Perhaps you are referring to your style of playing with lighter cut & thrust swords or rapiers? I see more there where probing and deceptive attacks to harras and provoke have utility.
I think stuarts point about different weapons, and Johns comment here, both raise an interesting point. Perhaps the dfference of perspective on this issue is due to thinking in terms of different weapons. I don't use rapiers much but I have some simulated "viking" swords which are about 37" and weigh a little over 2 pounds (which is historically accurate for many viking swords). As such, they are very light and maneuverable. When I am fighting with these single hand weapons I fight a lot differently than I do with a long sword in the range of 44-48" and 3-4 lbs. With the single sword I do a lot more feinting and quick, sharp attacks from the elbow or even from the wrist. Like a blow to the knee or shin followed by a harder attack to the head or the weapon arm. It is somewhat similar to fighting with a three foot metal pipe or similar blunt instrument. Even with a comparatively harmless weapon such as an aluminum pipe, you can DEFINATELY cause serious harm with a quick snap-out to the face, hands, knees, or etc.
The original argument which led to my starting this thread, was to do with penetrating armor. My theory is that there are three basic intensities of attack with hand weapons of any kind:
1) a quick jab, which is easier to hit with but can probably only injure an unarmored person and then only with well- aimed strikes and only part of the time.
2) a 'standard' blow of the hard intensity which so many of the European Masters speak of, and which is reccomended in Japanese fencing. As hard as possible with precision and effieciency. This level of attack should be sufficient to penetrate much armor if a suitible armor piercing weapon is used.
3) A 'haymaker' strike or stronger than standard attack, which is of such intensity that it would not be safe to execute unless the opponent has made a serious mistake, fallen, and / or been sufficiently dominated. This type of blow would be neccesary to penetrate heavy armor or to penetrate armor with weapons which are not normally suffifcient to do so.
My belief in three levels of attack springs from my own experience sparring with sticks and "SLA"s, my own experience in real fights with sticks, pipes, and from the historical record.
With regard to penetrating armor, I have read a great deal about the early Swiss victories against the Hapsburgs. The accounts I have read describe the Swiss fighting with a technique of deploying their Halberds tentatively at first with the thrusting point, the blade and the hook (and the butt, per the other thread) and then if they managed to dismount a knight, knock them down, disarm them, or sufficiently dominate them, THEN they make a heavy sweeping attack with the cleaver or axe-like blade, or with the crows bill. It was this final attack which was neccessary to penetrate the armor of the Austrian knights.
Similar tactics were described as being used by Flemish peasants using Gudendags against French knights.
Sydney Anglo alludes to this as well in his chapter on Pole arms.
I wonder, since most of the Fechtbuchs concentrate on longsword technique, this may influence their approach toward this issue? A quick jab is much harder to execute with a Long sword than with say, something like a viking broad sword or an arming sword?
I wonder what I33 says on these matters, does anyone know? I haven't got my copy of the new translation yet so i haven't looked at it.
JR
