I'm reminded of a documentary where a Zulu medicine man gave the proverb: "War...is a lion upon who's back you fall, never to get off again." (from memory)
A human being is paradoxically both incredibly resilient and terrifyingly fragile. This holds true for almost any kind of trauma, whether deliberate or accidental.
Agreed. I've heard of people dropping and dying after a single stab to the lung or abdomen with the tiniest of blades and then there are people like my grandfather who was shot and recovered only to get knocked over by a bomb blast and yet he kept on fighting. Later he learned that he had multiple shrapnel in his body and some were inoperable. One of them was in his brain!
@@jooot_6850 Also Francesco Pizarro I believe (a leader of Conquistadors who found a treasure and had suddenly to fight two dozen of his greedy men... he died, but put up one hell of a fight)
The story of the first Louisiana female police officer* to die on duty is a very good example of both how fragile and how unstoppable people can be. (*) Trainee officer Linda Lawrence died after being shot once, the assailant took *10* shots to the torso from a .357 revolver at close/literally zero range before finally, slowly, collapsing. And no, he wasn't on any drugs, just adrenaline and rage.
@@DrBunnyMedicinal Does 357 make really that much of a difference? It should pretty much make the same holes as a 9mm and it is still below the 700 m/s needed to cause temporary cavities to become permanent tears. I guess the only way it would really matter is if the ammunition deforms so much that it can dump all the energy before overpenetrating... PS: I knew a girl who was head over heels in love with a guy who survived 6 hits with 9mm and he's not crippled. I never understand why women fall for people who are likely to ruin their lives...
7:22 I quote, _Stripping to their shirts in a cold morning, they ran with that fury upon each others' swords, not as if to kill each other, but who to die first. Their weapons were rapier and dagger, a fit banquet for death. [...] Cheek ran Dutton through the neck with his rapier and stabbed him backward in the neck with his dagger, miraculously missing the windpipe. In the same motion, Dutton ran Cheek through the body and stabbed him into the back [...]._
A medical missionary in the Southern Philippines told me about his experiences treating people or at least being presented with the bodies of those who had been in sword fights. Roughly 3 foot straight cut-and-thrust blades. Alcohol or jealousy were the usual proximate causes. He said that sometimes both parties presented with multiple stabs and cuts and one or both lost blood pressure. But it sometimes came down to the first one to nearly or entirely sever the other person's sword hand at which point it ended with deep wounds to the abdomen or cuts to the great vessels of the neck. That's just one culture and one kind of sword, but it at least gives some idea of how it has played out in modern times with examination from a medically-trained observer.
@@ohauss That means both participants had lost so much blood from getting cut and stabbed that they lost consciousness or died. Not an unusual outcome when guys start cutting on each other.
As a quick defense of movie sword-fights: please bear in mind that your typical Zorro or Robin Hood or Three Musketeers film includes several, even dozens of extremely brief fights as important characters dispatch nameless goons sometimes two or three at a time within moments. There are two big flashy sword fights in The Princess Bride, both involving two characters that are put forward as exceptionally skillful. There are also several of Prince Humperdink's men that Indigo Montoya dispatches instantly. Films don't do such a terrible job of presenting fights as having a broad variety of durations and scales.
I think the film variation in combat length is too extreme - "1 hp minions" who die instantly, and major characters whose climactic fight scene lasts for several minutes at least. The scene where Montoya instantly kills Humperdinck's guards was a bit of a WTF moment, though it worked as comedy.
As a parallel example. Was watching sumo highlights today. 1. Saw matches that lasted 5 seconds 2. Saw very active fights last for a minute or more 3. Saw a fight last 3:30 because the fighters ended up in something of a stalemate with neither able to improve their position in a clinch. Some of the same principle obviously applies. You can have a fight last 10 seconds because both people attack as furiously as possible, or a fight where both are extremely hesitant to attack.
Some of the long fights also end up as a test of stamina. What looks like a long stalemate can see one wrestler gradually gain an advantage without appearing to do much. Ichinojo ends up in a lot of long bouts because he's content to lean on his opponent, knowing that with his height and weight his opponent has to work harder to maintain parity than he does. In other long bouts one might see a wrestler very gradually improve his position so as to be better placed when things do start moving again. Takayasu was in such a match a tournament or two back - it might have been against Takakeisho, but I don't remember off the top of my head - and while it looked like stalemate, Takayasu was able to slowly advance quite some distance and earn himself some manoeuvring space. I've no expert whatsoever on sword fighting, but in fighting in general, it can be a viable approach to trust one's defence and allow one's opponent to wear himself out. Naturally such an approach would lead to longer fights than both adversaries attacking in a fury and disregarding their own defence.
MMA can be like that too - sometimes it goes to a 40 minute submission (or at least last time I watched UFCs) and sometimes someone goes down fast with a concussion or knockout. Probably most fights are somewhere in the middle.
There was a reality TV series a few years back where they showed Mongol wrestlers competing during Naadam. As the ranks of competitors thinned out the bouts got more and more boring. One of the final bouts lasted more than an hour because both fighters were equally skilled and immediately locked each other solid then got tired at the same pace as they wriggled like worms trying to dislodge each other. They were still locked in this position when the sun set and everyone went off to eat and drink.
It just needs to be taken into account there's a reason why these accounts exist - because they represent circumstances deemed remarkable enough to record them. As in they do not reflect the ordinary but the extraordinary.
Judicial duels lasted a lot , when people were running around in armour. In the end a fight lasts as long as both sides are able. The longest one I know of ,was one dude defending himself fro m 3 brothers, that ambushed him and killed his father, for almost 2 hours. Till his family arrived and saved him . The dude lost teeth and ear , 3 fingers and had 8 cuts on him.
That makes lots of sense, it's one thing to kill the poor sod when you have numerical advantage, and another to kill him without dying. Interestingly similar standoffs (albeit usually a lot shorter) still happen in the age of gun, because nobody wants to enter the room/circle the car first when person inside has a gun
@@The_Crimson_Fucker on one hand, given the heavier armour and blunted weapons they used (assuming we're talking about the tournament event) I can see that. On the other hand given the same equipment and that most *combat* melees were in short pushes of intense violence broken up by comparatively long bouts of slinging arrows & insults to rest, I have a hard time swallowing it. Sources please?
@@nicholashodges201 The Combat of the Thirty wasn't a tournament event, it was a pre-arranged judicial battle. They used sharp weapons and their actual armor. They disengaged a few times but the actual bouts lasted a fairly long time. It ended when a squire charged through the melee on a horse. SandRhoman History has a good video on it, it's where I learned about it. I'd say "google it" but Google keeps mistaking it for the 30 Years War and refusing to offer anything interesting. "Combat melees" Were often not strictly planned, often happened during some phase of a much longer battle and often did not involve highly motivated knights on both sides in the best kit they could afford. "slinging arrows" I don't know about this one, honestly. While that certainly would've been characteristic of a lot of the larger battles, a lot of medieval "battles" tended to be either prearanged judicial affairs or only really involving knights, squires and immediate retainers - which is probably why we estimate such low mortality rates. To my knowledge, people weren't really known to bring bows or crossbows to such events(not least of which because a bolt might actually kill somebody).
Well one thing is for sure, the winner of that second fight was a total badass. % or 6 guys attacking you, defending against multiple opponents, only one of them wounding you and in the end kicking his ass and stepping away with only a knife wound after disarming him, and accidentally defending attacks while when wailing on the opponent. Stone cold bad ass.
Also, a totally ridiculously over-confident idiot who wouldn't back down in the face of overwhelming odds in a surprise attack. Of such people are ballads written.
@@luckybear20 He was probably an idiot, too, but who knows? I'm no horseman, but are three people on foot really sufficient to stop a horse from bolting?
Might have also been the chest (Stomach) wound too, shallow enough to not kill, deep enough to damage organs. But getting your head slammed down from standing with double your body weight in inertia also probably a likely candidate.
True. Before I watched this I had the opinion that the stereotypical martial arts advice to be calm was 90% BS. You need to be a level of angry to hit a person, hit them first and keep hitting them until they can't hit back. But it seems like approaching armed combat that way wins you at best two dead losers.
I have had one as long as 5 minutes. I finished one with two seconds. And got my ass handed to me in 5 seconds. In short, by my very limited experience, the fights between opponents who want it to be over quickly usually are fast.
I feel like "going too far in the other direction" sums up the past 6 years or so of HEMA and medieval combat history, people reacted to the unrealistic takes on fights, clothing, armor and weapons of movies but went way too far into "that's not realistic" to the point where it's, ironically, getting unrealistically mundane.
Well that's an interesting question, it could be over in the first exchange it could be over after 10 exchanges if both fighters are of a similar skill and resolve. However it could take a substantial amount of time for 2 hesitant opponents to even come close to engaging in their first exchange.
I've seen several accounts of duels between very defensive people lasting "half the morning". It seems when people were dueling for honor rather then anger they prioritized surviving over killing.
Well I think that's the stereotypical katana duel :). Two samurai stare each other down, barely moving, for like five minutes, and then in an instant a cut is made and one of them is dead ;).
I've seen a sort of "gunfight" before. It was several police officers vs 1 carjacker right outside my apartment. It went on for several minutes with them shooting at each other and the police chasing the guy for 6-7 blocks. About 30 shots were fired, and it only stopped when he gave up after the police shot the guy in the shoulder while he was taking cover behind a car. It's kinda strange that the fight could go on for so long, even with such deadly weapons and it being about 10 police vs 1 guy by the end. Btw, there were only so many because the guy didn't realize he was running right to the police station, which was right across the street from where I was watching from a second story window.
@@Humster That statistic might be a little skewed due to heavy and light machine guns being involved. The number of rounds fired by individual rifle men would be far lower.
It is a little skewed, but I think that most of the skewing is due to the trench warfare. There are gunfights that are resolved with a single bullet... but there are those where people exchanged whole magasines and no one was even hurt.
