fighting machetes

[medcommander]

I would suggest googling HEMA and either cutlass, falchion, messer, or sabre. Chopping and cutting weapons were prevalent throughout history. Their are multiple systems and weapons designed for this specific purpose.

 

[nemesis]

I don't think it's made anymore but if you could find a Kelley Warden/Ontario collaboration machete it may fit your criteria and be a cool collectible. I used to own the one in the picture but sold it.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I would suggest googling HEMA and either cutlass, falchion, messer, or sabre. Chopping and cutting weapons were prevalent throughout history. Their are multiple systems and weapons designed for this specific purpose.

Arguably none of those are quite like machetes, although there are similarities. The closest would be some of the very whippy swords found in Indian martial art systems like shastar vidya and gatka.

 

[willseeyalater]

Someone has to say it, two barongs don't make a right.

 

[medcommander]

FortyTwoBlades: Yes they are... A Langes Messer as described in Hans Talhoffers treaties is basically a badass machete with a crossguard and nail, and falchion is similar but with a pass through hilt design. The cut and thrust sabers common to western Europe were excellent choppers, often being tested by cutting through a bar of lead, and the guard provided the necessary protection for blade on blade combat. By the way whippy swords are B.S., and as gatka has been mystycized to the point of absurdity I believe that Polish saber is probably a more accurate representation of Western Eurasian sword use.

If you are looking for a more utility version of these tools check out the Khyber knife, long seax, or any of the early European war knives. The problem that you run into with these knives is that they lack any real hand protection, and like the more machete like tools were usually used with a buckler or shield. Because of this they are used more like big knives rather than any true sword.

 

[painkilleraz]

The differences being that sabers in specific tend to have a significantly thicker spine for increased rigidity with strong distal taper and usually deep fullers, often a different curve shape to the point, and a full hilt. This combines to give a much lower point of balance (usually only a few inches in front of the guard) while giving the strength for true blade-on-blade defensive actions without the blade flopping over and yielding to the force involved.

Here's a beautiful example of advanced historical military saber form (Hutton). Many of these actions would not be feasible with a machete either due to balance (timing), lack of rigidity in the blade, improper tip shape, or lack of hand protection.

[video=youtube;DTqeuKW7tHY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTqeuKW7tHY[/video]

Makes sense.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

FortyTwoBlades: Yes they are... A Langes Messer as described in Hans Talhoffers treaties is basically a badass machete with a crossguard and nail, and falchion is similar but with a pass through hilt design. The cut and thrust sabers common to western Europe were excellent choppers, often being tested by cutting through a bar of lead, and the guard provided the necessary protection for blade on blade combat. By the way whippy swords are B.S., and as gatka has been mystycized to the point of absurdity I believe that Polish saber is probably a more accurate representation of Western Eurasian sword use.

If you are looking for a more utility version of these tools check out the Khyber knife, long seax, or any of the early European war knives. The problem that you run into with these knives is that they lack any real hand protection, and like the more machete like tools were usually used with a buckler or shield. Because of this they are used more like big knives rather than any true sword.

Neither the langes messer nor the falchion is like a machete other than being chopping sword designs. Machetes are much thinner in overall form and more flexible as a result. Whippy swords aren't BS, and were pretty common in India alongside more rigid examples, but I do agree that gatka is not necessarily a model system for learning practical martial arts. Rather that the interaction of the flexible blades is more similar to what you would see with machetes.

Notice the "stickiness" Professor Avril (now sadly deceased) uses when parrying. The flexibility of the blade requires it in order to properly immobilize or deflect the other machete.

[video=youtube;-bSYr3TVCuU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bSYr3TVCuU&index=3&list=PLnxhIFIZjABFF6h08Ko_SIMMhpCElJ-wj[/video]

[video=youtube;DeANV5fn86o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeANV5fn86o&list=PLnxhIFIZjABFF6h08Ko_SIMMhpCElJ-wj&index=7[/video]

 

[aguijonmagico]

Obiously the new dao machete by cold steel. Also by the same brand the tactical katana and the gladius. The easier one to handle it's the dao, and would give you a definite advantage over latin machetes or models to use one handed, with no guards and lesser reach.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

One handed use actually gives longer reach for equal blade length, as a heads-up.

