Vantage against?

[Alfred Wong]

Last weekend I briefly looked at Silver's Paradoxes of Defence... and so I went through the "vantage" part. I was thinking about the advantage in my sparring...

According to my own experience, I feel like that the advantage of weapons goes: (Descending order)

Polearm
Sword and Shield (Large one!)
Longsword

Never played with rapier or sword/buckler tho. But if we're talking about silver, then it will be Sword/buckler and then Rapier at last.

I don't know if it's true or not. But it will be very nice to know which weapon has the advantage. Thanks in advance.

I was wondering... shall I start the hardest weapon (rapier?) first? Or shall I just practise longsword only? It really bothers me.

[Ryan Ricks]

ARMA uses the longsword as the foundational weapon. by learning longsword, all of the basics apply to other weapons. the basics of timing, range, judgement, vor, nach, indes, and footwork will apply to all other weapons. with longsword you learn cuts, slices, and thrusts, which will be a better basis for rapier, sword and shield, and polearms. this will be better than starting with rapier and only learning thrusts

at least that's my opinion

ryan

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Hey Alfred, By seeking advantage do you mean always able to win in sparring? If so, remember that there is much more to this art than just always winning in the spar.

I think naturally everyone wants to win and be successful, but be careful about how you define success. I personally gravitate towards the longsword because it is the ARMA foundational weapon, but it also speaks to me. There is something about it's form which compells me to want to pick it up and train.

If there is another system which does this for you than go with it--don't let it "bother you" --My thoughts nothing else-Aaron

[Alfred Wong]

Ryan,

Thanks! That's some very useful opinion. I agree with you.

Aaron,

Do you understand my question? Must be my language problem.

I see. Actually I mean if I start with the "hardest" weapon the improvement will be significant...

Yea, so I gonna stick with my longsword : )

[JeffGentry]

Hey Alfred

I was wondering... shall I start the hardest weapon (rapier?) first? Or shall I just practise longsword only? It really bothers me.

I think in most regard's it all depend's on what you want to accomplish and the way you want to fight, i don't realy think any one weapon is harder than another to learn, to perfect a weapon is another thing all together.

I think your best bet is to learn one weapon to the point you are able to win a majority of confrontation's against whatever weapon is used against you and then learn to use other's weapon's also.

This is just how i see thing's.

Jeff

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Alfred, I was pressed for time and gave you a quick answer, never a good idea, but anyway I did understand the question.

I guess my point was, that these weapons all have advantages and disadvantages. You would not use a pole-arm in close quarters, a true two hander would also be difficult to use in that enviroment. The arming sword or sword and buckler might be better for close in fighting and a hand and a half can be used in close or at range.

I have limited expirence fighting against other weapons, but a did spar a little with sword and buckler vs longsword, and I thought that as long as I used the reach the long sword provided I usually came out on top, if my opponent got in close however he would win. I am sure that there are other opinions and skill levels, but each weapon has both good and bad aspects. If there were one weapon that were superior to all these I am sure we would all be using it-which would negate it's advantage anyway, so the real question becomes how much skill do you have with a longsword, axe, staff, etc.. etc...I can turn almost anything into a weapon and my skill with that weapon will determine how much advantage I have.

I always am reminded by my peers---Police Officers, about the scene in Indiana Jones when the swordsman busts out a huge scimitar and starts putting on a very impressive cutting routine, only to have our hero draw his revover and shoot the guy, droping him with one shot, so maybe you should train with the revolver, then you would always have the advantage!
Ha, Just messing around- seriously I hope that explained my view a little better, I read my response to you and I guess I came off a little cranky- Aaron

[JeanryChandler]

I think this is an interesting issue, worth discussion.

While I agree with many of the comments here, I think Alfred does have a point, that in a relatively open area with a roughly equivalent level of experience, certain weapons do seem to have an advantage over others.

We all know for example, that a shorter sword generally has a disadvantage. A sword with a thirty inch blade is closer to that 'sweet spot' in combat than one with a twenty inch blade.

In twenty years of stickfighting I can definately say that, assuming no armor or light armor, a moderately experienced staff or spear fighter has a definite advantage over a moderately experienced longsword or sword and buckler, fighter, as does a sword and shield guy in the equivalent match ups.