@@NetAndyCz I wonder just how many rounds of .50 BMG were expended by the US Airmy Sir Force or the Navy in WWII for every plane shot down. And how many rounds of 20mm, 40mm or 5" for every aircraft shoot down by ships. On another channel (Drachinifel) I once commented that the amount of shell fragments scattered across the Pacific by the US Navy in WWII would have been enough to build a Yamato class BB.
"...newsflash people. Swords aren't magical! Swords aren't lightsabers! And swords aren't a, uh, instant kill switch, that when you switch it, the other person stops being alive." (Begins hooking up a well insulated saber to a wall outlet in the fencing salle) Hold my mead captain context!
It depends on the amount of training, endurance, and sometimes the actual weapon...if a man is one with his sword, that can be a deadly combination. However, it would be near impossible having a duel without wounding.
And no more. The longer you fight the more likely something will go wrong and you'll die. You want this unpleasant business over with as quickly as is practical.
Bar fights is a better representation. Someone gets clocked on th chin or slammed onto a hard ass floor and they go flop. It's a lot easoer to take blows in organized mma match. As for a sword fight you are far more likely to end with just one blow. A properly placed cut the weapon hand/arm would be enough to end most duels.
@@myco9253 the interesting thing for me to think about is how MMA fighters can try to win on points, a different motivation and definition of success for bar fights.
@@myco9253 my experience with modern military training also suggests soldiers basically accept that they will die and will try to inflict as many casualties as possible so your mates have less to deal with. there are some UFC with the US Marines training videos i remember, the soldiers vs MMA fighter mentality was stark
One thing that I heard that stick in my mind, probably something Matt said himself, but I'm not positive. Allegedly there were times when two swordsmen would meet on the battlefield, have a few swings at each other, realise they were fairly equally matched, then break off and both go and find easier targets.
Kind of. Condoteri (probably misspelled, sorry) were notorious for this. But, yeah, if you don't have something personal against the other guy mutually choosing to go fight someone else is wise. In most wars the people fighting had nothing personal against the other guy. They were there because their liege lords called them up. So it wasn't personal. Dueling was on the other hand intensely personal. This was two guys out to murder each other. Sometimes they both succeeded.
There's an account by a samurai during the Warring States era about when he was retreating after a rout and was being chased by headhunters. One of the headhunters was another samurai and after they locked swords the first time and failed to resolve the fight, both disengaged, split up, then over the next TWO DAYS would occasionally lock swords again and again. Eventually the fight ended when the headhunter gave up.
idk about classics, but I mostly see in movies how protagonist barely touches his enemies and they die instantly. No retaliation, no stumbling around, just drop dead/unconscious in an instant. Until he meets his nemesis. Then all of a sudden rules are changing and they can throw each other around forever without any visible damage.
It‘s the Hollywood Extra School of Fighting. Treatises say that upon entering the frame forcefully one is to hold up one‘s weapon or better, strike at the air waiting for the mortal blow. More modern recollections of this art include instructions to avoid cover in a firefight and just blindly run into a corridor in which one‘s companions have just been mowed down.
If it's a HEMA fight it can indeed last a while. The fight _proper_ is actually pretty short; the real time sink is all the discussion afterward to determine if the winning move was legitimate or if it does not appear in the manuals.
For some great sword fights, both long and short, check out the Duellists, directed by Ridley Scott. (Forgive me Matt if you've already mentioned this)
I have been struggling with depression and insomnia and lately have had great trouble enjoying things that i know i love. I just had to comment that for whatever reason, this video made me laugh and chuckle more than i have in months :) You make amazing content Matt, thankyou from us all!
With full plate I can see a duel last ages. To defeat someone in full plate you have to take them down or find the gaps in the armour, which will surely be easy to defend. Those duels probably lasted longer than any other, I would assume.
@Obi-Wan Kannabis True, but again, that also depends. You might get in a lucky shot and bonk the other dude on the top of his helmet in such a way that he's left in a daze and unable to defend himself. Alternatively, you could bonk him several times but not manage to do more than mildly inconvenience him.
You see a lot of movies involving Japanese swords and fighting where there are long strikes and lengthy exchanges. I saw a youtube here from a sword master in Japan (forget his name now) where he pointed out that most sword fights in Japan going far enough back involved thrust as the primary choice because a thrust (possibly including lunge) will strike faster than an overhead two handed strike or many other Japanese sword strikes. And since he who gets stabbed first often is the loser in the fight, that first strike can be pretty decisive. When I trained unarmed against multiple attackers, if everyone rushed you or tried to gang up, you had to move faster than the attackers. And you had to control the space and even use attackers as shields at times from other attackers. It was exhausting. Even after training about 6 hours+ a week for months, 2 minutes in that environment was an eternity and when time was called, you were ready to collapse in a puddle. I suspect whoever runs out of steam first will tend to lose given other factors equal. In the larger picture, competence/expertise would likely be a major determiner. And if you lose a bit of focus and someone can slice the inside of your wrist or badly hack some digits, the other guy won't hold a weapon much longer. There's also a strange reality I learned of when talking to a US paramedic who went to many knife/blade injuries and gunshot cases. The 'golden hour' - if you aren't killed outright or get hit in a way that you'll exanguinate in less than two minutes, there's a good chance if you get prompt medical help, you will have a good chance to survive. Another medic who worked in CAF SF explained to me their first focus is gross bleeds, even before airway because you won't choke as fast as a gross bleed will kill you. The paramedic said another interesting thing: If people get injured when their adrenalin is not fired up, that often takes them right out of the fight. They feel the pain, the adrenalin isn't wound up, and they just crumple. On the other hand, someone ready and stoked up can sometimes take ridiculous amounts of damage before going down. Lastly: Once the adrenalin comes up, skills you know well, you get a bit better at (focus the likely factor) but if there is a skill you don't know very well, with adrenalin, it goes to sh** and you won't be worth a plug nickel with that. So a ready, focused, adrenalin-flowing master swordsman would be very dangerous but an uprepared, adrenalin not up yet, yob with sword who only kindof knows how to use it will be less able to fight well and will go down often with one good hit. Some of this explains the variation in timings. Also, I submit that many very fast striking swordsmen in the modern era (who don't fight for their lives) lack the knowledge that if they screw up, they could be maimed or killed (and maybe killed and not die instantly). I think in cases where your life is on the line, more hesitation and perhaps more cautious and defensive stances to feel out an opponent may be more expected. Also the presence of body armour that will protect you from lethal strikes in key areas will also embolden attack because there's less odds of an offensive approach resulting in an effective counter-strike. So 'how long was a swordfight' really has a lot of parameters and even then you'll find a variation that could be substantive.
Other than the official duels, no one ever fought only with a blade, there was a lot of punching and kicking along with what ever you could to win. Read of more than a few improm sword fights in Italy came about the defender beating his sword attackers with two sitting stools on alley path in front of a food stall.
That’s sort of surprising or unexpected, That the Man(Dutton) stabbed one the neck twice= SURVIVED. And the Man(Cheek): Stabbed in the stomach and back= DIED. Dutton seems to have been a lucky man. Both, Lucky his wounds weren’t fatal and Lucky he landed fatal blows.
@@lordcirth Ya definitely, It’s not really surprising that the stomach and back wound were fatal strikes. I guess what I really meant to say was: It’s crazy that neither of the stabs wounds to the other guys neck, Turned out to be fatal. It amazing that both of the blades, Managed to miss all the vital areas in the neck. Because, It would probably be difficult to stick a blade through a neck even once. Without hitting something vital, Even if you were purposely trying to miss everything vital.
Fantastic video Matt! Would love to hear more stories! Could be about anything really. I'm guessing your kids like it when you read to them, as you're very good at it. ^_^
Until someone bleeds out or suffers damage to the CNS. That will entirely depend on how effective a target is hit. I’ve seen stab wounds with very little blood due to CNS damage stopping the heart and others that were stabbed for 10 mins straight and lived
You're forgetting the most common means of someone stopping fighting- because they no longer want to. Flight or concession is probably the most common outcome of fights rather than killing blows.
@@EvilTwinn The question was specifically sword fighting. When sharp blades rend flesh, break bone, or pierce organs quitting is just accepting death in most cases.
@@takingbacktoxic7898 And my answer was specifically about sword fighting. Like, swords can deal some serious wounds to people, but the human body's pretty resistant, as you note. You're listing the ways in which the swordfight is guaranteed to end because one party is physically unable to continue. And I would agree that those are true within that criteria. However, I would argue that if one is addressing "how long a swordfight lasts," the answer needs to include those times when someone decides to stop fighting for whatever reason. After all, it's not just instant incapacitation that finishes a fight. That could be someone deciding that they're not going to win and running or hiding behind their friends even though they're completely unharmed. It could be someone with a less-than-lethal wound being debillitated either due to shock or a seeming lack of nerve after having been injured (which I don't look negatively on). The longer of the accounts Matt gives in the video is an example of this. It is certainly a valid and likely common way for swordfights to end. It's worth noting that within a battle context, most of the casualties are noted as taking place in the rout, even after combat as been going on for hours. Clearly, it's not just groups of people getting into a constant fight for that long. They've gotta have breaks every so often, even if you don't subscribe to the pulse theory.
Regarding the three shields in a viking duel... I have a theory. My theory is that unlike Shields used in warfare doing shields were not covered in rawhide. The reason is that sword and shield or axe and shield was very common weapon combination in the Viking era and as such would have been used for duels. But given how tough and durable a properly made rawhide covered shield is it seems unlikely to me that three Shields would be needed during a duel it might prolong the length of a dual unnecessarily. I think the shields were given so that only a decisive blow against an opponent could end a duel; no minor cuts would do. Yet in order not to allow the dual to last too long a shield had to be easy to destroy. Three Shields allowed for a user to swap out a shield that have been too badly damaged but also meant that the person couldn't just totally rely on the shield for defense that they had to be more aggressive; especially considering the rules of that type of dual stated that if you ran out of shields you had to fight with just your sword or axe.
