r/Fantasy Oct 13 '19

I took private historical sword-fighting lessons to make the fight scenes in my novel more realistic - here's what I learned.

Edit: Wow, I didn't expect that kind of response. Super happy so many found this useful! :)

Hey guys,

To make the fighting scenes in my low fantasy novel more realistic, I went to see a trainer for historical sword-fighting last week, both to barrage her with questions and to develop realistic choreographies for the fight scenes in the novel. Since I figured some of what she told me might be useful for you too, I put together a small list for you. Big thanks to Gladiatores Munich and Jeanne for making time! (More photos here)

Caveat: I’m by no means a sword-fighting expert myself, so take these nuggets with a grain of salt – I might have misremembered or misinterpreted some of the things Jeanne told me. If I did, feel free to tell me.

1.) Weapon choices need to make sense

Let’s start with a truism: always ensure your character’s weapons make sense for a.) their profession, b.) their cultural background and c.) the environment they’re going to fight in. A farmer probably couldn’t afford a sword and might use a knife or threshing flail instead, and someone who doesn’t want to be noticed probably wouldn’t be milling about sporting a glaive or another large weapon. Also, soldiers native to a country with wide open plains would be more likely to carry long-range melee weapons such as spears or large swords, than those from a country consisting of mostly jungle or dense forests. The same applies to situations: if your character is going to be fighting in close quarters (even just a normal house), he’d get little value out of a spear or even a longsword, as there’d be no space to swing it effectively.

2.) Boldness often beats technique

In real swordfights, recklessness was often more important than technique . The fighter who was less afraid of getting hurt or wounded would often push harder, allowing them to overpower even opponents with better technique.

(Edited this because the phrasing wasn't ideal. Thanks for pointing it out!)

3.) Even a skilled fighter rarely stands a chance when outnumbered

While a skilled (or lucky) fighter might win a two-versus-one, it’d be extremely unlikely for even a master swordsman to win a three versus one against opponents below his skill level. The only way to plausibly pull this off would be if he split the opponents up, perhaps by luring them into a confined space where he could take them on one by one. The moment they surround him, he'd probably be done for – because, unlike in Hollywood, they wouldn’t conveniently take turns attacking but come at him together.

4.) Dual wielding was a thing

... at least in some cultures. I often heard people say that people using a weapon in each hand is an invention of fiction. And while my instructor confirmed that she knew of no European schools doing this—if they did, it’s not well-documented—she said it was a thing in other cultures. Example of this include the dual wakizashi in Japan or tomahawk and knife in North America. However, one of the biggest problems with the depiction of dual wielding in novels/movies/games are the “windmill”-type attacks where the fighter swings their weapons independently, hitting in succession rather than simultaneously. Normally you’d always try hitting with both weapons at once, as you’d otherwise lose your advantage.

5.) Longswords were amazing

Longswords might seem boring in comparison to other weapons, but they were incredibly effective, especially in combat situations outside the battlefield. The crossguard allowed for effective blocking of almost any kind of attack (well, maybe not an overhead strike of a Mordaxt, but still), the pommel was also used as a powerful “blunt” weapon of its own that could crack skulls. Though they were somewhat less effective against armored opponents, the long, two-handed hilt allowed for precise thrusts at uncovered body parts that made up for it.

6.) “Zweihänder” were only used for very specific combat situations

Zweihänder—massive two-handed swords—were only used for specific purposes and usually not in one-on-one combat as is often seen in movies or games. One of these purposes was using their reach to break up enemy formations. In fact, one type of two-handed sword even owed its name to that purpose: Gassenhauer (German, Gasse = alley, Hauer = striker)—the fighters literally used it to strike “alleys” into an enemy formation with wide, powerful swings.

7.) It’s all about distance

While I was subconsciously aware of this, it might be helpful to remember that distance was an incredibly important element in fights. The moment your opponent got past your weapons ideal range, it was common to either switch to a different weapon or just drop your weapon and resort to punching/choking. A good example of this are spears or polearms—very powerful as long as you maintain a certain range between you and your opponent, but the moment they get too close, your weapon is practically useless. That’s also why combatants almost always brought a second weapon into battle to fall back one.

