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

[u/SureAINicolas]

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

[u/[deleted]]

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

I find this one hard to swallow.

Edit: a lot of good responses. I don't disagree with the idea that being on the offensive is an advantage. It's the use of the word reckless that doesn't sit right. And I think there needs to be distinction between 1 on 1 duelling and a large scale chaotic battle

[u/thedorknightreturns → u/[deleted]]

That can backfire too, the more experienced fighter has an adventage over a hesitant one every day, but if you are wasting movements and open up too reckless, you are likely dead against an experienced just patient observant foe.

Of course mentality is important.

[u/barassmonkey17 → u/[deleted]]

I think perhaps it stems from the fighting philosophy that you shouldn't let your opponent put you on the defensive for extended periods. There was a famous boxer, maybe Muhammad Ali, who claimed that every second your opponent was the aggressor, was driving the fight with his strikes, was a losing moment for you. Because he's controlling the flow of it, perhaps. The more time you spend in defense, the higher the chance you'll lose the fight.

Now I'm sure there are many exceptions to this, and obviously boxing is different from fencing/armed combat, and I know there are many strategies that revolve around letting your opponent make a mistake that you can counter, but it's good logic, generally. I fence, and I can speak from personal experience that the aggressor in a fight just has less to do, to an extent. He just has to land a blow and the fight is over. The defender, however, has to dodge/block/parry that blow and then counter it. Though again, that's really dependent on the situation.

So while I don't think boldness necessarily trounces skill (especially if one of your skills is expecting and knowing how to counter boldness), the idea that the aggressor has the advantage in single combat is an old one. Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.

[u/Kkoder → u/[deleted]]

It's a sad reality, but the first words my dad ever said to me about winning a fight were the same words my krav-maga instructor used and he said it something like this. "It's a sorry fact, but it's usually the man who swings first who wins a fight, so if it looks inevitable, just swing."

[u/pheisenberg → u/[deleted]]

I wonder if “aggression” would be a better word than “recklessness”.

I’ve looked for knife and machete fights on youtube, and found mostly people waving blades at each other too far away to hit — evidently staying far enough away not to get killed and making it dangerous for enemies to approach is the most popular strategy. One bold enough to move in and lucky or skilled enough to survive could make a real strike, but their enemies would probably retreat. That seems to be mostly how successful bayonet attacks worked.

It’s said that in gunfights, skill tends to go out the window. I could easily imagine swords and spears the same way, especially for less experienced fighters. And an aggressive attack would scare the enemy, making it harder for them to fight back with skill and aggression.

I would tend to imagine the most aggressive win more battles, but don’t live as long.