In ANY combat/fight situation, the time it can take can be anything from "over in an instant" to "let's just stop and call it a draw." Case in point: modern MMA or boxing. The shortest MMA fight I'm aware of was over in just over 1 second. The longest was Kazushi Sakuraba and Royce Gracie, at over 90 minutes. A sword fight is the same, though the more offensive nature of swords over fists lends itself to a fast finish if one party is more skilled than the other. But yeah, saying it's ALWAYS one or two moves just tells me that you've never seriously trained in any serious combative art.
I've seen actual fights (never involving weapons, and excluding planned martial arts events and the like) and, for the most part, they either end really fast, or they end up in a terribly prolonged struggle on the ground, rolling around and desperately trying to gain control over the situation. Very rarely do you see average people get into fights where there's a long period of equals exchanging blows and staying on their feet, and I don't see why this wouldn't extend to sword fighting (there's probably a reason why grappling is so important to HEMA). That all being said, the situation quickly changes when both parties are skilled practitioners of martial arts, that's when you see those long, drawn out fights.
Another great video. Thanks so much. It reminded me too of school lessons on the Illiad. Warriors having chats and banter with their opponents on the battle field! Also, Faith No More - my favourite band ever! Thanks again!
I am used to throwing the original video where you read this quote/anecdote out to people. Super useful to have a new one! And it's such a good quote/anecdote. Also, I love that you used the term "(kill)switch" in reference to this. There was a self-defense trainer I listened to once who discussed such in relation to firearms. Everything is a timer except certain parts of the body. If you don't hit it, you only set or increment a timer.
What's funny is that showy fights are not just a Hollywood invention - back in Shakespeare's times, theater plays had fights that look showy. For example, in Hamlet there is a duel at the end where two characters exchange their swords in the midst of the fighting. I would argue that theater then was the equivalent of cinema today, so there you go - some things haven't changed.
There are two differences. One being that modern scripts other than ones for musicals rarely use meter. The other is that we don't usually see multiple directors over a spans of generations direct productions with the same script.
The difference between a sword fight and a fist fight is that you generally can’t take too many solid hits in a sword fight unless you’re in armour. However, historically many people did wear armour so it’s a very hard to gauge this.
Nice topic. Looking at modern fights it most depends on both fighters level. Experienced MMA fighter can finish street fight in one move but on similar level can lasts forever
lol, yeah rapiers IMO from what I've seen were really kind of a "we all use these because they are fancy" sort of thing, but as a weapon overall aren't that great. Whereas a saber is essentially the same thing as a scimitar, falchion, cutlass, broadsword, pulwar/tulwar. So it's a weapon that many people's across a wide variety of time and space have used, and in some places still use. Plus they are a lot more versatile in how they can attack, and because of their weight would have a much more effective parry/guard ability than that of a longer, lighter rapier. I mean the guy had 5 or 6 people coming at him and the only person who actually hit him was the "main boss" lol
@@luckybear20 depends really, I heard of a pioneer getting chased by cavalry alone for so long that all of his gear was covered in cuts and still he survived. And rapiers often won against katana when portuguese sailors duelled japanese people (a katana being quite similar to the swords described in speed and cutting ability).
Written sources are not immune to exaggeration. People love to exaggerate, it add awesomeness. And written sources need to describe things, make them seems longer than in reality. For example, "both of them swing their blades, sparks coming out from the clash, they both feel exhausted, the wind flow washing their face, they breathe heavily and ready to swing at each other again...", in reality this only take in one or two seconds.
I like to think that the duration of the sword fights in movies are a depiction how the the protagonists experience them in person. You know when you think something goes on for ages but in reality it is just a couple of minutes.
One mad minute, or a few seconds. Italian fencing records shown when it came to street sword fights ending in a grapple and a knee shot between the legs.
I recall reading about Japanese Samurai remains removed from a mass grave. There was a great deal of evidence that light cuts to the head were favored as the initial strike, then wounds to the arms and legs. Once the opponent was blinded with blood from the head wounds the victor went about taking the loser apart before delivering a killing stroke
I think one of the longest sword fights I've ever heard about is the one that is the focus of the upcoming Ridley Scott movie "The Last Duel". It's also perhaps the most famous example of the concept of the Judicial Duel, aka Trial By Combat.
My first answer to the title would be, "About 15 inches or more, otherwise it's a knife fight." But if the unarmed fights I have been in and/or witnessed are any measure, once blows are taken, the whole affair is fairly quick IF at least one participant is willing to make it so, AND if the hits land "just right".
The two or three move sword fight probably came from Iaido/Iaijitsu which is specialized for such quick fights and thus has an interest in presenting them as the norm - in a longer fight a Samurai would probably switch to another art (Kenjitsu) after the first few moves.
I would imagine that a determining factor would be mental strength, how long before a belligerent loses his nerve and panics; either runs away or succumbs to his fear.
Fun! Anything can happen! I was battling my instructor and we were both being cautious and were both very aware and nimble that day, so we’re only landing grazes and tippy shots on each other, when the interaction of our Dussacks caused me to let mine slip in the cut, such that it fell behind him. He giggled and came at me, but I quickly grappled him, turned him around, then shoved him back, leapt backward over my sword, picked it up, parried his incoming thrust, and counter-cut him! Felt epic and might never happen like that again… :)
The *length* of a movie swordfight isn't desperately important. The fight is just there to tell a story - ideally, if it occurs, the audience understands who is fighting, why they're fighting, what the basic mechanics of the fight are, what the *interesting features* of the fight are, or might be, and when somebody wins or loses, why that happened. This is what makes the one-hit duel in Seven Samurai, the extended rapier dance in Princess Bride, and the light-sabre battle in the 'Twin Suns' episode of Star Wars: Rebels so amazing. It's also what makes scripted movie fighting fundamentally different to actual fighting. A movie fight *must* convey a vast amount of information extremely quickly to the viewer. All the tells have to stand out a mile just so anything makes sense at all.
In HEMA a longsword duel to 1 point usually takes 1 to 4 encounters, depending how careful the fencers are. One encounter being about 4 actions (feint, strike, parry, dodge, cut, thrust, etc.)
Much to say on this topic. I think to be fair we should separate the duels from actual battles in warfare to start. We also should be looking at averages on both sword fights and swords in general. Not the extremes but the means. Lets have a talk ! Nice video!
The duration mostly depends on how aggressive the fighters are and how easily they can deliver fatal wounds. The length is mostly about the participants, so it is kind of pointless to talk about averages, because in some sense the fights last as long as the fighters want them to last. What draws them out is the desire to win and not die in the process, but if neither cares about that then the fight can be over as soon as it physically can. If you charge in and desperately try to hit your opponent at whatever cost, you either hit him, get hit in the process or both. Such fight can be over almost immediately after one exchange. Sometimes such exchange can happen several times until one or the other collapses from the wounds. It depends on the physique of the fighters and where they are hit. Some could call that "luck" as well. If the fighters are being more careful and passive, they can spend long time probing around, baiting and just trying to find an opening that allows them hit the opponent relatively safely. Then it can escalate quickly, then calm down again especially if both survived the exchange unscathed and so on. Now, if both are wearing armor it of course means they have more difficult time hurting each other, which in turn means the fights probably lasted longer on average. But then again, maybe the other one is really good at grappling and throws you on the ground immediately and stabs you in the face through the vision slits. There are some many factors that it is hard to know.
@@PacMonster0 British battle , forgot which one but case in point it was near the early fall months. Battle started in the morning, more or less a pushing/ shoving match with slapping of sword blades. By mid noon, they were rotating ranks cause of heat exhaustion, then mid day rolled around they took a couple hour break cause the small units and drag out duelers where dropping from heat exhaustion in padded/ metal armor. Over all it was a nice day if you were not sweating your azz off in a winter coat. After mid day break, they went back to rotating ranks till nightfall. Where an out of season cold snap blow in and the temperature drop. One side already had camp dinner and hot tea ready by nightfall cause they were set up for the long haul and change into dry fresh warm clothes, the home team thought the battle be over before nightfall and the invaders would be defeated and leave and they would just walk home for the night. Then shortly after nightfall it start to frost with light snowfall. The home team were not camp up for a drawn out fight and their heavy cloth padded armor sweaty from the day's exhausting battles started to freeze up the same way people get after someone falls through ice in the cold wind. Hypothermia started to set in without dry warm clothing or hot food & drink. The invaders easily walked over and slaughter them as they laid on the freezing ground shaking and exhausted from fighting most of the day. Heard of another rout that happen after a day's battle cause by one army fought for a standstill and rotated their ranks and had their troops drink cider & lime/ lemon juice and the other side drink weak beer, wine, and tea cause you just didn't drink strait water at that time. The rival side fought to gain ground and exhausted themselves over two days of fighting. They didn't know .. why .. lemon/ lime juice refresh men after a hot day's worth of working or fighting, but it did. Other dirty trick on sieged locations and army camps, was just creating enough noise to keep the other side from sleeping for a few days. Till one side basic fell over from exhaustion without putting up a real fight.
I’d love to see a video about the Sword and cudgel fighting in Hockley-In-The-Hole. It sounds absolutely fascinating and virtually gladiatorial in nature.
I like the movie "Alatriste" the scene here on YT called "Inigo's Revenge". I Also like the swordfight in "Rob Roy", the final duel between Liam Neeson and Archie, I cannot think of the Actor's name off hand. I Love the swordfight in "The Mark of Zorro" 1940, even though they used fencing sabers, that was a hell of an intense duel between Tyrone Power and Basil Rathbone. Last, but not least, the fencing duel between Inigo Montoya and Dread Pirate's Robert's...the final duel between Inigo, and Rugen was an intense swordfight. Sorry, one more, in 1998's "The Mask of Zorro ", the passionate fight between Don Diego dé LA Vega and Rafeal Montero, especially after that soldier shot Esparanza, both men immediately stopped and Montero ran the soldier through with his cup hilt rapier with no regret...
That's one of the most beautiful representations of that era(Alatriste),that i could find. And i'm a huge movie buff. Literally you can stop any scene-and there you go,you have a baroque painting. I remember in the beginning,where they are doing a stealth attack,them muddling through waist deep waters,muskets held up high not to wet the match. I heard that it's an oversimplification of many books-so the story may be stunted. But as a period impression-i reckon it's quite good. battles are small,but realistic,the rapier fights raw and hairy...There aren't enough movies about the spanish tercios and the portuguese explorers,to be honest!
