Forgot your password?
New user?
Document Actions
Single Sword vs Shield & Sword for Recruits
Up to Fighting
Posted by
Single Sword
I like the openness of single sword to get recruits landing blows, keeping range, moving feet etc. Recruits need to land lots of hits on people in a safe properly done style.
I do feel shields encourage you to stand still in range, or allow you to keep charging into close. So while shields are easier to "fight" with they are harder to land blows and fight well with. Shields are too good at defence, they can lead to recruits being defensive & passive or getting into very close fighting.
I think the real question is how far into single sword to go. It has come up that we go on too long with the single sword. Mainly we need to get better milestones to move people on.
Do we just do the very basics with Single sword, safety, targets and basic concepts then move onto shield.
Or do we get them do basic blocks & footwork and do some one for one.
How far along with single sword do we go before we do shields. Also small shields first.
Michael
Steel or Wood
We use to start recruits with mostly wooden batons but now its all steel swords from the beginning.
I much prefer recruits to use steel first, rather then getting bad habits from wood and then trying to train them out of it. Mainly the differences in balances (pommels), edge vs. flat deflections, blocks, binds and rebounds of wood vs. steel
I am thinking we need to re introduce some wood skirmishing for recruits for cost reasons.
Also by the grading steel was the big carrot, So Start thinking we start with steel, then move to wood individual fighting then steel individual fighting and wood group work then steel for all.
I like the openness of single sword to get recruits landing blows, keeping range, moving feet etc. Recruits need to land lots of hits on people in a safe properly done style.
I do feel shields encourage you to stand still in range, or allow you to keep charging into close. So while shields are easier to "fight" with they are harder to land blows and fight well with. Shields are too good at defence, they can lead to recruits being defensive & passive or getting into very close fighting.
I think the real question is how far into single sword to go. It has come up that we go on too long with the single sword. Mainly we need to get better milestones to move people on.
Do we just do the very basics with Single sword, safety, targets and basic concepts then move onto shield.
Or do we get them do basic blocks & footwork and do some one for one.
How far along with single sword do we go before we do shields. Also small shields first.
Michael
Steel or Wood
We use to start recruits with mostly wooden batons but now its all steel swords from the beginning.
I much prefer recruits to use steel first, rather then getting bad habits from wood and then trying to train them out of it. Mainly the differences in balances (pommels), edge vs. flat deflections, blocks, binds and rebounds of wood vs. steel
I am thinking we need to re introduce some wood skirmishing for recruits for cost reasons.
Also by the grading steel was the big carrot, So Start thinking we start with steel, then move to wood individual fighting then steel individual fighting and wood group work then steel for all.
I do agree that people do get complacent with shields and simply stay still and hide behind them. I also see people using their sword as a shield and still not moving. I think it's mainly laziness on the fighters behalf that they don't move.
Or the instructors.
In the context in the way we fight (ie safely) we shouldn't punch into people faces with our shields (I'm not saying that people do). It would be fun but we would run out of friends quickly.
The general rule that I follow is "Swords hit, shields deflect", with the main exception is defending the off-shield side with the sword if you cannot move the shield in time.
If we keep the beginners on sword-only for too long, it doesn't give them the incentive to get a shield. It also keeps the instructor in sword-only training too (unless the instructor actively uses S&S when teaching the sword-only student, which perhaps pushes home the point of why they used shields so often).
Using steel swords to get students use to the balance is a good point but upon saying that I haven't found the transition from wood to steel that bad in myself or others. It's the initial cost and risk reduction (financial to the group and injury wise to the individual) that gives me the inclination for wood for recruits.
Maybe we should get the recruits to fight with axes first? For most AS and vikings it would be more correct and cheaper than a sword. And then spear. Swords are for the rich people.
But swords are cool.
Or the instructors.
In the context in the way we fight (ie safely) we shouldn't punch into people faces with our shields (I'm not saying that people do). It would be fun but we would run out of friends quickly.
The general rule that I follow is "Swords hit, shields deflect", with the main exception is defending the off-shield side with the sword if you cannot move the shield in time.