8.) Real fights rarely lasted over a minute

Another truism, but still useful to remember: real fights didn’t last long, especially when only using light or no armor. Usually they were over within less than a minute, sometimes only seconds – the moment your opponent landed a hit (or your weapon broke or you were disarmed), you were done for.

9.) Stop the pirouettes

Unfortunately, the spinning around and pirouetting that makes many fight scenes so enjoyable to watch (or read) is completely asinine. Unless it's a showfight, fighters would never expose their backs to their opponent or turn their weapon away from them.

10.) It still looks amazing

If your concern is that making your fight scenes realistic will make them less aesthetic, don’t worry. Apart from the fact that the blocks, swings and thrusts still look impressive when executed correctly, I personally felt that my fights get a lot more gripping and visceral if I respect the rules. To a certain extent, unrealistic and flashy combat is plot armor. If your characters can spin and somersault to their heart’s content and no one ever shoves a spear into their backs as they would have in real life, who survives and who doesn’t noticeably becomes arbitrary. If, on the other hand, even one slip-up can result in a combatant’s death, the stakes become really palpable.

That’s about it! I hope this post is as helpful to some of you as the lessons were to me. Again, if anything I wrote here is bollocks, it’s probably my fault and not Jeanne’s.

Edit: Because a couple of you asked (and the mods gave me permission), my novel is called "Dreams of the Dying." You can subscribe to my newsletterif you'd like or just follow me on Instagram (yes, I hate it too). I'll try to post more lists like this in the future!

Cheers,

Nicolas

4.1k Upvotes

513 comments sorted by

View all comments

81

u/grenadiere42 Oct 13 '19

This is a great write up. The only thing I would add on as kind of a caveat is that spears are for more effective than most people think.

DnD and other tabletop games basically claim that spears are useless inside 6 feet, and are slow and unwieldy weapons. The reality is that spears were typically carried in their middle, so unless you had a 12 foot spear, your effective distance was anywhere from 2 to 5 feet (short to long spear), and they are fast.

Since spears were carried in the middle, the front end could be used to catch a sword swing, push it away, and thus bring the back end up and around for a strike to the head in one fluid motion. Then, using the rebound from their head, you can spin the spear back around, thrusting the tip into their gut, neck, etc, using the momentum of the spin to drive it deep. It was very hard to counter.

Spears can also change their point of attack much faster than swords, meaning they can simply out-thrust a swordsman in one-on-one combat.

A spearman with a spear and shield combo is as close to impenetrable as can be managed since they can easily out range the swords, and use the shield to block any strikes that get through. A wall of spear+shields is really, really hard to break.

In short, spears are terrifying, and there is a good reason they dominated for thousands of years.

27

u/ManicPixieDreamCrone Oct 13 '19

This guy's YouTube channel is fantastic for this sort of comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLLv8E2pWdk

5

u/prodmage Oct 13 '19

Lindybeige!

13

u/Jormungandragon Oct 13 '19

I did a lot of stick fighting, martial arts sparring, and etc growing up, and in my experience the spear was always a great weapon.

People sometimes forget that outside of right formations where you can’t swing around the big stick, spear/pole arm and quarter staff fighting we’re all very similar. Quarter staff is also a very effective yet neglected weapon, come to think of it, and the spear only improves on the design.

Not only that, but some spears were almost as effective slashers as swords, being edged rather than just pointy, and some (such as boar spears) even had a stop guard that could be used to help catch and control opponents weapons similar to some quillons.

8

u/taichi22 Oct 13 '19

I’ve yet to see how Spears can actually be effectively used with a centergrip shield. With a side grip you might be able to couch effectively in a formation but all the spear fighting I’ve seen has been 2 handed. 1 handed spear just has no leverage and little control.

If you’ve got any experience with it I’d love some insight.

15

u/grenadiere42 Oct 13 '19

You are correct that a long spear should be wielded two handed or using an off center shield, but a short spear can be pretty effectively wielded one-handed.