@@mallardtheduck406 There is this mini-series,called Conquistadores Adventum. It is absolutely riveting. Made by the spanish,it portrays the first voyages 30 years after the Reconquista. Columbus,Pizarro,Magellan and many more others. Explorers,oportunists,conquerors. And it's no pc bullcrap either. It kinda shows how sabage those countries were,also.
Great video! If you just count the time it takes to hemorrhage to the point of death from a major artery (femoral or similar) it still takes over 60 seconds. I've been able to see a car accident, pull over, run to the car, triage injuries, identify severed tibial arteries, and apply a tourniquet. That guy had a broken back, a concussion, and was hemorrhaging... and still moving around!! If you want to end a fight, a better bet is to sever the weapon controlling limbs/bone structure/tendons. I have a buddy that had both legs blown off, got thrown 15 feet in the air, and still continued leading the mission from a stretcher (Afghanistan). I say removing the capacity to manipulate a weapon is a much surer bet than trying to shut down the enraged human machine before they can kill/maim you.
Yeah this analysis reminds me of my knife fighting days (fma) as in training how to knife fight. The more you learn about the knife the more you realize how bad the idea of getting in a knife fight ist. The assumption that it is an affair where usually both parties don't leave unscathed is actually an understatement. We of course used dummy weapons for sparring but you could easily translate to: you will leave a mess almost every time and the winner is probably the one who bleeds out faster. Close combat with meele weapons is goddamn frigthening and I wouldn't recommend it for anything other than recreation (as in training/hema/martial arts) or selfdefence if unavoidable. Dueling... more like a deathwish.
I seen a man in his thirties that makes a full time living as a martial arts instructor and weapons trainer, .. specialty " knives." Former US Marine of eight years. During a demonstration using a thick head magic marker on how easy it is to get cut and how disarms work and don't work. He got punched off his feet in a single left jab by a 56 yo woman. Explanation, thirty years worth of factory line work and forty five years worth of playing table tennis. She just had a more develop muscle twitch reflex than what he had. And she grew up in a household where your mother ruled by swinging a frying pan.
As I have learned in firearm self defense courses as well as other firearms related training which has surprising overlap with sword stuff: A person involved in lethal violence will stop fighting only under the following conditions: 1). They voluntarily stop fighting. (whether through fear, submission, giving up, lack of will, whatever.) 2. Central Nervous system failure, either through CNS destruction (actual penetration or destruction of the CNS, or due to lack of oxygenated blood flow to the CNS. 3. Mechanical destruction of the musculoskeletal system. That's really it. If injuries in a gun fight or sword fight (or whatever) do not cause CNS failure, mechanical failure of the body, and the enemy doesn't give up on their own, fighting will continue until one of those conditions are met.
In the modern Mensur, which is a type of fencing match practiced by student groups like Burschenschaften or Corps, the match can end with a single hit by the first strike or last for half an hour with up to 200 strikes by each individual without anyone hitting his opponent. You can say how long the average fight lasts, but each individual fight can vary greatly, the same probably applied to historical combat. If both sides are very cautious it might last longer, if both sides are very aggressive it probably won't last very long. The skill level of the participants is also a major factor.
Styles and familiarity with opponents movements should play a role in this as well. Reading some of the old accounts the style a person is fighting in is frequently mentioned if they aren't fighting in the same style. I've done a bit of HEMA and over a decades of martial arts + quite a bit of competitive sports and knowing how your opponent is going to move just from the bare minimum of stance/eye movement, musle twitch, etc makes a HUGE difference in predicting and responding. The old adage the hand is faster than the eye is absolutely true so the shorter the distance between opponents the faster a fight is likely to end but for two opponents very familiar with each other or the style they are both using could prove the exception to that.
The Duellists (Ridley Scot, 1977) has arguably many of the best fight scenes of duels in film history. It follows Matt's explanation rather good. Skallagrim have seen and rated it very realistic.
the problem is: Define a "swordfight". If we are talking about a duel then it can take its time, if we are talking about 2 soldiers on a battlefield, then urgency will speed up the conflict. Are there witnesses? then that will effect too since neither fighter will want to look bad, not stab the other dude in the back and so on. Then again you might be called Miyamoto Musashi, and then a swordfight might just be dropping down from a tree at someone resting and driving a blade down the persons spine. Its kinda like saying "How long is a race", and well, that entirely depends on the race, doenst it? Some lasts for days, others less than a minute. And what are the conditions for the fight? A fight to the first blood might be a lot quicker than a fight to the death, since the first ends with a blow that leaves the fighter capable of going on if need be, and the other lets the dude or dudette fight on. But in general, between 15 seconds and 3 minutes i´d say.
Something I think the late Bill Hobbes choreographed brilliantly: when his fights got long, they get very messy. And I think this is true to life with any kind of fight. If the fight goes on for multiple minutes, it won’t be a sequence of perfect technique: the combatants will get exhausted, there will be grappling, things will get sloppy.
Something else that can extend the length of a fight that I think a lot of people don't consider is that unlike most Hollywood fights, the combatants often don't just charge in swinging. Instead they move in tentatively and throw out a few cautious attacks, to try to get a feel for their opponent. Once one of them fully commits to an attack, it might be over quickly, but that initial feeling out period is part of the fight too.
Had a fun sword and buckler exchange on Tuesday that lasted just under 5 minutes. Everything before the final blow were very superficial, basically scratches.
I think it would depend heavily on the armour used and whether it was 1 on 1 or not. And how skilled and cautious the fighters were. And yes horses are tough:p
Very interessting Video! Always wondered if it would realy be as quick bitween 2 trained fighters. And I love your shirt! Great album of Faith No More!
(4:30) there is a great example of the three shields thing in the "13th worrior" film, an adaptation of "Eaters of the Dead," probably the best part of the film really.
How long does a sword fight last? If you're unlucky enough, the rest of your life.
I'm reminded of a documentary where a Zulu medicine man gave the proverb: "War...is a lion upon who's back you fall, never to get off again." (from memory)
Old Indonesian saying "After a knife fight the winner is charcoal. The loser is ashes."
@@toddellner5283 another similar saying is "The loser of a knife fight dies in the street. The winner dies in the ambulance."
Sorry.. but I beg to differ...
I believe... If your LUCKY enough, a sword fight can LAST the rest of their life
@@strydyrhellzrydyr1345 I dunno, I would feel luckier if I survived longer than the end of the fight.
A human being is paradoxically both incredibly resilient and terrifyingly fragile. This holds true for almost any kind of trauma, whether deliberate or accidental.
Agreed. I've heard of people dropping and dying after a single stab to the lung or abdomen with the tiniest of blades and then there are people like my grandfather who was shot and recovered only to get knocked over by a bomb blast and yet he kept on fighting. Later he learned that he had multiple shrapnel in his body and some were inoperable. One of them was in his brain!
@@edi9892 and then there are examples like Blackbeard, who took like twenty gunshots and a beheading to finally put the bastard down
@@jooot_6850 Also Francesco Pizarro I believe (a leader of Conquistadors who found a treasure and had suddenly to fight two dozen of his greedy men... he died, but put up one hell of a fight)
The story of the first Louisiana female police officer* to die on duty is a very good example of both how fragile and how unstoppable people can be.
(*) Trainee officer Linda Lawrence died after being shot once, the assailant took *10* shots to the torso from a .357 revolver at close/literally zero range before finally, slowly, collapsing. And no, he wasn't on any drugs, just adrenaline and rage.
@@DrBunnyMedicinal Does 357 make really that much of a difference? It should pretty much make the same holes as a 9mm and it is still below the 700 m/s needed to cause temporary cavities to become permanent tears. I guess the only way it would really matter is if the ammunition deforms so much that it can dump all the energy before overpenetrating...
PS: I knew a girl who was head over heels in love with a guy who survived 6 hits with 9mm and he's not crippled. I never understand why women fall for people who are likely to ruin their lives...
Matt: "This is Matt Easton being concise for once."
Me, seeing that there are still 15 minutes left of the video: "Well, yes but actually no."
This is MATT EASTON being concise, it's all about the context ;) a tangent or 2 could have brought this up to 28minutes or more!
I love how just after stating the above, he went on discussing how long is a piece of string. ;-)
@@bakters So a piece of string is as long as a Matt Easton video?
@@AnotherDuck Actually he quite clearly states that it's as long as a partial Matt Easton video.
Matt trying to be concise is like politicians trying to be transparent and honest. It's just not in their nature.
You should do a story time about historical sword fights.
beside a crackling fire as we all put ourselves to bed.
Mat reads accounts of armed pandemonium. Yeah, I'd watch that.
He has
@@Robert399 you right he has. He had some videos about stories from another book.
7:22 I quote, _Stripping to their shirts in a cold morning, they ran with that fury upon each others' swords, not as if to kill each other, but who to die first. Their weapons were rapier and dagger, a fit banquet for death. [...] Cheek ran Dutton through the neck with his rapier and stabbed him backward in the neck with his dagger, miraculously missing the windpipe. In the same motion, Dutton ran Cheek through the body and stabbed him into the back [...]._
A medical missionary in the Southern Philippines told me about his experiences treating people or at least being presented with the bodies of those who had been in sword fights. Roughly 3 foot straight cut-and-thrust blades. Alcohol or jealousy were the usual proximate causes. He said that sometimes both parties presented with multiple stabs and cuts and one or both lost blood pressure. But it sometimes came down to the first one to nearly or entirely sever the other person's sword hand at which point it ended with deep wounds to the abdomen or cuts to the great vessels of the neck. That's just one culture and one kind of sword, but it at least gives some idea of how it has played out in modern times with examination from a medically-trained observer.
" and one or both lost blood pressure"
What's that supposed to mean?
@@ohauss That means both participants had lost so much blood from getting cut and stabbed that they lost consciousness or died. Not an unusual outcome when guys start cutting on each other.