If we keep the beginners on sword-only for too long, it doesn't give them the incentive to get a shield. It also keeps the instructor in sword-only training too (unless the instructor actively uses S&S when teaching the sword-only student, which perhaps pushes home the point of why they used shields so often).
Using steel swords to get students use to the balance is a good point but upon saying that I haven't found the transition from wood to steel that bad in myself or others. It's the initial cost and risk reduction (financial to the group and injury wise to the individual) that gives me the inclination for wood for recruits.
Maybe we should get the recruits to fight with axes first? For most AS and vikings it would be more correct and cheaper than a sword. And then spear. Swords are for the rich people.
But swords are cool.
I'm a pretty big fan of starting off teaching single sword for a number of reasons.
Firstly is that it gets the recruits a lot more involved. You are never going to hit an experienced fighter one on one with a shield, and it often just intimidates recruits into blocking up and creating a boring fighting style. It's pretty easy to just lock up against someone more experienced and not throw blows. With a single sword, there is more movement and a better chance of killing someone. There are more openings to go for and encourage a recruit to start the fight, and you are always going to get kills, even if they are mutuals. I know from my recruit days the frustration of wailing away on another recruits shield and not being about to get through because I didn't have to sword skills to create an opening. I got pretty bored and irritated with it all. If you could learn those skills with something exciting like single sword, it would be a whole lot more interesting.
Secondly it teaches people safety a lot better. You can always see the target you are aiming for, and we have a fair bit of emphasis on training people to go for the target, not the sword or shield in front of it. It is a lot easier to do this when they can see it the whole way then if there is a shield there. It is east to just hammer on a shield randomly if you don't have control and think they have it blocked, and a lot easier to train out with a shield. There is also less incentive to go shots with funny angles to beat someone with a single sword. Some of the strikes involve striking and targets you can't see very clearly. It's a lot better to get the 8 natuarally with a single sword, and then they always know where their sword is and where it is going, even if they can't see the target. There is less chance of deflecting a shot into your face with a sword than a shield.
Thirdly is my conviction that single sword teaches certain elementry fighting skills much more effectivly. Different people have different styles, but personally I think the "sword hit, shield deflect" style of fighting is a little old school and symptomatic of the old St Georges ward stuff. I think single sword is by far the best thing to teach slap parries, redirections and range, which personally I think are the three things that give you a massive edge over other fighters, with most swung weapons, with or without a shield.
I also think that skirmishing is a pretty big carrot hanging out there for people to get a shield and learn to use it.
Regarding the wood issue, I was surprised when I came back and found all the batons had been turned into firewood, but after the few weeks I have been back, I have decided it was far and away the best option. I have admitted my slightly creepy fascination with slap parries and redirections, and both of these rely on using steel. I'm also pretty sure I have had less injuries and scary moments this round of training with steel then I did with the other years I was doing it. It is also a lot friendlier for members without the raw strength to hurl lumps of wood around the place. I'm pretty sure it put female fighters off in the past.
In addition to this, the cost has been mentioned a few times. There are training swords in the club with have been around for 15 years. At $150 a sword, like these Hanwei ones, that is $10 a year. A baton costs $20, and only last for 6 months. $40 a year. I'm pretty convinced that swords are a lot more cost effective in the long run. I can't remember a sword being broken in my time in the club.
And yes, axes and spears are HA, but probably the 2 most dangerous weapons one can learn to use, so we don't come out much ahead. Also, with helmets et al, even with all our training, we are much closer to representing a band of huscarls, professional viking raiders or Norman knights than a bunch of AS pesants.
Firstly is that it gets the recruits a lot more involved. You are never going to hit an experienced fighter one on one with a shield, and it often just intimidates recruits into blocking up and creating a boring fighting style. It's pretty easy to just lock up against someone more experienced and not throw blows. With a single sword, there is more movement and a better chance of killing someone. There are more openings to go for and encourage a recruit to start the fight, and you are always going to get kills, even if they are mutuals. I know from my recruit days the frustration of wailing away on another recruits shield and not being about to get through because I didn't have to sword skills to create an opening. I got pretty bored and irritated with it all. If you could learn those skills with something exciting like single sword, it would be a whole lot more interesting.
