Amazing Misinformation

[David Craig]

While on another site I happened to see an article referenced from fencingonline.com called, "From Duelling to Fencing," that contains this incredible statement: "During the middle ages, swords often reached three [sic] length of six foot and weighed from fifty to seventy pounds." No, that's not a misprint, 50 to 70 pounds!!!
I read the rest of this supposedly "historical" article, and it is riddled throughout with the grossest type of misinformation. I'm sorry if this is not an appropriate place to mention this, but I was stunned to find a major fencing site promoting such nonsense under the guise of "history." The full article can be found at the link given below:

http://www.fencingonline.com/academy/duellingtofencing.htm

[David Kite]

Crikey, that was aweful! Considering the "knowledge and expertise" of the author, it wasn't even that well written apart from the misinformation.

David Kite

[Randall Pleasant]

Scholars

If you go to the Feedback/Contact us link you can submit a complaint to the site. A number of polite complaints might get them to remove this junk from their site.

[Matt Shields]

I'm surprised he made that claim when he had this information:

"Vikings were primarily sword warriors. From observation of their swords, they appear to be neither particularly too heavy, nor in practised hands, particularly cumbersome. The average weight was no more than two and a half pounds and a heavy pommel gave them a certain balance."

The rest of his article is full of crap too. One of the worst lines being:

"The rough untutored fighting of mounted knights in heavy armour, hacking at each other in medieval Europe with two-handed swords represented faithfully the reign of brute force in the life of that time. The strongest arm and the weightiest sword won the day"

[Casper Bradak]

Just the same stuff parroted for 100 years. I could understand 6 foot swords weighing from 5.0 to 7.0 pounds, that would be pretty accurate, maybe they forgot the decimal point?

[E. Perez]

"The rough untutored fighting of mounted knights in heavy armour, hacking at each other in medieval Europe with two-handed swords represented faithfully the reign of brute force in the life of that time. The strongest arm and the weightiest sword won the day"

This is almost verbatum from Egerton Castle's Schools and Masters of Fencing (page 5). They 're just a couple of centuries out of date.

In regard to sword weight, the article spells out fifty to seventy pounds, no misplaced decimal point.

[JeanryChandler]

I recently got in an argument on an RPG forum with some alleged EMA (Wushu) practitioners who claimed that some kind of Chinese Halberd used to weigh 200 lbs, but that later more modern versions only weighed 40 lbs! <img src="/forum/images/icons/ooo.gif" alt="" />

It turned out this mythology was printed as fact in several martial arts magazines....

J

[Stacy Clifford]

Let me guess - the proper use of these halberds was to release them in large numbers from hilltops to roll down on passing troops?

[Devin Wilson]

Ugh....I've never seen first hand misconceptions that bad. What's really sad is that his even undermines himself. If thrusts were so bad, then why are so many of the manuals he mentions about cutting swords?

He also misrepresents firearms. He implies that they eliminated armor in the 13th century! Maybe prototypes were around then. He must not have thought why they wore armor in the picture of a tournament suppoesdly from the 1500s. Hmmm.....some 300 years after armor was obsolete?

[Gene Tausk]

I guess modern human beings really are wimps. I mean, if warriors back then could effectively handle 50-70 pound weapons for hours on end and we can only handle 3-5 pound weapons, I mean, what does this tell you about the state of humanity? Not to mention the fact that those bygone warriors were able to handle such weapons without joint injuries or tendon problems.

I guess we all need to hire personal trainers and get with the program quick if we are ever going to attempt to match the fighting skills of our ancestors!



<img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />


--------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene

[Doug Marnick]

I sent in my complaint as follows: "I humbly request that you remove the article 'From Duelling to Fencing' from your website as it is full of inaccurate statements. I would list each one for you, but there are too many to mention. Thank you for your time and attention."

[JeanryChandler]

I agree, good point. Funny thing is, I doub't it would phase the hard core EMA people I was arguing with. Fortunately, that discussion petered out, it was giving me a headache. Some people just find it very hard to think in realistic terms, but we have to make the point, over and over, where absud fantasy is presented as fact, and correct them.

Then sometimes you have to give them a while to think it over and change their mind later <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

J

[John_Clements]

Matt, to make it even worse, he's a plagiarist. As Ernie rightly noted, that sentence and several others are stolen right out of Egerton Castle's "Schools and Masters of Fence: From the Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century" (London: George Bell, 1885), page 5.

What’s just as bad though is this utter garbage (in my experience typical of the knowledge about historical fencing among modern sport fencing masters):

“During the middle ages, swords often reached great lengths and thus had-significantly increased weights. To utilize this increased length and weight, the swordsman would need to use two hands to sweep the blade in relatively large arcs that, when contact was made, would smash and crash into the armor to get at the enemy encased within. With such lengths and weight limiting the control over the use of these weapons, combat fencing principles, such as feints, beats, pressures and their respective deceptions, counter-time and even the parry-riposte, counter-riposte done with second-intension, were undiscovered.”

That’s total myth, but accepted as doctrine among many modern fencers. Other than that, I cannot find the quote about 50-70 pound swords, he must have deleted it.

JC

[Matt Shields]

I cannot find the quote about 50-70 pound swords, he must have deleted it.

It looks like that to me too. I send my complaint to the webmaster. Does anyone know if the author submitted the article to any other websites? But you can't blame the guy, he does sport fencing and choreography. But I still don't understand how he would think that Medieval Swords weighed about twenty-five times as much as Viking Swords.
His email is at the bottom of this page. He seems to travel alot. Maybe someone (John) could get together with this "Maître d'Armes" and teach him a lesson.