Subject: Response.
Author:
Posted on: 2015-06-03 15:42:00 UTC

He writes:

"So, taller people use their height to its maximum advantage whenever they can. Their game is dictated by their ability to reach out and touch people before they themselves can be hit. They can launch an attack at very long range and retreat to safety before anyone can do anything about it.

"On the defense, they intercept their opponents mid-attack in what is called a prise de fer (preese de fare). The basic idea is that before their blade comes anywhere near you, you swat it out of the way, and because they were already initiating an attack you don't have to move at all and they run themselves onto your blade.

"Another good trick tall people can get away with, when dealing with shorter opponents, is to initiate an aggressive attack that is purposefully going to fail and leave your blade extended in the lunge. The opponent sees this as an opportunity to catch you too close and they move in to strike. As soon as they do this, you hit them and retreat as fast as you possibly can. If your timing is even a little off, they'll catch you and score the touch. This is the kind of trick that would very likely get someone killed. If you do it right, you just barely touch them and bail. At best it would be a wounding attack, and in a bout scenario, after a point is scored, the action stops for a moment. Advanced fencers know when they have scored and stop right afterwards. If one were to merely wound their opponent, then just stop fighting, odds are they're about to be very brutally butchered.

"In so much as fencing is concerned, no Eastern traditions are taught or practiced. Any work on that that Amy might have done would have been on her own time and would, generally speaking, impart "bad" habits on her fencing and hurt her performance at tournaments. The closest equivalent to Western fencing in the East that I know of are the Tai Chi sword forms. Those are worth looking into, YouTube videos abound, if you are interested in making her overall style more fanciful.

"Romans had "long swords," but they aren't the sort of hand and a half European long-swords that are traditionally associated with fantasy novels. A Roman spatha, spathae plural, was modeled after the swords that the Romans had encountered in Gaul, Germany, and Britain. They are more like a Viking sword than anything else. Single handed, broad blade, and they didn't taper to the piercing point of a long-sword. As a fencer, it would be an abhorrent weapon. Entirely lacking all the precision and grace of more refined weapons. It was heavy, and poorly balanced. Best suited for hacking and chopping. A good weapon for a shield wall, not so good for combat without a shield. The lack of balance and weight of the weapon would leave you terribly exposed on the recovery unless you were really very strong. Like, Gregor Clegane strong.

"The Roman style of training would have been conducted with a group of people. Very organized and regimented. Romans fought as a group, not as individuals. Rome's greatest asset in warfare was its ability to field bigger armies more often than their opponents. Their tactics were efficient and brutal, but they did not focus heavily on complicated swordplay. Get 500 guys together, give them big shields, heavy swords, and train them not to run away long enough to win the battle.

"I don't intend to dictate to anyone, but late English cut and thrust swords or a rapier would be the best option. They offer balance, speed, and precision. The cut and thrust is heavier and could more effectively parry an attack from heavier weapons. The rapier is of course the ideal, but the only defense option available would be dodging with timing and distance. Those sorts of swords lend themselves the most to the training and skills she would have developed as a fencer."

~Neshomeh('s brother)

Reply Return to messages