European Armed Fighting vs Unarmed fighting...

[JohnDemick]

I know this might sound silly, but how would an opponent skilled in unarmed fighting do against a person skilled in longsword or sword and shield. I know your average karate or tae-kwon-do guy wouldnt stand a chance, but lets pretend that its a person of Rickie Gracie's (400 wins in a row!!), bruce lee, or muhhammud ali's status, who would win?

Here are a couple of outcomes

The longsword fighter strikes a fatal blow to the other opponnet, the guy is unarmed, hes pretty much an easy target, or the longsword fighter is more careful taking steps back while making small jabs to the torso and arms, eventually wearing the guy out

or:

the longsword fighter gets his sword stuck in a nonfatal cut (ouch), giving the grappler/thai-boxer enough time to disarm him, then finishing him off , this is pretty much the only probable outcome i would know where the unarmed opponent would win, i just cant imagine someone skilled with a longsword missing his opponent bad enough to where he would be able to close-in unarmed

[Scott Anderson]

Considering how much the unarmed combat was a part of the armed, I personally believe that in the case of the second example you gave, the longswordsman wouldn't hesitate to drop his weapon (if needed) and proceed to wrestle. The transition from a fight with weapons to a fight without can be amazingly fast.

SPA

[Jamie Fellrath]

Not trying to sound critical here, but could you explain what you mean by a non-fatal cut getting stuck? My thinking here is that even a non-fatal cut that got stuck is going to seriously disable an opponent.

[JeffGentry]

Hey John
If you read some of the first hand account's of the duel's alot of time's they talk about rushing in on there opponent breaking the sword's and it would appear that it probably turned into to a wrestling match that is why there is so much taught about wrestling.

[John_Clements]

I've had considerable experience in this area. Over the past two and a half decades I've had ample opportunities to fence using various swords with unarmed stylists and experts (especially whenever they'd best me unarmed) and the results were decisive: they lost easily. Fighting unarmed against weapons works only in the movies---unless the unarmed fighter also know weapons really well and practices intensely how to deal with armed attackers. But, if the armed fighter also knows unarmed fighting, the results are what you would expect. Weapons work. That's why armies and individuals throughout history equipped themselves with them.

JC

[Stacy Clifford]

While the scale obviously tips heavily in favor of the guy with a weapon, there are techniques and strategies in the old manuals for an unarmed man in that situation, but they pretty much involve impeccable timing and extreme bravery or desperation. One factor worth considering though: do both opponents KNOW that the other is skilled, or is this a random encounter where each is unknown to the other? Your tactics are usually based on your assessment of the other person's fighting ability, and most unarmed people are not Bruce Lee and will not be taken as seriously by a confident swordsman. If you're the unarmed guy, I think you pretty much assume your opponent knows how to use the weapon he's holding and treat him accordingly. However, if you're the unarmed guy and you are not backed into a corner, surrounded or slow of foot and you do anything other than execute Cobb's Traverse with grace and dignity, well then you're just stupid. I don't even think Bruce Lee gets favorable odds in this one.

[JohnGallego]

Stacy, a bit of a hijack here <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> I've seen people use the phrase "Cobb's Traverse" before but I still don't know, what does it mean (I'm guessing, running away) and what is the original referece from?

[JohnDemick]

Ok, lets assume that the 2nd example DID happen. if the person is a master in unarmed fighting then the longsworg guy would have a disadvantage once his weapon is disabled right?? even if the longsword guy was trained in wrestling, its hard to go against an opponent who specializes ONLY in unarmed fighting.

[Joachim Nilsson]

You have to remember that the "wrestling" the swordmen trained were not the equalient of modern greco-roman wrestling or anything like that. It was the unarmed part of their discipline and -although referred to as "wrestling" it actually entailed kicks (towards knees, ankles and groin), punches (towards collarbones, eyes, throat, nose etc), breaking of joints (knees, elbows, fingers, necks, backs) as well as a multitude of throws, holds and takedowns (throws which often incorporated the previously mentioned joint-breaking techniques). "Combat wrestling", or simply "unarmed combat" would be a better description of that part of the Art of Fencing. And, furthermore, the unarmed part was considered to be just as important as the swordwielding part -which is evident in the old manuals- and were thus trained just as hard.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I think this discussion somewhat of a moot point. We could sit here forever and pile on with additional "what if's" -but without ever seeing it actually happen any number of things could come to pass. For sake of discussion though, I'll say this: Provided the swordsman lost his weapon, I would blatantly assume that the outcome would depend on who's the better fighter. And [this will be my last "if" in this discussion <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> ] if properly trained, he would be very adept and skilled in unarmed combat.

[Casper Bradak]

I agree. The examples are entirely out of context anyway. Most of the styles mentioned are temporally and geographically entirely seperate from renaissance european weapons skills, oriented towards sport somewhat or entirely, and if a practitioner did face off with a swordsman, despite the given extreme advantage of weaponry, the unarmed practitionier would have no experience vs. a sword, likely no training vs. a sword, much less a european sword.
If you want to put it in context, it'd still be a moot point, but you should compare it with contemporary unarmed techniques vs. the weapons.

[Ryan Ricks]

i think there was a thread about one of the arma study groups training unarmed against armed. i think it was tim who was talking about it? i remembered him saying if the sword wielder used proper intent, the unarmed guy was like always dead

ryan

[Stacy Clifford]

Yes, Cobb's Traverse means making dust clouds in the opposite direction with all due haste, but I got the term from John, so I don't know the original reference myself.

[TimSheetz]

I agree that we could what if this to death.

The problem is that circumstances matter. The level of visibility terrain, and such affect everything.

The general rule is that the skilled weapon armed person will win.

We tested this often. The better the weapon wielder the less and less successful the unarmed guy is likely to be.

Plus, if the unarmed guy made the sword wielder drop his sword, he would pull his kniofe.

Tim

[Steven Engelbach]

Cobb's Traverse is taken from Silver's manuscript.

Steve

[Jay Vail]

It is not impossible for an unarmed person to defeat a swordsman, but as Tim and JC have pointed out, it is EXTREMELY difficult. Almost always in bouts, the swordsman wins.

The conditions necessary for an unarmed person to defeat a swordsman are the same as the bout unarmed vs. knife. If the armed person is cautious, does not underestimate the unarmed opponent, relies on fakes, and does not commit to an attack until the final decisive moment when the unarmed person is deceived as to the actual attack, the armed person will virtually always win. I have played this game many times (usually with knives) and have often been "killed." Only when the armed man makes a committed attack, heedless of the possibility you might defend against it, does the unarmed man stand a fighting chance.

That said, I have seen others defeat swordsmen while unarmed. Saw JC do it several times in Atlanta in 01 against a rapier man.