@@toddellner5283
That's having a significant drop in blood pressure, which may result in shock or loss of consciousness due to hypoxia of the brain.
@@ohauss Yes. Exactly what I was saying.
As a quick defense of movie sword-fights: please bear in mind that your typical Zorro or Robin Hood or Three Musketeers film includes several, even dozens of extremely brief fights as important characters dispatch nameless goons sometimes two or three at a time within moments. There are two big flashy sword fights in The Princess Bride, both involving two characters that are put forward as exceptionally skillful. There are also several of Prince Humperdink's men that Indigo Montoya dispatches instantly. Films don't do such a terrible job of presenting fights as having a broad variety of durations and scales.
I think the film variation in combat length is too extreme - "1 hp minions" who die instantly, and major characters whose climactic fight scene lasts for several minutes at least. The scene where Montoya instantly kills Humperdinck's guards was a bit of a WTF moment, though it worked as comedy.
This. Exactly what I was thinking.Goons get one shorted and important characters have big dramatic fights and almost nothing in between.
No
Fight duration is determined by the length of dialogue.But don’t worry, sword fans, in many movies guttural sounds cut it as dialogue!
Perhaps then, the most realistic sword fight in The Princess Bride, is where Inigo fights the 6 fingered man?
As a parallel example. Was watching sumo highlights today.
1. Saw matches that lasted 5 seconds
2. Saw very active fights last for a minute or more
3. Saw a fight last 3:30 because the fighters ended up in something of a stalemate with neither able to improve their position in a clinch.
Some of the same principle obviously applies. You can have a fight last 10 seconds because both people attack as furiously as possible, or a fight where both are extremely hesitant to attack.
Some of the long fights also end up as a test of stamina. What looks like a long stalemate can see one wrestler gradually gain an advantage without appearing to do much. Ichinojo ends up in a lot of long bouts because he's content to lean on his opponent, knowing that with his height and weight his opponent has to work harder to maintain parity than he does. In other long bouts one might see a wrestler very gradually improve his position so as to be better placed when things do start moving again. Takayasu was in such a match a tournament or two back - it might have been against Takakeisho, but I don't remember off the top of my head - and while it looked like stalemate, Takayasu was able to slowly advance quite some distance and earn himself some manoeuvring space.
I've no expert whatsoever on sword fighting, but in fighting in general, it can be a viable approach to trust one's defence and allow one's opponent to wear himself out. Naturally such an approach would lead to longer fights than both adversaries attacking in a fury and disregarding their own defence.
MMA can be like that too - sometimes it goes to a 40 minute submission (or at least last time I watched UFCs) and sometimes someone goes down fast with a concussion or knockout. Probably most fights are somewhere in the middle.
There was a reality TV series a few years back where they showed Mongol wrestlers competing during Naadam. As the ranks of competitors thinned out the bouts got more and more boring. One of the final bouts lasted more than an hour because both fighters were equally skilled and immediately locked each other solid then got tired at the same pace as they wriggled like worms trying to dislodge each other. They were still locked in this position when the sun set and everyone went off to eat and drink.
I would love a whole series of Matt just reading through Historical Accounts of duels and fights!!!
It just needs to be taken into account there's a reason why these accounts exist - because they represent circumstances deemed remarkable enough to record them. As in they do not reflect the ordinary but the extraordinary.
@@ohauss Not necessarily so, if you'd notice these were not necessarily in ordinary thing simply these just happened to last long enough to draw eyes
Judicial duels lasted a lot , when people were running around in armour. In the end a fight lasts as long as both sides are able. The longest one I know of ,was one dude defending himself fro m 3 brothers, that ambushed him and killed his father, for almost 2 hours. Till his family arrived and saved him . The dude lost teeth and ear , 3 fingers and had 8 cuts on him.
That makes lots of sense, it's one thing to kill the poor sod when you have numerical advantage, and another to kill him without dying.
Interestingly similar standoffs (albeit usually a lot shorter) still happen in the age of gun, because nobody wants to enter the room/circle the car first when person inside has a gun
@@Sk0lzky
Some of the organized melees lasted even longer, the combat of the thirty lasted something like 9 hours.
@@The_Crimson_Fucker on one hand, given the heavier armour and blunted weapons they used (assuming we're talking about the tournament event) I can see that. On the other hand given the same equipment and that most *combat* melees were in short pushes of intense violence broken up by comparatively long bouts of slinging arrows & insults to rest, I have a hard time swallowing it.
Sources please?
@@nicholashodges201
The Combat of the Thirty wasn't a tournament event, it was a pre-arranged judicial battle.
They used sharp weapons and their actual armor. They disengaged a few times but the actual bouts lasted a fairly long time. It ended when a squire charged through the melee on a horse. SandRhoman History has a good video on it, it's where I learned about it. I'd say "google it" but Google keeps mistaking it for the 30 Years War and refusing to offer anything interesting.
"Combat melees" Were often not strictly planned, often happened during some phase of a much longer battle and often did not involve highly motivated knights on both sides in the best kit they could afford. "slinging arrows" I don't know about this one, honestly. While that certainly would've been characteristic of a lot of the larger battles, a lot of medieval "battles" tended to be either prearanged judicial affairs or only really involving knights, squires and immediate retainers - which is probably why we estimate such low mortality rates.
To my knowledge, people weren't really known to bring bows or crossbows to such events(not least of which because a bolt might actually kill somebody).
Jeez ppl look at modern boxers or more close HMB fights and stop telling fairy tails about 2 hours fights.
Well one thing is for sure, the winner of that second fight was a total badass. % or 6 guys attacking you, defending against multiple opponents, only one of them wounding you and in the end kicking his ass and stepping away with only a knife wound after disarming him, and accidentally defending attacks while when wailing on the opponent. Stone cold bad ass.
“Hey, you should run!”
“Go get me a beer. And then hold my beer.”
Important caveat: "in his own words"
Also, a totally ridiculously over-confident idiot who wouldn't back down in the face of overwhelming odds in a surprise attack. Of such people are ballads written.
@@Chasmodius How as he supposed to back down? He was literally surrounded and the guy was out for blood. The idiot was the guy who attacked him.
@@luckybear20 He was probably an idiot, too, but who knows? I'm no horseman, but are three people on foot really sufficient to stop a horse from bolting?
I think the game Hellish Quart is a pretty good example for duel lengths, despite it being a game it's honestly pretty true to what you'd expect
I wonder if John Ayers had a concussion. I counted 3 separate blows to head and he ended up "vomiting all the way".
Might have also been the chest (Stomach) wound too, shallow enough to not kill, deep enough to damage organs. But getting your head slammed down from standing with double your body weight in inertia also probably a likely candidate.
Lesson to take: real fights are messy; often awkward, too.
True. Before I watched this I had the opinion that the stereotypical martial arts advice to be calm was 90% BS. You need to be a level of angry to hit a person, hit them first and keep hitting them until they can't hit back. But it seems like approaching armed combat that way wins you at best two dead losers.
That second long fight should really be in film. That is a Hollywood fight for sure! Swordfight at Scotland Yard.
Using my sword typically only lasts a minute or two. My usual opponent never fails to remind me.
OOF- That one was below the belt.
Great comment 👍
I have had one as long as 5 minutes. I finished one with two seconds. And got my ass handed to me in 5 seconds.
In short, by my very limited experience, the fights between opponents who want it to be over quickly usually are fast.
A lot of thrusting motions but very little actual penetration?
@@darthkek1953 Hmm, no. Fast cutting combinations from unexpected angles tended to win(or lose) the day. My side of HEMA/HMB frowned on thrusts.
I feel like "going too far in the other direction" sums up the past 6 years or so of HEMA and medieval combat history, people reacted to the unrealistic takes on fights, clothing, armor and weapons of movies but went way too far into "that's not realistic" to the point where it's, ironically, getting unrealistically mundane.
That sums up most of the Internet, not just HEMA. Everything is either black or white, with no other options. Especially people.
@@AnotherDuck Yep, context matters- most of the time it is nearly everything.
"How long is a piece of string?" Well said sir!
Metric or imperial?
@@vorrnth8734 African or European?
@@nomex8461 BLOB or CHAR?
These kind of accounts are fascinating, would love to hear about more of them.
Well that's an interesting question, it could be over in the first exchange it could be over after 10 exchanges if both fighters are of a similar skill and resolve. However it could take a substantial amount of time for 2 hesitant opponents to even come close to engaging in their first exchange.
That's what I was thinking.
It either takes a ridiculously long time, or it's over in seconds.
its like street fights and professional MMA ones, one good hit can end it or it can take a long time, you never know
I've seen several accounts of duels between very defensive people lasting "half the morning". It seems when people were dueling for honor rather then anger they prioritized surviving over killing.
@@williamjenkins4913 It is difficult to restore one's honor, when one is dead.
Well I think that's the stereotypical katana duel :). Two samurai stare each other down, barely moving, for like five minutes, and then in an instant a cut is made and one of them is dead ;).
I was in a fight once, it lasted from when I saw my opponents fist until it made contact with my eye.
This was so good. I loved the readings, I want him to do a full audiobook of those stories. Matt Easton is a gem.
I've seen a sort of "gunfight" before. It was several police officers vs 1 carjacker right outside my apartment. It went on for several minutes with them shooting at each other and the police chasing the guy for 6-7 blocks. About 30 shots were fired, and it only stopped when he gave up after the police shot the guy in the shoulder while he was taking cover behind a car. It's kinda strange that the fight could go on for so long, even with such deadly weapons and it being about 10 police vs 1 guy by the end.
Btw, there were only so many because the guy didn't realize he was running right to the police station, which was right across the street from where I was watching from a second story window.
You should go read up on average how many rounds where used to kill an enemy combatant in WW2.
You'll understand.
And it never fails to amaze me how many idiots seem to think a cars sheet metal will stop pistol rounds
@@Humster
That statistic might be a little skewed due to heavy and light machine guns being involved. The number of rounds fired by individual rifle men would be far lower.
It is a little skewed, but I think that most of the skewing is due to the trench warfare. There are gunfights that are resolved with a single bullet... but there are those where people exchanged whole magasines and no one was even hurt.
