A bit off tangent from the usual posts but I find it interesting how much the old knights manuals and sword instruction books of earlier centuries had grappling in them. Talhoffers 15th century book has pages devoted to it, even in the sword, poleaxe and dagger sections a lot of moves involve a grapple. I think its the reality that being primates we will grab a hold of something if we have a chance, especially if clashing together, and if you are good at doing that you can be dangerous to the guy with less skills in it.
I have also read accounts of medieval duels, the real old stuff, where one of the combatants was considered "more of a wrestler than good swordsman". I think particularly when armor is involved, grappling becomes even more useful. Some guy is better with the blade, so you shield rush him, single leg him like the UFC or college wrestling teaches you, then it comes down to who is better on the ground forcing a dagger into each other. Un- armored blade fighting, like rapier duels also had grappling too. 'm not making this up, its in the manuals. I would hazard samurais were similarly versed in these skills though have not researched asian martial arts myself.
I think one of the reasons the importance of wrestling with blades is lesser known to the average guy is firstly hollywood never covered it in movies
From Erol flynn swashbuckling to wesley snipes fighting vampires with a sword, audiences would rather see fancy and lengthy sword duels on the feet. Also, the sport of fencing developed from small sword duels, where in the later period, grappling was seen as ungentlemanly as was commanding the opponents blade( grabbing it when in a bind, a legitimate technique) Sport fencing therefore included none at all. The centuries before that, rapier duels, more stuff was legal! Its also worth noting, some of earliest prizefighting in Europe involved three bouts between competitors- an unarmed combat bout( which was loosely a mixture of wrestling and boxing) a blade or sword and buckler bout, and a bout with the staff. Boxing evolved from this, the sport gradually lost the weapons, and ultimately the grappling. What many dont realise is boxing rules in the early 1800's still allowed grappling, its loss was fairly recent from a historical standpoint.
I also notice a lot of medieval re-enactment and western martial arts societies, while being aware of the importance of grappling througout history, tend to brush over it in their club sparring or teachings. This probably because grappling is damn hard work No one wants to put the hours into the drills and fitness needed to grapple( as anyone who has done collegiate wrestling or BJJ will attest). Its easier and more fun to do a modified form of olympic fencing on the feet and call it a day. Grappling live in armor is also pretty damn painful too.
One advantage of grappling is we know precisely how it works, how to do it, and how to get good at it, since its a living sport. The moves in the old knights manuals are immediately recognizable even to a school age wrestler. Im not suggesting bare-grappling is a defence to a knife-fight mind you! Just that it has a place when both of you have a knife.
The issue with many blade styles, is while we have a 'fair idea' how a lot of them might have worked, the reality is without large numbers of people doing such a sport, a lot of the old plates and drawings could be getting misinterpreted. Like trying to learn muay thai purely from a book. Its going to look a lot different from learning it from a thai boxing coach.
Im not knocking any current styles btw, I think any re-enactment or sword style is worth looking at, as is olympic fencing itself. Just mentioning as you see posts about civil disobedience and SHTF and self defence with swords, its worth noting all the skills the old masters considered useful
I have also read accounts of medieval duels, the real old stuff, where one of the combatants was considered "more of a wrestler than good swordsman". I think particularly when armor is involved, grappling becomes even more useful. Some guy is better with the blade, so you shield rush him, single leg him like the UFC or college wrestling teaches you, then it comes down to who is better on the ground forcing a dagger into each other. Un- armored blade fighting, like rapier duels also had grappling too. 'm not making this up, its in the manuals. I would hazard samurais were similarly versed in these skills though have not researched asian martial arts myself.
I think one of the reasons the importance of wrestling with blades is lesser known to the average guy is firstly hollywood never covered it in movies
From Erol flynn swashbuckling to wesley snipes fighting vampires with a sword, audiences would rather see fancy and lengthy sword duels on the feet. Also, the sport of fencing developed from small sword duels, where in the later period, grappling was seen as ungentlemanly as was commanding the opponents blade( grabbing it when in a bind, a legitimate technique) Sport fencing therefore included none at all. The centuries before that, rapier duels, more stuff was legal! Its also worth noting, some of earliest prizefighting in Europe involved three bouts between competitors- an unarmed combat bout( which was loosely a mixture of wrestling and boxing) a blade or sword and buckler bout, and a bout with the staff. Boxing evolved from this, the sport gradually lost the weapons, and ultimately the grappling. What many dont realise is boxing rules in the early 1800's still allowed grappling, its loss was fairly recent from a historical standpoint.I also notice a lot of medieval re-enactment and western martial arts societies, while being aware of the importance of grappling througout history, tend to brush over it in their club sparring or teachings. This probably because grappling is damn hard work
No one wants to put the hours into the drills and fitness needed to grapple( as anyone who has done collegiate wrestling or BJJ will attest). Its easier and more fun to do a modified form of olympic fencing on the feet and call it a day. Grappling live in armor is also pretty damn painful too.One advantage of grappling is we know precisely how it works, how to do it, and how to get good at it, since its a living sport. The moves in the old knights manuals are immediately recognizable even to a school age wrestler. Im not suggesting bare-grappling is a defence to a knife-fight mind you! Just that it has a place when both of you have a knife.
The issue with many blade styles, is while we have a 'fair idea' how a lot of them might have worked, the reality is without large numbers of people doing such a sport, a lot of the old plates and drawings could be getting misinterpreted. Like trying to learn muay thai purely from a book. Its going to look a lot different from learning it from a thai boxing coach.
Im not knocking any current styles btw, I think any re-enactment or sword style is worth looking at, as is olympic fencing itself. Just mentioning as you see posts about civil disobedience and SHTF and self defence with swords, its worth noting all the skills the old masters considered useful
Last edited:
