]

Jeffrey,

Di Grassi talks of using a cloak to defend against a sword, both cuts and thrusts. Apparently the cloak was a very common off hand weapon, second to the dagger in popularity, partly due to the chance that you would have it with you on a day-to-day basis.

There is no denying that the sword used by Di Grassi was capable of delivering shearing cuts, so having your arm cut off or seriously wounded was a definite possiblity if this type of defense didn't work.

The cloak is wrapped around the arm once or twice, when time permited-otherwise you just grabbed it as it slid off your shoulder.

The blows are not parried on the arm but on the cloak, itself. Di Grassi expressly warns about having an arm or leg behind the cloak when blocking, because the cloak will not ward when there is a hard surface behind it.

You also have to remember with Di Grassi that parries are made closer to the grip, not the point, where you have less power-therefore a safer parry.

Perhaps McBane's advice isn't so unsound?

[Jake_Norwood]

I agree that we're best served in trying to understand what McBane is saying in light of the acknowledged power of the cut. McBane, if I understand the character correctly, was quite the fighter and died of old age after killing dozens of men with the sword. I trust that he knows what he's talking about, but I trust Silver too. So how can they both be right in their own spheres?

Jake

[Tony_Indurante]

Jake,

What does Silver have to say about using the cloak? I don't study Silver much, so I'm at a loss.

[Guest]

Hi, actually I was talking about spadroon against broad sword, for which a similar advice was given to that of small sword against broad sword you reported.

To clear the ground about the blade used, the spadroon is a light C&amp;T sword, I suppose about 1 pound and half (I'm stll waiting an answer by Paul Mc Donald on this because he has original spadroons), the dragoon sabre (a lightly curved pallash I'd say) was a pound and a half, this I saw on a book.
The broad sword Mc Bane classifies as heavy, and the ones I saw on the net and those I handled were around three pounds (this is why I do not use one myself: even if I love the weapon my wrist can't handle it). The spadroon, squadrone, in Italy was an heavier weapon but probably we called paloscio what Mc Bane called spadroon, in the account of his life Mc Bane tells us of a particular skirmish against multiple adversaries, in which he cut a leg badly with the spadroon, so we know it could cut well enough. His opinion of the weapon was very high, this can be deduced by the fact that he gave no specific counters to use against it with the other weapons and it seems he carried it in battle instead of the broad sword.

Mc Bane is end of the xvii cent - beginning of the xviii cent.

[Guest]

Hi Tim, the issue you pointed out is a sound one, my reply will include the reply to Mr Indurante.
I, personally, believe that Italian C&amp;T swords were not of the same genus as English and German ones, this is for two reasons:
1) In the museums I've visited I do not remember seeing anything closely related to the concept of the C&amp;T sword that can cut just as well as pierce, rapiers there are a lot, schiavonas there are a lot, stortas there are some, and a courious sort of slimmer arming sword appears sometimes (a C&amp;T weapon dedicated to thrusting), this I believe to be the sword of Di Grassi, the Quintino speech, parts of which I've translated show a similar weapon.
2) The reason for preferring the thrust is the same that originated the rapier culture I think, and went unnoticed into the small sword play, this is an Italian and I think Spanish bias too: the most important thing, when you are offended or challenged to fight, is not to incapacitate the opponent and win the fight, it is to inflict your opponent a wound no surgeon can remedy to, so you'll never meet him again and your revenge is accomplished. You reason like a knight, my impression is that the renaissance Italian swordman was not a knight but an elegantly dressed assassin. This is demonstrated by the many instances in which an ambush was used to end a matter instead of a duel, Shakespear in "Hamlet" gives us another point to ponder: poisoning of the rapier blade.
Now, in the end of the xvi cent. a French barber surgeon, Ambrois Parè, discovered how to treat a severed arthery without burning it (this latter procedure often being fatal), so cut were no garanteed to be fatal and if you ended a fight with a good cut, you risked to see your opponent again. On the other hand, if you put your opponent on the ground with a cut, the etiquette prevents you from delivering him a fatal thrust too. I think this mentality originated in the mediterranean regions with the C&amp;T went through the rapier into the small sword. When internal surgeons were able to deal with internal puncturing, we were already duealling with the pistol.