@@NetAndyCz
I wonder just how many rounds of .50 BMG were expended by the US Airmy Sir Force or the Navy in WWII for every plane shot down. And how many rounds of 20mm, 40mm or 5" for every aircraft shoot down by ships. On another channel (Drachinifel) I once commented that the amount of shell fragments scattered across the Pacific by the US Navy in WWII would have been enough to build a Yamato class BB.
"...newsflash people. Swords aren't magical! Swords aren't lightsabers! And swords aren't a, uh, instant kill switch, that when you switch it, the other person stops being alive." (Begins hooking up a well insulated saber to a wall outlet in the fencing salle) Hold my mead captain context!
Gotta use that 240 to get them nice and crispy
A sword fight last for much time it needs.
Yup the same as a fist fight, it's over when it's over, each one will be unique.
It depends on the amount of training, endurance, and sometimes the actual weapon...if a man is one with his sword, that can be a deadly combination. However, it would be near impossible having a duel without wounding.
And no more. The longer you fight the more likely something will go wrong and you'll die. You want this unpleasant business over with as quickly as is practical.
How unequal are the opponents -- if one is better than the other in the extreme, the fight will likely be lethal for one very quickly !
Much like, literally everything
feels like how MMA fights/bar fights go versus drawn out professional wrestling or movie fights
Bar fights is a better representation. Someone gets clocked on th chin or slammed onto a hard ass floor and they go flop. It's a lot easoer to take blows in organized mma match. As for a sword fight you are far more likely to end with just one blow. A properly placed cut the weapon hand/arm would be enough to end most duels.
@@myco9253 the interesting thing for me to think about is how MMA fighters can try to win on points, a different motivation and definition of success for bar fights.
@@beepboop204 That's true too, but unless you are doing amatuer stuff (protective gear) most everybody has an I'll knock you out attitude.
@@myco9253 my experience with modern military training also suggests soldiers basically accept that they will die and will try to inflict as many casualties as possible so your mates have less to deal with. there are some UFC with the US Marines training videos i remember, the soldiers vs MMA fighter mentality was stark
Bar fights between people who aren't good fighters can go forever, just windmilling pointlessly and shoving.
One thing that I heard that stick in my mind, probably something Matt said himself, but I'm not positive.
Allegedly there were times when two swordsmen would meet on the battlefield, have a few swings at each other, realise they were fairly equally matched, then break off and both go and find easier targets.
Kind of. Condoteri (probably misspelled, sorry) were notorious for this. But, yeah, if you don't have something personal against the other guy mutually choosing to go fight someone else is wise. In most wars the people fighting had nothing personal against the other guy. They were there because their liege lords called them up. So it wasn't personal.
Dueling was on the other hand intensely personal. This was two guys out to murder each other. Sometimes they both succeeded.
There's an account by a samurai during the Warring States era about when he was retreating after a rout and was being chased by headhunters. One of the headhunters was another samurai and after they locked swords the first time and failed to resolve the fight, both disengaged, split up, then over the next TWO DAYS would occasionally lock swords again and again. Eventually the fight ended when the headhunter gave up.
If everyone is berserker, then yes, every sword fight would end within a few moves, pretty much like what we see in a lot of tournament fights.
idk about classics, but I mostly see in movies how protagonist barely touches his enemies and they die instantly. No retaliation, no stumbling around, just drop dead/unconscious in an instant. Until he meets his nemesis. Then all of a sudden rules are changing and they can throw each other around forever without any visible damage.
It‘s the Hollywood Extra School of Fighting. Treatises say that upon entering the frame forcefully one is to hold up one‘s weapon or better, strike at the air waiting for the mortal blow.
More modern recollections of this art include instructions to avoid cover in a firefight and just blindly run into a corridor in which one‘s companions have just been mowed down.
Mr. Easton, you should do a series a videos that are just readings of duels from your literary collection.
Wow! Great historical read! Thank you so much.
That first description was BRUTAL.
If it's a HEMA fight it can indeed last a while. The fight _proper_ is actually pretty short; the real time sink is all the discussion afterward to determine if the winning move was legitimate or if it does not appear in the manuals.
Lol!
Lol oh so it is like modern sabre XD
'I am not left handed.... Neither am I.' Quotation from the Princess Bride Movie. 😇
For some great sword fights, both long and short, check out the Duellists, directed by Ridley Scott. (Forgive me Matt if you've already mentioned this)
Wonderful movie
I have been struggling with depression and insomnia and lately have had great trouble enjoying things that i know i love. I just had to comment that for whatever reason, this video made me laugh and chuckle more than i have in months :) You make amazing content Matt, thankyou from us all!
Greetings from the future! Just saw this and wanted to check up on you, I hope you're doing a little better these days
Well done sir. Concise at last. I got worried for a second when you said how long is a piece of string and started to go looking for the popcorn.
With full plate I can see a duel last ages. To defeat someone in full plate you have to take them down or find the gaps in the armour, which will surely be easy to defend. Those duels probably lasted longer than any other, I would assume.
What kind of dual would occur with full plate?
@@Omniseed Is two duels a dual?
@@Omniseed Many late medieval ones. Usually with pollaxes first and swords as sidearms, from what I know.
@Obi-Wan Kannabis True, but again, that also depends.
You might get in a lucky shot and bonk the other dude on the top of his helmet in such a way that he's left in a daze and unable to defend himself.
Alternatively, you could bonk him several times but not manage to do more than mildly inconvenience him.
@@Omniseed Judicial?
You see a lot of movies involving Japanese swords and fighting where there are long strikes and lengthy exchanges. I saw a youtube here from a sword master in Japan (forget his name now) where he pointed out that most sword fights in Japan going far enough back involved thrust as the primary choice because a thrust (possibly including lunge) will strike faster than an overhead two handed strike or many other Japanese sword strikes. And since he who gets stabbed first often is the loser in the fight, that first strike can be pretty decisive.
When I trained unarmed against multiple attackers, if everyone rushed you or tried to gang up, you had to move faster than the attackers. And you had to control the space and even use attackers as shields at times from other attackers. It was exhausting. Even after training about 6 hours+ a week for months, 2 minutes in that environment was an eternity and when time was called, you were ready to collapse in a puddle.
I suspect whoever runs out of steam first will tend to lose given other factors equal. In the larger picture, competence/expertise would likely be a major determiner. And if you lose a bit of focus and someone can slice the inside of your wrist or badly hack some digits, the other guy won't hold a weapon much longer.
There's also a strange reality I learned of when talking to a US paramedic who went to many knife/blade injuries and gunshot cases. The 'golden hour' - if you aren't killed outright or get hit in a way that you'll exanguinate in less than two minutes, there's a good chance if you get prompt medical help, you will have a good chance to survive. Another medic who worked in CAF SF explained to me their first focus is gross bleeds, even before airway because you won't choke as fast as a gross bleed will kill you.
The paramedic said another interesting thing: If people get injured when their adrenalin is not fired up, that often takes them right out of the fight. They feel the pain, the adrenalin isn't wound up, and they just crumple. On the other hand, someone ready and stoked up can sometimes take ridiculous amounts of damage before going down.
Lastly: Once the adrenalin comes up, skills you know well, you get a bit better at (focus the likely factor) but if there is a skill you don't know very well, with adrenalin, it goes to sh** and you won't be worth a plug nickel with that. So a ready, focused, adrenalin-flowing master swordsman would be very dangerous but an uprepared, adrenalin not up yet, yob with sword who only kindof knows how to use it will be less able to fight well and will go down often with one good hit.
Some of this explains the variation in timings.
Also, I submit that many very fast striking swordsmen in the modern era (who don't fight for their lives) lack the knowledge that if they screw up, they could be maimed or killed (and maybe killed and not die instantly). I think in cases where your life is on the line, more hesitation and perhaps more cautious and defensive stances to feel out an opponent may be more expected. Also the presence of body armour that will protect you from lethal strikes in key areas will also embolden attack because there's less odds of an offensive approach resulting in an effective counter-strike.
So 'how long was a swordfight' really has a lot of parameters and even then you'll find a variation that could be substantive.
Other than the official duels, no one ever fought only with a blade, there was a lot of punching and kicking along with what ever you could to win. Read of more than a few improm sword fights in Italy came about the defender beating his sword attackers with two sitting stools on alley path in front of a food stall.
That’s sort of surprising or unexpected, That the Man(Dutton) stabbed one the neck twice= SURVIVED. And the Man(Cheek): Stabbed in the stomach and back= DIED. Dutton seems to have been a lucky man. Both, Lucky his wounds weren’t fatal and Lucky he landed fatal blows.
There are a lot of important bits in the stomach area, and lots of layers for internal bleeding to happen.
@@lordcirth Ya definitely, It’s not really surprising that the stomach and back wound were fatal strikes. I guess what I really meant to say was: It’s crazy that neither of the stabs wounds to the other guys neck, Turned out to be fatal. It amazing that both of the blades, Managed to miss all the vital areas in the neck. Because, It would probably be difficult to stick a blade through a neck even once. Without hitting something vital, Even if you were purposely trying to miss everything vital.
Fantastic video Matt! Would love to hear more stories! Could be about anything really.
I'm guessing your kids like it when you read to them, as you're very good at it. ^_^
As you got into the description of the second fight I was thinking I'd like to see that acted out, but the description was so vivid there's no need.
Until someone bleeds out or suffers damage to the CNS.
That will entirely depend on how effective a target is hit. I’ve seen stab wounds with very little blood due to CNS damage stopping the heart and others that were stabbed for 10 mins straight and lived
You remind me of people in poltergeist movies, that see blood dripping from the walls yet refuse to move anywhere else.
@@alvarorodriguez1592 I worked forensics for a while.
You're forgetting the most common means of someone stopping fighting- because they no longer want to. Flight or concession is probably the most common outcome of fights rather than killing blows.
@@EvilTwinn The question was specifically sword fighting. When sharp blades rend flesh, break bone, or pierce organs quitting is just accepting death in most cases.
