Talk:European dueling sword

Untitled

I replaced the visual format pseudo-headers with true Wiki headers.

Not convinced by the opening lines about the origins of the duel. Will write up something about its origins in judicial combat unless someone else gets there first. [user:Peregrine]

Yeah it's weird. I'm not convinced that the origin of 15th century dueling drove the development of a lighter sword. Where the heck does that come from? Anyway, post up your ideas, this article needs a little work. -- Markspace 05:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge?

parts of this article should probably be merged with swordsmanship. dab (ᛏ) 16:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rapier vs Arming Sword Weight

this page erroneously lists the arming sword as being "relatively heavy", and weighing 2.0 kg. The wikipedia page for the arming sword lists its average weight as being 1.1 kg, which, as far as I'm aware, is more historically accurate. To verify my claim, here's a link to an ARMA essay; they constantly communicate with medieval weapons historians: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm I'd like to change the arming sword weight, but it'd be best if someone check the weight of an average rapier before any changes are made.

One note: original research is discouraged here. Please read the introductory Wikipedia information on contributing to articles. If you can back up your claim with published (in a peer reviewed document) data that's great. Individualists theories are not encouraged. This is an encyclopeida, not a soap box. Ok I'll get off mine now. -- Markspace 05:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would an article from the Journal of Western Martial Art suffice? Dr. Timothy Dawson has an article at http://ejmas.com/jwma/articles/2005/jwmaart_dawson_0205.htm which plots the weight of single-handed, hand-and-a-half, and two-handed swords from the Royal Armouries, the Wallace Collection, and the Stibbert Museum. No single-handed sword weighs more than around 1.5 kilograms, with most being between 0.65 and 1.4 kilograms. The Dark 05:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My arming sword is 1.36 kg (3 lbs) IIRC.Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title?

As there is no specific type of sword called a duelling sword, I suggest changing the title. Suggested titles: European Duelling Swords, European Sword Duels, European Civilian Swords (since the swords described all share the commonality of being for civlian use but not just duels and the instruction in there use was intended for personal defense and not just duels.) Mercutio.Wilder 18:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of those three, I would have the least objection to the first. The second suggests the event more than the equipment (i.e. it would be about the duel, not the sword), while the third would be too broad, as "Civilian Swords" would include the purely decorative non-combat smallswords and such worn in the past by the upper classes as part of formal costume. The only objection to the first is the same as the objection to the current title - there were no such thing as European Duelling Swords any more than there was a European Duelling Sword. The Dark 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally I think there is good information in this article that should be preserved, but the title is not as relevant as would be ideal. Perhaps merging this with the swordsmanship article would be the best course or simply renaming it European Medieval Swordsmanship Mercutio.Wilder 17:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound overly contradictory, but this covers more than the medieval period. Rapiers and smallswords go into the Renaissance and even Victorian era. If it weren't too obscure, I'd suggest something along the lines of European Sword Duelling Weapons, but that's convoluted even for my tastes. I do like European Duelling Swords, but feel someone could have the same objection you have to the current title. Who would've thought a simple title would be this difficult to make clear and simple? The Dark 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but not sure what to do about it though.Mercutio.Wilder 14:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting vs. Thrusting

This whole section seems to be almost completely without citation; as well, after stating that the two techniques are 'essentially balanced' it then vaguely dismisses arguments to the contrary in a way that would indicate a seriously partisan viewpoint. For example the statement "However there are far more numerous recorded instances of both contestants being run through several times while the duel continued" disregards the common sense question of whether the same energy expended on a 'missed' stroke (i.e. not landing a killing blow) would have produced better results with a cutting weapon. It is a simple fact that a thrust can inflict significantly more serious injury for the same amount of expended energy because A)a thrust has to cut through far less tissue to reach vital organs and B)a cutting blow requires a much larger overall action to attack and recover. While the neck is vulnerable to both actions, reaching the heart, brain (through the eye socket or nasal cavity) or viscera requires minimal effort with a small profile thrusting weapon; with a cutting weapon, it requires a truly devastating blow. The problems with opening up one's defense to strike a cutting blow are also common sense - and are dismissed thus: "However it should be remembered that through most of the dueling era—until the last stage of the rapier and the smallsword were developed—an off hand weapon was often (but not always) used for defense." Its a simple error of logic to take this statement and assume it means that an offhand is the ONLY defense. See 'single tempo' fencing in the article; it is considered tactically superior not only to defend with the primary weapon but to defend and attack in the same motion. None of this proves that thrusting is conclusively better than cutting (which is a question so complex as to be virtually meaningless) but I think it highlights what is wrong with the article. I wouldn't dare touch the text itself without citing sources but I wanted to see if anyone (with perhaps more will/experience editing than I) would deal with this obviously defensive and biased paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.155.195 (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]