I've been reading By the Sword, a social history of (mostly western) swordsmanship by Olympic fencer Richard Cohen. Mr. Cohen has an obvious passion for his subject and has undertaken extensive research, but his experience has clouded some of his perceptions of the subject.
To be fair, Cohen is of two minds, and mouths a few platitudes. At one point he accurately quotes the noted expert Ewart Oakeshot on the fact that medieval swordsmanship had art. But he quickly dismisses the medieval form as unschooled and lacking in subtlty. The medieval form's greatest sin is that it lacks the complictaed and extended "phrases" that make up modern sword exchanges. Later, Cohen admires the Renaissance development of the rapier, and the corresponding emphasis on the thrust. But then he decries that rapier fighters still circled each other rather than fight in the straight lines of modern fencing.
Swords of medieval times were well made status symbols among the elite knights, but they were secondary weapons on the field, to be used to slash lighter armored infantry from horseback after the lance was used in the initial charge. Early medieval swords emphasized the slash, and were made to hew through mail. The cycle of battle technology created improving defenses and the elite medieval warrior incorporated metal plates as armor. Swords did change to incorporate a more defined point to thrust through open gaps, but increasingly the weapon of choice against a plate armored opponent was a bludegeoning tool such as a mace, hammer, axe, or morning star. The sword was still mainly reserved for slashing the light infantry.
In tournaments, were the sword was still used against opponents in heavy armor, it grew in size, and was typically blunter. Compared to the lightning quick exchanges of a modern fencer, these duels did seem slow and ponderous. But the medieval armorer knew his craft, and even a heavily armored warrior was surprisingly nimble. The fighter used his whole body to propel the sword and avoid incoming blows. Tournament fighting caused deaths, but generally this was a battle against exhaustion as one fighter battered his opponent into submission.
The rapier did not emerge because the thrust of a point is "better," which is a subjective term. It appeared because there was need for a light (and even fashionable) defensive weapon for an emerging, town-based middle class. These people fought unarmored, and the quick thrust had certain advantages of speed. Rarely, however, were rapiers taken to the battlefield, and swords with heavy, broad blades continued to exist alongside the rapier for centuries. A bastard form, usually called a "cut and thrust" sword also existed though it lacked the speed of the rapier and heft of a battle sword.
When widespread firearms were introduced during this period, swords changed again as their use changed. Small swords emerged as fashion accessories and last ditch self-defense weapons. These are almost vestigial swords. Sabers, on the other hand were heavy military blades with a form useful to cavalry troops who still charged into infantry formations and broke them with shock and slashing attacks. For private duels, the weapons still tended to be heavier than everyday civilian counterparts, but were generally not as heavy as military swords.
Modern fencing is built on the techniques that developed in this last era of combat swordsmanship. However, it has taken on distinctly sporting habits. A sliding grip to extend the reach for a sly point is a common technique with sporting application, but nearly useless as a serious combat technique. The swords and their techniques are elegant, and the phrases exchanged during a conversation of blades is a beauty to watch. However, a long ago combatant would probably sneer at the foppery of entangling blades for extended periods when you might need it to ward off a second opponent.
I still recommend the book to anyone interested in the history of swordsmanship. But keep a close eye on the author's prejudices. They are as interesting a story as any he tells.
OK, so I was riding around in the gas-guzzler yesterday when my wife stuck in one of her new CDs. It's all sixties covers, and I was less than enthusiastic, but at least it wasn't Sixties British folk. (And, I decided long ago that as a man who still regrets not replacing his Poison cassettes with CDs, I have no right to criticize someone's taste in music.)
Anyway, here's another shot of Ms. Hoffs. I wouldn't want to leave you with Mr. Sweet on your mind and give you nightmares...
Ever hear of Motosada Mori? You probably have if you play Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. He's the brains behind the fighting system called CQC showcased in the video game. What's CQC? I'm glad you asked. It's a unique system of armed close quarter combat in which the operator uses a drawn pistol and knife at the same time. Still never heard of it? (Man, you really don't play video games...) I don't blame you. It seems no martial artist or operator (LEO, special agent, or other warrior of your choice) in the US has seen much of anything about this "revolutionary" system outside the video game.
The obvious question is, "Does it work?" Beats me. It seems to work in the video game, but that's no test. Everything works according to script. (Certainly you don't believe Keanu Reeves can take on a room of kung fu fighters, do you?) While the techniques are suppossedly based on proven jujutsu and other Japanese budo styles, who knows if the new system works?
Well, Motosada Mori should know. His credentials beyond video games are that he has trained SWAT-type teams in Japan. So what? (I mean that respectfully, but truly.) Proof is in the doing. With all the hype for "reality-based" fighting arts in the US (with rabid consumers in the martial arts, local, state, and federal agencies, and the military), and the blurring line between empty-hand martial arts, and the use of guns and knives, you'd think this CQC system would've taken off somewhere here. But I've heard zip. No buzz outside a few videogamers posting on the web who seem to have a hard time telling the difference between fantasy and reality.
Sorry, I couldn't fit this one below. Chuck Heston as Nick Fury in True Lies.
Ultimate Nick Fury bears an uncanny resemblance to Samuel L. Jackson. Go figure.
Mego-style Nick Fury
The Nick Fury SHIELD Needle Gun, designed by Jim Steranko
The best Nick Fury was the Angelina Jolie version in the Sky Captain movie. (Just Kidding.)/poster2.jpg)
And let's not forget David Hasselhoff's gruff turn as Col. Fury. To prepare for the role, he stayed constipated for over a week. And yes, that's Lisa Rina as his sidekick Val. You remember her, she was also on Dancing with the Stars.
Hasselhoff is his generation's Shatner. He'll have a major comeback someday.
The first recorded sighting was in November of 1896, and in California, where all great fads must start. Over the course of the next year, there were hundreds of reported sightings of a long, cigar-shaped flying object the glided silently through the skies of the United States. Some reports said it had propellers, other talked about red and green lights. And a few even mentioned pilots. Before you knew it, we had the first major UFO sightings and the so-called Airship flap of 1897.
Also, as the story grew, a few reports of a mysterious inventor appeared, who was jealously guarding his secret in order to get it to the Patent Office after his "flight tests." One California attorney even stepped forward claiming to represent the inventor. In addition, there were stories of the airships landing and the pilots interacting with locals. In one case asking for some "lubricating oil, cold chisels, and bluestone." (Bluestone happens to be the predominant rock type in Stonehenge monuments, but whether or not that is in any way related is your guess.)
There was only one report that a crashed airship was from Mars. This happened in Aurora, Texas. The mystery pilot was buried (at least, according to the story) and his location was known until investigators, real newspaper reporters, went looking for him in the 1970's. The cemetery claimed they had meticulous records, and had no record of a John Doe related to this incident. However, the story surfaced that someone had exhumed the body and moved the gravestone.
So what is the likely truth? Was there a mysterious airship inventor? Well, in this case, the possibility isn't 100% impossible, but it is against the odds. What we do know is that the world was a very different place back then. Newspapers in the 1890s were known for enlivening slow newsdays with the kinds of distant wire reports we today only see in the Weekly World News. Telegraph operators use to entertain each other by making up outlandish stories to pass back and forth between each other, and sometimes these bogus stories were mistaken -- or intentionally passed off -- for real news. Maybe there was a kernel of truth to a few of these wild reports, but few have any hard evidence to attach to them. And we also know that no inventor, or his attorney, ever did file a related patent for an airship. At least, not in the United States...