@@takingbacktoxic7898 And my answer was specifically about sword fighting. Like, swords can deal some serious wounds to people, but the human body's pretty resistant, as you note. You're listing the ways in which the swordfight is guaranteed to end because one party is physically unable to continue. And I would agree that those are true within that criteria. However, I would argue that if one is addressing "how long a swordfight lasts," the answer needs to include those times when someone decides to stop fighting for whatever reason. After all, it's not just instant incapacitation that finishes a fight. That could be someone deciding that they're not going to win and running or hiding behind their friends even though they're completely unharmed. It could be someone with a less-than-lethal wound being debillitated either due to shock or a seeming lack of nerve after having been injured (which I don't look negatively on). The longer of the accounts Matt gives in the video is an example of this. It is certainly a valid and likely common way for swordfights to end. It's worth noting that within a battle context, most of the casualties are noted as taking place in the rout, even after combat as been going on for hours. Clearly, it's not just groups of people getting into a constant fight for that long. They've gotta have breaks every so often, even if you don't subscribe to the pulse theory.
Regarding the three shields in a viking duel... I have a theory.
My theory is that unlike Shields used in warfare doing shields were not covered in rawhide.
The reason is that sword and shield or axe and shield was very common weapon combination in the Viking era and as such would have been used for duels.
But given how tough and durable a properly made rawhide covered shield is it seems unlikely to me that three Shields would be needed during a duel it might prolong the length of a dual unnecessarily.
I think the shields were given so that only a decisive blow against an opponent could end a duel; no minor cuts would do. Yet in order not to allow the dual to last too long a shield had to be easy to destroy.
Three Shields allowed for a user to swap out a shield that have been too badly damaged but also meant that the person couldn't just totally rely on the shield for defense that they had to be more aggressive; especially considering the rules of that type of dual stated that if you ran out of shields you had to fight with just your sword or axe.
In ANY combat/fight situation, the time it can take can be anything from "over in an instant" to "let's just stop and call it a draw."
Case in point: modern MMA or boxing. The shortest MMA fight I'm aware of was over in just over 1 second. The longest was Kazushi Sakuraba and Royce Gracie, at over 90 minutes.
A sword fight is the same, though the more offensive nature of swords over fists lends itself to a fast finish if one party is more skilled than the other. But yeah, saying it's ALWAYS one or two moves just tells me that you've never seriously trained in any serious combative art.
I've seen actual fights (never involving weapons, and excluding planned martial arts events and the like) and, for the most part, they either end really fast, or they end up in a terribly prolonged struggle on the ground, rolling around and desperately trying to gain control over the situation. Very rarely do you see average people get into fights where there's a long period of equals exchanging blows and staying on their feet, and I don't see why this wouldn't extend to sword fighting (there's probably a reason why grappling is so important to HEMA).
That all being said, the situation quickly changes when both parties are skilled practitioners of martial arts, that's when you see those long, drawn out fights.
Another great video. Thanks so much. It reminded me too of school lessons on the Illiad. Warriors having chats and banter with their opponents on the battle field!
Also, Faith No More - my favourite band ever!
Thanks again!
I really enjoyed the fight description - well read!
I am used to throwing the original video where you read this quote/anecdote out to people. Super useful to have a new one! And it's such a good quote/anecdote.
Also, I love that you used the term "(kill)switch" in reference to this. There was a self-defense trainer I listened to once who discussed such in relation to firearms. Everything is a timer except certain parts of the body. If you don't hit it, you only set or increment a timer.
thumbs up for a great video and an extra for the Faith No More shirt, great band.
Fascinating and bloody descriptions, thank you very much.Great job , Matt.
What's funny is that showy fights are not just a Hollywood invention - back in Shakespeare's times, theater plays had fights that look showy. For example, in Hamlet there is a duel at the end where two characters exchange their swords in the midst of the fighting. I would argue that theater then was the equivalent of cinema today, so there you go - some things haven't changed.
There are two differences. One being that modern scripts other than ones for musicals rarely use meter. The other is that we don't usually see multiple directors over a spans of generations direct productions with the same script.
Loved hearing the historical duels
I think that your thumb nail of the 3 musketeers is appropriate as the fights in that movie at least for the repair era is one of the most accurate
The difference between a sword fight and a fist fight is that you generally can’t take too many solid hits in a sword fight unless you’re in armour. However, historically many people did wear armour so it’s a very hard to gauge this.
I imagine it's like tennis: mostly over quickly but the remarkable rallies are the ones that are memorable.
Love the shirt. The rapier fight is insanity. Thanks for sharing
Nice topic. Looking at modern fights it most depends on both fighters level. Experienced MMA fighter can finish street fight in one move but on similar level can lasts forever
OMG how many rapier thrust and still alive. Sabers are the way to go; that's what I got out of this video.
lol, yeah rapiers IMO from what I've seen were really kind of a "we all use these because they are fancy" sort of thing, but as a weapon overall aren't that great. Whereas a saber is essentially the same thing as a scimitar, falchion, cutlass, broadsword, pulwar/tulwar. So it's a weapon that many people's across a wide variety of time and space have used, and in some places still use. Plus they are a lot more versatile in how they can attack, and because of their weight would have a much more effective parry/guard ability than that of a longer, lighter rapier. I mean the guy had 5 or 6 people coming at him and the only person who actually hit him was the "main boss" lol
@@luckybear20 depends really, I heard of a pioneer getting chased by cavalry alone for so long that all of his gear was covered in cuts and still he survived.
And rapiers often won against katana when portuguese sailors duelled japanese people (a katana being quite similar to the swords described in speed and cutting ability).
@@atom8248 rapier would theoretically be able to attack much faster but where did you find sources describing such duels?
"which is the bitter fruit of firery passions." damn...
Written sources are not immune to exaggeration. People love to exaggerate, it add awesomeness. And written sources need to describe things, make them seems longer than in reality. For example, "both of them swing their blades, sparks coming out from the clash, they both feel exhausted, the wind flow washing their face, they breathe heavily and ready to swing at each other again...", in reality this only take in one or two seconds.
Very interesting video. The way people gave their accounts of events in those times are so entertaining to hear.
I like to think that the duration of the sword fights in movies are a depiction how the the protagonists experience them in person.
You know when you think something goes on for ages but in reality it is just a couple of minutes.
One mad minute, or a few seconds.
Italian fencing records shown when it came to street sword fights ending in a grapple and a knee shot between the legs.
I recall reading about Japanese Samurai remains removed from a mass grave. There was a great deal of evidence that light cuts to the head were favored as the initial strike, then wounds to the arms and legs. Once the opponent was blinded with blood from the head wounds the victor went about taking the loser apart before delivering a killing stroke
Matt should read us more stories! These were super fun
I think one of the longest sword fights I've ever heard about is the one that is the focus of the upcoming Ridley Scott movie "The Last Duel". It's also perhaps the most famous example of the concept of the Judicial Duel, aka Trial By Combat.
My first answer to the title would be, "About 15 inches or more, otherwise it's a knife fight."
But if the unarmed fights I have been in and/or witnessed are any measure, once blows are taken, the whole affair is fairly quick IF at least one participant is willing to make it so, AND if the hits land "just right".
The two or three move sword fight probably came from Iaido/Iaijitsu which is specialized for such quick fights and thus has an interest in presenting them as the norm - in a longer fight a Samurai would probably switch to another art (Kenjitsu) after the first few moves.
I would imagine that a determining factor would be mental strength, how long before a belligerent loses his nerve and panics; either runs away or succumbs to his fear.
Expert answers supported by primary source material: appreciated.
Fun! Anything can happen! I was battling my instructor and we were both being cautious and were both very aware and nimble that day, so we’re only landing grazes and tippy shots on each other, when the interaction of our Dussacks caused me to let mine slip in the cut, such that it fell behind him. He giggled and came at me, but I quickly grappled him, turned him around, then shoved him back, leapt backward over my sword, picked it up, parried his incoming thrust, and counter-cut him! Felt epic and might never happen like that again… :)
I’m late to the party, but just wanted to say how grateful I am to see Historical Storytime with Uncle Matt return! Keep it up sir.
Thanks for sharing the stories. They were amazing.
YES! More story time with Uncle Matt please 😁
Sweet shirt! Great album! Kool vid!
The *length* of a movie swordfight isn't desperately important. The fight is just there to tell a story - ideally, if it occurs, the audience understands who is fighting, why they're fighting, what the basic mechanics of the fight are, what the *interesting features* of the fight are, or might be, and when somebody wins or loses, why that happened.
This is what makes the one-hit duel in Seven Samurai, the extended rapier dance in Princess Bride, and the light-sabre battle in the 'Twin Suns' episode of Star Wars: Rebels so amazing.
It's also what makes scripted movie fighting fundamentally different to actual fighting. A movie fight *must* convey a vast amount of information extremely quickly to the viewer. All the tells have to stand out a mile just so anything makes sense at all.
To paraphrase Gandalf: "A sword fight is never too long, nor it is ever too short. It ends precisely when it needs to."
I appreciate your intermittent translation of the older english lol! I'd be lost with some of those. Cool topic as usual sir!
In HEMA a longsword duel to 1 point usually takes 1 to 4 encounters, depending how careful the fencers are. One encounter being about 4 actions (feint, strike, parry, dodge, cut, thrust, etc.)
Much to say on this topic. I think to be fair we should separate the duels from actual battles in warfare to start. We also should be looking at averages on both sword fights and swords in general. Not the extremes but the means. Lets have a talk ! Nice video!
The duration mostly depends on how aggressive the fighters are and how easily they can deliver fatal wounds. The length is mostly about the participants, so it is kind of pointless to talk about averages, because in some sense the fights last as long as the fighters want them to last. What draws them out is the desire to win and not die in the process, but if neither cares about that then the fight can be over as soon as it physically can.
If you charge in and desperately try to hit your opponent at whatever cost, you either hit him, get hit in the process or both. Such fight can be over almost immediately after one exchange. Sometimes such exchange can happen several times until one or the other collapses from the wounds. It depends on the physique of the fighters and where they are hit. Some could call that "luck" as well.