Secondly it teaches people safety a lot better. You can always see the target you are aiming for, and we have a fair bit of emphasis on training people to go for the target, not the sword or shield in front of it. It is a lot easier to do this when they can see it the whole way then if there is a shield there. It is east to just hammer on a shield randomly if you don't have control and think they have it blocked, and a lot easier to train out with a shield. There is also less incentive to go shots with funny angles to beat someone with a single sword. Some of the strikes involve striking and targets you can't see very clearly. It's a lot better to get the 8 natuarally with a single sword, and then they always know where their sword is and where it is going, even if they can't see the target. There is less chance of deflecting a shot into your face with a sword than a shield.
Thirdly is my conviction that single sword teaches certain elementry fighting skills much more effectivly. Different people have different styles, but personally I think the "sword hit, shield deflect" style of fighting is a little old school and symptomatic of the old St Georges ward stuff. I think single sword is by far the best thing to teach slap parries, redirections and range, which personally I think are the three things that give you a massive edge over other fighters, with most swung weapons, with or without a shield.
I also think that skirmishing is a pretty big carrot hanging out there for people to get a shield and learn to use it.
Regarding the wood issue, I was surprised when I came back and found all the batons had been turned into firewood, but after the few weeks I have been back, I have decided it was far and away the best option. I have admitted my slightly creepy fascination with slap parries and redirections, and both of these rely on using steel. I'm also pretty sure I have had less injuries and scary moments this round of training with steel then I did with the other years I was doing it. It is also a lot friendlier for members without the raw strength to hurl lumps of wood around the place. I'm pretty sure it put female fighters off in the past.
In addition to this, the cost has been mentioned a few times. There are training swords in the club with have been around for 15 years. At $150 a sword, like these Hanwei ones, that is $10 a year. A baton costs $20, and only last for 6 months. $40 a year. I'm pretty convinced that swords are a lot more cost effective in the long run. I can't remember a sword being broken in my time in the club.
And yes, axes and spears are HA, but probably the 2 most dangerous weapons one can learn to use, so we don't come out much ahead. Also, with helmets et al, even with all our training, we are much closer to representing a band of huscarls, professional viking raiders or Norman knights than a bunch of AS pesants.
Hi Lachlan,
I like the points that you made about the single sword training but it seems to fall back to what you were taught and the possibly the instructors who taught it. People with bad habits teach bad habits.
I'll be the first one to admit that my style is more theatrical but I'm more open to move into a more 'practical' style just to live longer in the AAF training environment.
I'm not aware of the previous history with AAF wooden sword training but I've gone through 3 wasters in 11 years. I guess it's the style of fighting that differs.
Axes and spears were used by all levels of society. Apparentely King Richard's favourite hand weapon was the ax.
Ultimately, it's upto the Marshall to decide how the training will be done.
Cheers
Alex
I like the points that you made about the single sword training but it seems to fall back to what you were taught and the possibly the instructors who taught it. People with bad habits teach bad habits.
I'll be the first one to admit that my style is more theatrical but I'm more open to move into a more 'practical' style just to live longer in the AAF training environment.
I'm not aware of the previous history with AAF wooden sword training but I've gone through 3 wasters in 11 years. I guess it's the style of fighting that differs.
Axes and spears were used by all levels of society. Apparentely King Richard's favourite hand weapon was the ax.
Ultimately, it's upto the Marshall to decide how the training will be done.
Cheers
Alex
Previously Alex Barnes wrote:
Hi Lachlan,
>
<br>Ultimately, it's upto the Marshall to decide how the training will be done.
>
<<br>
>
<br>
Hi guys
i must admitted i sort of not wanting to go to wood, because i've only ever done about two saturdays of that training. I am interested in hearing what the ladies have to say ab this issue as we have around 5 female fighters at the moment and they're being quiet ab this.
Yes it is very true that mike is responsible for who we train, what we train and how we train but then again so are all senior fighters and anybody that teaches the recruits.
Cheers
Chris
Powered by
Ploneboard
ShareThis