What was sword fighting really like back in the days?

Question

So we've all seen sword fighting in movies, very elaborate and obviously heavily choreographed. But I really want to know what sword fighting was like back in the days (not for fun, strictly to kill). I imagine it couldn't of been very elaborate or lasted any longer than a few seconds. I would think its very quick and dirty. Could somebody share how sword fighting really went down?

Answer 1

i think it was like a philosopher said "nasty brutish and short"

somewhat like a nowadays stabbing

(not that I've ever seen one or want to see it)

Answer 2

Brutal, bloody and devastating.

Answer 3

there is no correct answer. It would depend on the calibur of the 2 people involved. If one guy was much better with a sword, it would end rather fast. But if they were evenly matched, I am sure there were battles that lasted upto 15 or 20 minutes. Sometimes you have to parry for 10 minutes just to strike a leg, and then it might not even be that hard.  Also, would depend on quality of the sword itself, being used by either fighter.  If you cut some one even a little say with a Hanzo Sword, you could rip them to shreads, while a cut from a less sharp blade, may only knick you.

Answer 4

From what I've heard about from experts, it was very short, usually only a few strikes long...of course, it's much more fun to watch a long fight in which there are dozens of blocks and dodges, which is why Hollywood portrays it that way.  But just look at how European swords were designed, they were not meant to go back and forth, they were meant to end it quickly.

Answer 5

Like this:

hiiiiyaa, hiiyaaa, clank, clank, ching, hiiiiyaaa, oooooo, augghhh!

Answer 6

Now I'm no expert but I'm going to say bloody.

Answer 7

I found something on this site

Answer 8

Well, when two samurai fought, it was over fairly quickly, 1-2 minutes would be the most because they would swing alot and tire ,and although they did wear armour, they struck at your open spots, and would use hand combat to knock you down also.

Answer 9

you would be right in your presumption- if a fight lasted longer than 20 seconds it would probably be a lot.

a judicial duel might last longer, which the sword probably saw more use in those than it did on the battlefield.

the sword as a battlefield weapon was less important than the spear, axe, warhammer and of course the bow.

it was more of a backup weapon especially in the later days of the age of plate- where plated armors were developed and used by nobility.

it was dirty- there was grappling involved, and also probably wouldn't last more than an exchange or two.

I would suggest you check out some european fightbooks.

like joachim meyer, fiore di liberi, johannes lechthinhaur, hans talhoffer, I:33, etc. to get an idea about sword techniques and you can easily see how quick a fight would be over.

but it also wouldn't be the mindless bashing of sword on sword like in the movies.

Answer 10

Generally, they were over in a flash. In the case of japanese swords, unless the warriors were wearing armour, any successful strikes are likely to be debilitating if not fatal, then they were quickly followed by a coup de grace.

In the case of duels, I imagine there was some preliminary manoeuvring and "sounding out" to assess the enemy. If this led to stalemate, the two combatants may have thought better of it and beat a hasty retreat.

Long drawn out combat should be left to Hollywood.