If the fighters are being more careful and passive, they can spend long time probing around, baiting and just trying to find an opening that allows them hit the opponent relatively safely. Then it can escalate quickly, then calm down again especially if both survived the exchange unscathed and so on.
Now, if both are wearing armor it of course means they have more difficult time hurting each other, which in turn means the fights probably lasted longer on average. But then again, maybe the other one is really good at grappling and throws you on the ground immediately and stabs you in the face through the vision slits. There are some many factors that it is hard to know.
@@PacMonster0 British battle , forgot which one but case in point it was near the early fall months.
Battle started in the morning, more or less a pushing/ shoving match with slapping of sword blades.
By mid noon, they were rotating ranks cause of heat exhaustion, then mid day rolled around they took a couple hour break cause the small units and drag out duelers where dropping from heat exhaustion in padded/ metal armor. Over all it was a nice day if you were not sweating your azz off in a winter coat.
After mid day break, they went back to rotating ranks till nightfall. Where an out of season cold snap blow in and the temperature drop.
One side already had camp dinner and hot tea ready by nightfall cause they were set up for the long haul and change into dry fresh warm clothes, the home team thought the battle be over before nightfall and the invaders would be defeated and leave and they would just walk home for the night.
Then shortly after nightfall it start to frost with light snowfall.
The home team were not camp up for a drawn out fight and their heavy cloth padded armor sweaty from the day's exhausting battles started to freeze up the same way people get after someone falls through ice in the cold wind. Hypothermia started to set in without dry warm clothing or hot food & drink. The invaders easily walked over and slaughter them as they laid on the freezing ground shaking and exhausted from fighting most of the day.
Heard of another rout that happen after a day's battle cause by one army fought for a standstill and rotated their ranks and had their troops drink cider & lime/ lemon juice and the other side drink weak beer, wine, and tea cause you just didn't drink strait water at that time. The rival side fought to gain ground and exhausted themselves over two days of fighting. They didn't know .. why .. lemon/ lime juice refresh men after a hot day's worth of working or fighting, but it did.
Other dirty trick on sieged locations and army camps, was just creating enough noise to keep the other side from sleeping for a few days. Till one side basic fell over from exhaustion without putting up a real fight.
I’d love to see a video about the Sword and cudgel fighting in Hockley-In-The-Hole. It sounds absolutely fascinating and virtually gladiatorial in nature.
I love the "storytime" part of this! More, please 😁
I like the movie "Alatriste" the scene here on YT called "Inigo's Revenge".
I Also like the swordfight in "Rob Roy", the final duel between Liam Neeson and Archie, I cannot think of the Actor's name off hand.
I Love the swordfight in "The Mark of Zorro" 1940, even though they used fencing sabers, that was a hell of an intense duel between Tyrone Power and Basil Rathbone.
Last, but not least, the fencing duel between Inigo Montoya and Dread Pirate's Robert's...the final duel between Inigo, and Rugen was an intense swordfight.
Sorry, one more, in 1998's "The Mask of Zorro ", the passionate fight between Don Diego dé LA Vega and Rafeal Montero, especially after that soldier shot Esparanza, both men immediately stopped and Montero ran the soldier through with his cup hilt rapier with no regret...
Tim Roth was the opponent in Rob Roy
@@BoomerZ.artist Thank You, You are correct, He is a Great actor!
That's one of the most beautiful representations of that era(Alatriste),that i could find. And i'm a huge movie buff. Literally you can stop any scene-and there you go,you have a baroque painting. I remember in the beginning,where they are doing a stealth attack,them muddling through waist deep waters,muskets held up high not to wet the match. I heard that it's an oversimplification of many books-so the story may be stunted. But as a period impression-i reckon it's quite good. battles are small,but realistic,the rapier fights raw and hairy...There aren't enough movies about the spanish tercios and the portuguese explorers,to be honest!
@@alakhazom I Agree, great Statement!!! There should be a lot more movies about Conquistador's, and Tercio's. Very interesting time period.
@@mallardtheduck406 There is this mini-series,called Conquistadores Adventum. It is absolutely riveting. Made by the spanish,it portrays the first voyages 30 years after the Reconquista. Columbus,Pizarro,Magellan and many more others. Explorers,oportunists,conquerors. And it's no pc bullcrap either. It kinda shows how sabage those countries were,also.
Great video! If you just count the time it takes to hemorrhage to the point of death from a major artery (femoral or similar) it still takes over 60 seconds. I've been able to see a car accident, pull over, run to the car, triage injuries, identify severed tibial arteries, and apply a tourniquet. That guy had a broken back, a concussion, and was hemorrhaging... and still moving around!! If you want to end a fight, a better bet is to sever the weapon controlling limbs/bone structure/tendons. I have a buddy that had both legs blown off, got thrown 15 feet in the air, and still continued leading the mission from a stretcher (Afghanistan). I say removing the capacity to manipulate a weapon is a much surer bet than trying to shut down the enraged human machine before they can kill/maim you.
The duration of a sword fight might also be increased when armor is worn.
Yeah this analysis reminds me of my knife fighting days (fma) as in training how to knife fight. The more you learn about the knife the more you realize how bad the idea of getting in a knife fight ist. The assumption that it is an affair where usually both parties don't leave unscathed is actually an understatement. We of course used dummy weapons for sparring but you could easily translate to: you will leave a mess almost every time and the winner is probably the one who bleeds out faster. Close combat with meele weapons is goddamn frigthening and I wouldn't recommend it for anything other than recreation (as in training/hema/martial arts) or selfdefence if unavoidable. Dueling... more like a deathwish.
I seen a man in his thirties that makes a full time living as a martial arts instructor and weapons trainer, .. specialty " knives." Former US Marine of eight years.
During a demonstration using a thick head magic marker on how easy it is to get cut and how disarms work and don't work. He got punched off his feet in a single left jab by a 56 yo woman. Explanation, thirty years worth of factory line work and forty five years worth of playing table tennis. She just had a more develop muscle twitch reflex than what he had. And she grew up in a household where your mother ruled by swinging a frying pan.
Faith no more - King for a day--- Fool for a long time. A man of culture, hahaha great video man.
As I have learned in firearm self defense courses as well as other firearms related training which has surprising overlap with sword stuff: A person involved in lethal violence will stop fighting only under the following conditions: 1). They voluntarily stop fighting. (whether through fear, submission, giving up, lack of will, whatever.) 2. Central Nervous system failure, either through CNS destruction (actual penetration or destruction of the CNS, or due to lack of oxygenated blood flow to the CNS. 3. Mechanical destruction of the musculoskeletal system. That's really it. If injuries in a gun fight or sword fight (or whatever) do not cause CNS failure, mechanical failure of the body, and the enemy doesn't give up on their own, fighting will continue until one of those conditions are met.
In the modern Mensur, which is a type of fencing match practiced by student groups like Burschenschaften or Corps, the match can end with a single hit by the first strike or last for half an hour with up to 200 strikes by each individual without anyone hitting his opponent. You can say how long the average fight lasts, but each individual fight can vary greatly, the same probably applied to historical combat.
If both sides are very cautious it might last longer, if both sides are very aggressive it probably won't last very long. The skill level of the participants is also a major factor.
Styles and familiarity with opponents movements should play a role in this as well. Reading some of the old accounts the style a person is fighting in is frequently mentioned if they aren't fighting in the same style. I've done a bit of HEMA and over a decades of martial arts + quite a bit of competitive sports and knowing how your opponent is going to move just from the bare minimum of stance/eye movement, musle twitch, etc makes a HUGE difference in predicting and responding.
The old adage the hand is faster than the eye is absolutely true so the shorter the distance between opponents the faster a fight is likely to end but for two opponents very familiar with each other or the style they are both using could prove the exception to that.
The Duellists (Ridley Scot, 1977) has arguably many of the best fight scenes of duels in film history. It follows Matt's explanation rather good. Skallagrim have seen and rated it very realistic.
the problem is: Define a "swordfight". If we are talking about a duel then it can take its time, if we are talking about 2 soldiers on a battlefield, then urgency will speed up the conflict. Are there witnesses? then that will effect too since neither fighter will want to look bad, not stab the other dude in the back and so on.
Then again you might be called Miyamoto Musashi, and then a swordfight might just be dropping down from a tree at someone resting and driving a blade down the persons spine.
Its kinda like saying "How long is a race", and well, that entirely depends on the race, doenst it? Some lasts for days, others less than a minute.
And what are the conditions for the fight? A fight to the first blood might be a lot quicker than a fight to the death, since the first ends with a blow that leaves the fighter capable of going on if need be, and the other lets the dude or dudette fight on.
But in general, between 15 seconds and 3 minutes i´d say.
longer than my resolve to get fit!
Something I think the late Bill Hobbes choreographed brilliantly: when his fights got long, they get very messy. And I think this is true to life with any kind of fight. If the fight goes on for multiple minutes, it won’t be a sequence of perfect technique: the combatants will get exhausted, there will be grappling, things will get sloppy.
Matt felt personally attacked, "ONE or TWO strikes?!?! Are you kidding me?" _Begins writing formal duel challenge._
This was a very enjoyable video, thanks !
Something else that can extend the length of a fight that I think a lot of people don't consider is that unlike most Hollywood fights, the combatants often don't just charge in swinging. Instead they move in tentatively and throw out a few cautious attacks, to try to get a feel for their opponent. Once one of them fully commits to an attack, it might be over quickly, but that initial feeling out period is part of the fight too.
Had a fun sword and buckler exchange on Tuesday that lasted just under 5 minutes.
Everything before the final blow were very superficial, basically scratches.
wow, very cool. do more stories and accounts from historical battles please!
I think it would depend heavily on the armour used and whether it was 1 on 1 or not. And how skilled and cautious the fighters were.
And yes horses are tough:p
Very interessting Video! Always wondered if it would realy be as quick bitween 2 trained fighters.
And I love your shirt! Great album of Faith No More!
(4:30) there is a great example of the three shields thing in the "13th worrior" film, an adaptation of "Eaters of the Dead," probably the best part of the film really.
Great depth vid. Loved it 😍