 

[RamZar]

There's also the manageable Fox Knives Military Division's Golok Hitam Machete Fighting Blade. An 8.85" blade of N690 stainless steel (0.23" thick), overall length of just over 14" and weighing 13.5 ounces. Versatile sheath.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I'd personally consider that to be more of an ethnic-inspired chopping knife rather than a machete, per se. Manufacturers lately have taken to calling all manner of things machetes when they really are made using the design philosophy of a knife.

 

[Guyon]

So he wants to do a little machete fightin', is that so barong?

Best line of the thread.

I'd hate to face two of these.

 

[medcommander]

"The differences being that sabers in specific tend to have a significantly thicker spine for increased rigidity with strong distal taper and usually deep fullers, often a different curve shape to the point, and a full hilt. This combines to give a much lower point of balance (usually only a few inches in front of the guard) while giving the strength for true blade-on-blade defensive actions without the blade flopping over and yielding to the force involved."

1. I recognize that the etymology of swords can be confusing, but I would contend with a Hutton sabre actually being called a sabre. As a later model "sabre" it is closer in design and use to a rapier or spadroon. Sabre (NOT Saber!) comes from the French Sabre which was derived from the Polsh szalbya, was developed as a cavalry weapon, and was used to great affect by the Hungarians, Ottomanns, and Indian militaries. If you look at the history of the sabre you will see that it was primarily a cutting and slashing weapon until it encountered, and was modified by, the more thrust centric styles of central and western Europe to resemble the later Hutton and Patton sabres. Most sabres are balanced far forward of the handle so to emphasize their ability to cut.

Here is a sparring video of the more cut centric Western European (Polish) Sabre

[video=youtube;n5w2Mh6CyXo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5w2Mh6CyXo[/video]



"Notice the "stickiness" Professor Avril (now sadly deceased) uses when parrying. The flexibility of the blade requires it in order to properly immobilize or deflect the other machete."

2. I appreciate the anthropologic value of Haitian machete fighting, but as a practical fighting art it is BS. Parrying has nothing to do with flexibility, although I would argue that blade rigidity rather than flexibility is the key to a good parry. By the way all swords "stick" due to bite of their sharp edges (feels kind of like they're magnetic). The movements of the demonstrators in this scene are in false time->Feet, Body, Arm, Hand rather than in true time ->Hand, Arm, Body, Feet, making the movements slow while providing large openings for attacks. They also fail to acknowledge the importance of protecting the inside line, this would be fatal in a real sword fight for an opponent could then finish them with a thrust or cut in the next tempo. Finally I would say that twirling in a sword or knife fight will get you killed, like boxing the goal of sword and knife fighting is to keep your moves compact, efficient, and effective.

Here is a good demonstration of Langes Messer fencing for comparison

[video=youtube;38sVdx7nzhQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVdx7nzhQ[/video]


"Whippy swords aren't BS, and were pretty common in India alongside more rigid examples..."

3. Are you referring to the Urumi (whip sword)? These were not very common, and were never really used as battlefield implements. Instead most Indian troops carried versions of the sabre, arming sword, and falchion whose form had been slightly modified due to the variation in culture and use. Similar patterns of sword are pretty much ubiquitous throughout history due to the effectiveness of their design.Weapons were usually popular because they worked, and while whip swords are cool they face many complications when used in a battlefield setting.


OP Response

1. A machete is a chopping implement. Basically all chopping or cut & thrust implements with a blade greater than >20 inches are used in a similar manner. Utilizing cross cuts, passing footwork, slips and dodges, and a control of distance you will try to open up your opponent without leaving yourself open to attack. Choose whatever implement you want, be it thick or thin, and learn how to apply it as a weapon.

2. Suggestions:

Low Budget: Get a Tramontina Latin Machete or Authentic Kukri (used more similarly to a large knife). They are useful for work and they will allow you to apply your new found knowledge of timing, distance, and technique on a resistive material.

High Budget: Purchase an antique or reproduction cutlass, falchion, or messer to use in the field. These options are less useful as tool, but that is because they have been modified for actual combat. I would like to remind you that these are still sharp blades and will be able to chop through brush with the best of them. These are also useful, for nylon and blunt reproductions models are available that you can be used for sparring and further training.

