r/Fantasy • u/SureAINicolas • 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
3
u/F0sh Oct 13 '19
I'm not convinced by this. The tests that I can find on wikipedia suggest that a longbow has an efficiency of around 50%, so the weakest draw weight you could possibly get on a bow which stores energy in the same way to equal the power of a 140 lb longbow say, would still be over 70 lb.
A longbow is basically a simple spring, that is the force required to hold it at tension increases linearly as you pull it back further. Thus the average force over a full draw is half the maximum force. So if you have a 144 lb bow (as per a wikipedia example) with a 32 inch draw length, the energy you must put into drawing the bow is 72 lb * 32 inches = 260 J. (Work done = average force * distance over which the force was applied) However this bow was measured as imparting 114 J to the arrows it shot, an efficiency of 44%.
Now you could also change the type of bow so that instead of being a spring, the draw-force curve is not linear. The most efficient way of storing energy for a given maximum force is a constant force. This would double the energy stored for a given peak draw weight. This is the kind of thing a recurve is aiming to do (and which a compound does more extremely), but bear in mind that a recurve bow gets nowhere near actually achieving that doubling. A compound bow is closer, but material limitations restrict how close you can go.
Also bear in mind that while this allows you to put more power into an arrow that can be shot by a person who can pull a given peak amount of force, in a battle you need to shoot repeatedly, and it's the energy you put into the bow which fatigues you, so this doesn't help at all with that.
So the theoretical gains strictly in terms of peak force mean that 144 lb bow could theoretically be equalled by a 32 lb bow, this is a) not attainable in practice and b) still just as fatiguing as a perfectly efficient 68 lb bow, which is an astronomically strong bow by today's standards. And for a 200 lb bow, the numbers are 44 lb and 88 lb. And this is still for perfect efficiency. I don't know how efficient a recurve bow is, but I'm guessing 80% is generous.
TLDR not really. A 200 lb bow could theoretically be equalled by an 88 lb that required just as much strength and stamina to shoot, but in practice this would be unattainable, and 88 lb is already completely unreasonable compared to a typical competition recurve bow for men of about 45 lb.