I hope my English is good enough and not to be imposing you to interpret it <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

What type of "broad sword" are we talking about? A cutlass? A straight sabre? Surely you're not discussing the "long sword". I can see a small sword versus a cutlass or sabre but not against the long sword.

[Guest]

we are talking about the scottish basket hilted broad sword.

[Jake_Norwood]

1) In the museums I've visited I do not remember seeing anything closely related to the concept of the C&amp;T sword that can cut just as well as pierce, rapiers there are a lot, schiavonas there are a lot,

I believe that a schiavona counts as a C&amp;T style sword. Man, I love schiavonas...

Tony-

I don't recall much on the cloak off-hand, but I'll double-check. I've read Silver 3 times cover-to-cover, but I never remember details like that. Argh...

Jake

[ChrisThies]

If interested, the following is from the end of Domenic Angelo's 1763 "L'Ecole des Armes"(School of fencing), pages 103 - 105, &amp; corresponding Plate # 47 (which depicts his 'broad sword' referred to as a [mostly straight bladed] cavalry sabre with slight curve near end of the blade).
p.103-"'Explanation of the defensive guard of the small sword against the broad sword.'
The guard of the small sword marked B, against the broad sword marked A, which I have placed here, is the most safe, and the most sheltered guard for defence. The chief point will be, to know your distance: in whatever position the broad sword man may put himself, you must place yourself out of distance, and bring neither your wrist nor your sword, nor your right foot forward: but the moment you draw your sword, you must, with your left hand, take up the skirts of your coat, keeping your left hand to the height of your ear, in order occasionally to parry the cuts of the broad sword on the inside, either at the head, face or the lower part of the body.
The blow at the head may likewise be parried with the fort of your blade, having the wrist in tierce, and opposing the blade almost crossing the line; but your point should be a little higher than the mounting of your sword: the moment the blow is parried, you must close in about a foot, and bending the body a little, return a thrust in seconde, and redouble the thrust before you recover your guard."

p.104-"Parry the cut on the outsid of the blade to the face with the fort of your blade, and your wrist turned half way to tierce with a straight point. The blow being parried, you must return a thrust to the face in carte over the arm, and redouble the same with a seconde. The cut at the belly on the outside of the sword, is to be parried by turning your wrist to a seconde, and returning on the same side.
If you parry the inside cuts which may be made at you with your blade, you should parry them with the prime parade, at the same time traversing the line to the outside, and return a thrust in prime.
The safest and surest defence against the broad sword (in my opinion) is not to be fluttered or moved at any motion, sham blows, or attacks, which the adversary may make to intimidate you, but slip and shun his blows, by throwing back your body well in a straight line with his, and retiring about a foot at a time, and counteract his designs by continual half thrusts and appels. If his motions are close, you must be quicker to parry, either with the sword, or with the skirts of your coat, and on occasion make use of both.
If his motions are wide, you must resolve to close in, covering yourself as much as possible with your sword and the lap of your coat, and deliver your thrust where you see an opening to..."

p.105-"to hit him. If the ground should not be level enough to tire him, you should, by turning to the right or to the left, and by retreating, take a favourable and exact just time for thrusting, instead of throwing the thrust at random.
There are some broad sword men who intermix their play with thrusts (which is called counter point) they feign to give a cut, and finish it a thrust; and sometimes, after having parried, according to the opening they find, they will return either a cut or a thrust.
The sword called cut and thrust is very different from the broad sword, because it is much lighter, it carries a straight point, and not a raised one, as the sabres or cutting swords commonly have; for which reason they are obliged to make the hilts heavy, to render the point light.
The half cut and thrust sword is preferable to the broad sword, provided it be made use of with judgement. This weapon is the best for horseman, when they charge their enemy sword in hand.
THE END."

[TimSheetz]

HI Carlo,

Interesting.

I think the use of attacks from ambush have more to do with human nature than with a weapon type.

I also think that the idea that the thrusting weapon is more deadly than a weapon that can cut and thrust is not a sound one - they may have though that, but you can take multiple thrusts to extremities and continue fighting.

I think the prevelance of the rapier had more to do with fashion and style than "deadliness" and certainly the small sword did too....

Of course in June I am sure that our 'rapier fencers' will give me a new renewed appreciation of the weapon system by turning me into the proverbial pin cushion.

I think everyone should have to do annual Rapier Appreciation training - especially if they like heavier weapons.

Thanks,

Tim