 

[Surfingringo]

Informative post, thanks. (BTW, cavalry not calvary) I'm not trying to bust your balls, it just made me chuckle that that came in the same sentence in which you were correcting someone else's spelling. Ok, maybe I am breaking your balls just a little, but I'm smiling good naturally whilst doing it.

 

[painkilleraz]

Modern sword fighting is quite different then sword fighting of yor.


Know your history

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

"The differences being that sabers in specific tend to have a significantly thicker spine for increased rigidity with strong distal taper and usually deep fullers, often a different curve shape to the point, and a full hilt. This combines to give a much lower point of balance (usually only a few inches in front of the guard) while giving the strength for true blade-on-blade defensive actions without the blade flopping over and yielding to the force involved."

1. I recognize that the etymology of swords can be confusing, but I would contend with a Hutton sabre actually being called a sabre. As a later model "sabre" it is closer in design and use to a rapier or spadroon. Sabre (NOT Saber!) comes from the French Sabre which was derived from the Polsh szalbya, was developed as a cavalry weapon, and was used to great affect by the Hungarians, Ottomanns, and Indian militaries. If you look at the history of the sabre you will see that it was primarily a cutting and slashing weapon until it encountered, and was modified by, the more thrust centric styles of central and western Europe to resemble the later Hutton and Patton sabres. Most sabres are balanced far forward of the handle so to emphasize their ability to cut.

Here is a sparring video of the more cut centric Western European (Polish) Sabre



"Notice the "stickiness" Professor Avril (now sadly deceased) uses when parrying. The flexibility of the blade requires it in order to properly immobilize or deflect the other machete."

2. I appreciate the anthropologic value of Haitian machete fighting, but as a practical fighting art it is BS. Parrying has nothing to do with flexibility, although I would argue that blade rigidity rather than flexibility is the key to a good parry. By the way all swords "stick" due to bite of their sharp edges (feels kind of like they're magnetic). The movements of the demonstrators in this scene are in false time->Feet, Body, Arm, Hand rather than in true time ->Hand, Arm, Body, Feet, making the movements slow while providing large openings for attacks. They also fail to acknowledge the importance of protecting the inside line, this would be fatal in a real sword fight for an opponent could then finish them with a thrust or cut in the next tempo. Finally I would say that twirling in a sword or knife fight will get you killed, like boxing the goal of sword and knife fighting is to keep your moves compact, efficient, and effective.

Here is a good demonstration of Langes Messer fencing for comparison


"Whippy swords aren't BS, and were pretty common in India alongside more rigid examples..."

3. Are you referring to the Urumi (whip sword)? These were not very common, and were never really used as battlefield implements. Instead most Indian troops carried versions of the sabre, arming sword, and falchion whose form had been slightly modified due to the variation in culture and use. Similar patterns of sword are pretty much ubiquitous throughout history due to the effectiveness of their design.Weapons were usually popular because they worked, and while whip swords are cool they face many complications when used in a battlefield setting.

I've seen those videos before, though thanks for linking them for others. I used the Hutton bladework simply as an example of bladework that is able to be done with a saber but not so much with a machete. I have in my personal collection a NCO American naval cutlass circa roughly 1780 that would be well within the bounds of what would be considered a saber or saber-like sword, and compared to machetes it is balanced very close to the hand and despite its curved cutting blade it is stiff enough to thrust effectively. An Imacasa 20" panga machete, for instance, has very nice distal taper to it and balances about 7.5" in front of the handle, which makes it a pit ponderous for combative use. By stickiness in parrying I mean that after the parry is made (using the flat of the blade) that pressure continues to be applied to prevent the opponent's blade from slipping. I'm emphatically not referring to edge-on-edge sticking, but rather the way the blade is kept in very close contact in a way that it may be disengaged yet keep the line closed. The pressure from the flexible blade creates something of a curved slope that helps keep the blade from slipping. I was not referring to urumi or "whip swords" but swords with fairly thin and flexible blades more akin to what is commonly seen in machetes. It isn't difficult to find tulwar or khanda with combat-intended blades that are very thin and flexible. Not like noodles or anything, but much like a saw blade. Thrusting with them would be impossible.