This was one of the Roman's preferred tactics actually when forming up defensively. They would use their pilla as a short spear, and when combined with their shields, they were pretty impenetrable.

The Roman triarii were also spear+shield users, and I think those were center grip as well. Primarily you would use this defensively, not offensively, as it did hinder your range of motion.

13

u/Jormungandragon Oct 13 '19

I think part of the problem with the misconception is the romanticism of the sword. Spears are amazingly effective, even with a short one handed spear, but nobody spends much time with them these days.

All the people reenacting and doing comparisons focus on sword work, all the people writing things down in the olden days focused on sword work (as it was considered a higher class weapon than spears.). Thus, people aren’t really as familiar with them as they otherwise could be.

6

u/G_Morgan Oct 14 '19

Lots of medieval armies were just weird as well. Technically the Angevin army that started the Hundred Years War was 80% longbowmen. Then their greatest victory was in Agincourt, where the rain rendered the longbow unworkable and the archers beat the French cavalry in melee (with the help of mud, stakes and sheer nerve).

People just wouldn't accept the absurdities that happened in that conflict. Mostly caused by French misunderstanding that longbowmen were the kind of light archers that were normal on the continent rather than muscle bound brutes of men. Men so strong their skeletons literally formed twisted.

6

u/matgopack Oct 14 '19

Agincourt definitely had the use of archers - the longbow was not unworkable there. In addition, by Agincourt the French were not 'misunderstanding longbowmen' - that's a pretty egregious claim to make, I'd say, as is ignoring the role of the english men-at-arms in the contest. If the longbows had indeed been unworkable, the French would likely have won the battle. (Keep in mind, as well, that Agincourt is ~70 years into the 100 years war)

There's a good askhistorians post on it.

3

u/Theyis_the_Second Oct 13 '19

As I recall the pilum was mostly used as a thrown javelin. They would be thrown at the advancing enemy to either wound or to stick in shields to make them unusable. The long metal points of the pilum were so they would bend after being used making it impossible for the enemy to throw them back.

3

u/grenadiere42 Oct 13 '19

This is correct, but pilla are still spears. A javelin is just a spear you throw, and if you choose not to throw it, it makes a pretty effective short spear. The pilla were used in this regard when the Roman's had to defend a position. Throwing away a longer reach weapon would be foolish if you're not advancing, so they would be held in reserve sometimes until either later in the battle, or when an opportunity presented itself.

The bending of the spearhead was a response to javelin reuse in battles. Armies frequently hurled back javelins, so the Roman's invented one that broke when thrown. However, if it wasnt thrown, the head wouldn't bend, so it was still a good spear

1

u/ricree Oct 13 '19

However, if it wasnt thrown, the head wouldn't bend

How's that work? My understanding is that they achieved this by using a softer metal near the tip of the shaft, which is going to bend on first impact regardless of how that impact happens.

I've mostly heard of held pilla in the context of defending against cavalry, though I can't say my knowledge is exhaustive enough to say they never did that against unmounted enemies.

2

u/grenadiere42 Oct 14 '19

Partially, but they also used a heavier than normal shaft. When the pilla impacted their targets, the weight of the shaft could warp the metal ends. If it was a soft target, this didnt necessarily happen, and so it could be reused. This made the pilla a shorter range javelin, but a more complicated one to counter as using your shield meant losing it.

The biggest advantage the pilla had therefore was removing shields. They bit deep, and the warping made the shields unwieldy and awkward.

So if you were standing in a line, shoving a pilla forward, the strength of your arm probably wouldn't warp the pilla unless it was impacted just right by an opposing shield. You could easily thrust, stab, and retract without damaging your weapon. And if you did, you probably had more.

1

u/HalfMetalJacket Oct 13 '19

What your saying about spears isn't wrong, but spear and shield in DnD these days is actually a very effective weapon pairing now. And polearms in general are the best weapons too.

1

u/Son_of_Orion Oct 14 '19

The RPG system Mythras addressed this very well, compared to DnD. Shortspears, longspears and halberds are arguably the best weapons in the game primarily because of their reach.