I noticed this at SK, despite having inferior WMA training, I was able to do well against Jake and his longsword using sword and (large) shield, even though he completely dominated with longsword v longsword or longsword v sword and buckler. This is because I had a lot of experience with the shield and Jake hadn't faced it very much, since it had not been a prominent part of his ARMA training, and unless you are familiar with it, the shield can trump the longsword...

A lot of informal sparring groups have the beliefs that one weapon trumps another without the caveat I use above, as if it were set in stone, that a staff trumps a longsword, a longsword trumps a singlesword, etc.

I used to think this was true myself until some experiences I have had fairly recently. First last year, after doing a lot of cross-weapon sparring, I learned to beat the spear with sword and shield. This year since SK as I've been working more with the longsword, I went from being completely out-matched wielding a longsword against a good spear fighter (and there are some quite good ones in our area to practice with from a neighboring group) to the point that I have now learned to face the spear quite effectively with the longsword. I used to be afraid of that weapon, and would only win something like 1 or 2 out of 10 bouts, now I win 7 or 8. Whats more, I believe with further training and an expanding repertoire I'll get better still.

In fact this year after learning some Meyer and Lichtenaur (sp) techniques with the longsword, I ultimately came to the conclusion that the true superiority of the longsword as a battlefield weapon lies in it's versatility. The spear as has been mentioned is vulnerable in close range, the sword and shield is limited in reach and in tactical flexibility. The longsword is more difficult to master, but ultimately can be very effective in nearly any circumstance.

So while I would say that a moderately skilled longsword fencer would be at a disadvantage against a sword and shield or a spear or a staff, it is possible to reach a much higher level of mastery with the longsword, because it is so flexible. Therefore the best longsword fencer could, IMO, actually be more dangerous than the best sword and shield fighter, at least in my opinion (I realise other people would strongly disagree with this).

Some people don't buy the idea that one weapon has any advantage over another. I think there are advantages, but I also think that some weapons can be learned at higher and higher levels.

I fought for years and years using sword and shield, and got good at it, but I believe I reached a plateau where it's hard to learn anything really new, you can always improve timing and accuracy incrementally, but tactics are limited. Same with the spear, IMO.

I think with the longsword, and possibly with sword and buckler or even sword and dagger, your progression can be taken much further.

Just my $.02

J

[JeanryChandler]

I think this also stresses the importance of doing cross-weapon training, you will really learn much more about your weapon by doing it. I think it is a very valuable training technique.

J

[Aaron Pynenberg]

aye, but I think your first statement, is at odds with the explination you gave. I think you and I agree in the larger discussion point, which seems to be what weapons can I train with, to gain the advantage in a fight.

My point is that this is way to broad of a question and is determined by too many variables. The answer to that broad of a question in my mind seems to be this: (if there is even an answer) - train with whichever weapon speaks to you, train yourself physically and mentally, then train with the weapon and learn it to the point of mastery, only then will you gain the "advantage".

Maybe I am being to wordy- the best weapon, with which to gain advantage is yourself. -I think that's all I am trying to say-

I also agree that this is a great topic and worth some thought from everyone. Aaron

[Alfred Wong]

About cross weapon trainning:

By the way, I think that it's really nice in the group here as we usually smash around with all types of weapons. Was beaten up by an experience guy with a 38 inches single-handed sword... while I was using a 48 inches longsword : P ! Also I cannot gain much advantage against someone in the group with a sabre! Poor skill me.

[Ryan Ricks]

i really like sword and shield a lot, particularly the heater.

i trained with sword and shield for several months using arma methodologies before i picked up the longsword. so at least for now i think i'm definately better with sword and shield

i noticed in my florishes that i have many more options of attack with the longsword.

ryan

[JeanryChandler]

Yeah, but, I think the point is in an more or less randomly sampled group of WMA fightrs (if there is such a thing) you will find that those armed with certain weapons will generaly do a lot better. This is in spite of the superiority of some longsword masters, as the masters are rare. It is an observable phenomenon and I think it should be acconuted for and agknowledged.

(This is partially why common soldiers were issued pole arms and spears rather than swords or axes on most battlefields..)

J

[JeanryChandler]

Thats because you don't have much experience sparring nor enough training yet. Talent will only take you so far Alfred, you really have to put in the hours and the effort before you will begin to see real results. Until you reach a certain level, if you are facing an experienced or even just a strong and nimble opponent, it will matter much less what weapon you use.

I'm not saying you are poorly trained, incidentally, but only going by your own statements as to how long you have been at it.

J