 

[medcommander]

FortyTwoBlades:
Ah thank you for the clarification. I have heard HEMA practitioners refer to that "stickiness" as "the bind", and I would agree that being able to feel pressure through the blade is an important part of swordsmanship. I don't know if I would refer to swords with a cutting blade with a large distal taper as whippy, for to me they are thicker than description typifies. I think a better description would be flexible or springy. I would also argue that the flat is usually used for a passive parry while edge on parry would be more effective in as it is a more active parry. This is due to the fact that you can apply more force to a smaller area when using the edge, meaning that in a bind or parry where two equal forces collide an edge will always displace a flat. Usually the flat is used more as a passing move, which in the context of the machete is kind of dangerous considering that its lack of guard makes it very unsuitable for prolongated blade contact. A more effective strategy would be to cross cut your way past their guard and use the opening you create to end them rightly.

Surfinggringo

Its all good Actually I want to be clear that FortyTwoBlades was not mistaken in his spelling. In America we have bastardized sabre into saber. That statement was meant more to clarify rather than admonish, for I felt that the bastard form of the word should be ignored when discussing etymology. My contention was more with his categorization of the saber by its hilt and grip rather than the style of its blade.

painkilleraz

"Modern sword fighting is quite different then sword fighting of yor."

I am going to take this comment as "The context today is different, and our martial skills should evolve to suit this new context." I would definitely agree with you that many of the weapons and skills inherent to historical martial arts are no longer suitable for use in todays martial environment, and that as modern martial artists we should focus on optimizing our technique to the dangers of the present rather than those of the past. However I would argue that ignoring centuries worth of martial knowledge would be an act of massive arrogance. Why would you ignore the techniques of the people who made 3/4 of the worlds landmass their b*@!#?

 

[M1GarandGuy]

What kind of fantasy land do you live in? When/where would you be fighting with a machete?

"What kind of fantasy world do you live in?" Are you kidding me?! Stop being a Smart Alec and answer the question!

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

FortyTwoBlades:
Ah thank you for the clarification. I have heard HEMA practitioners refer to that "stickiness" as "the bind", and I would agree that being able to feel pressure through the blade is an important part of swordsmanship. I don't know if I would refer to swords with a cutting blade with a large distal taper as whippy, for to me they are thicker than description typifies. I think a better description would be flexible or springy. I would also argue that the flat is usually used for a passive parry while edge on parry would be more effective in as it is a more active parry. This is due to the fact that you can apply more force to a smaller area when using the edge, meaning that in a bind or parry where two equal forces collide an edge will always displace a flat. Usually the flat is used more as a passing move, which in the context of the machete is kind of dangerous considering that its lack of guard makes it very unsuitable for prolongated blade contact. A more effective strategy would be to cross cut your way past their guard and use the opening you create to end them rightly.

My reason for referencing the distal taper has more to do with balance. That particular model has the taper largely to increase the rigidity of the 20" blade, and if the blade were narrow this would result in a balance point closer to the hand, but the panga style blade flares out at the tip to purposefully shift the mass even more forward, beyond the point that would be optimum for fighting purposes. Hence one of the reasons I stated that swords tend to have a point of balance closer to the hand than many machetes do. Lighter machetes intended for lush vegetation tend to balance more similarly to a sword, but at the same time tend to lose their comparative rigidity because it's not a functional requirement for the tool beyond not flopping like a noodle in use (which is most unpleasant.) They are made just rigid enough to behave well in tool usage but not robust enough to resist another blade well. Closing out a line with a bind with a machete vs. another machete is difficult due to the flexibility of the blades, so while an edge parry would better catch a blade, it would also be easy for an opponent to pull free from it after more than a brief moment and then you'd be chasing their blade without edge contact to continue closing them out. Using the flat under pressure would be best suited to a more prolonged contact such as thwarting a retreating opponent from lashing out at you as you close to deliver a blow. The arch of the blade under pressure gives enough deflection to provide a slightly greater margin of safety in pushing the blade away from your body.

 

[Charlie Mike]

[video=youtube;z_k3dZ3jHrs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_k3dZ3jHrs[/video]