Tuesday, April 08, 2003

An overly simplified but still accurate account of the decline in armor traces it to the invention of firearms. Although the heavy plate one thinks of knights wearing was by no means proof against damage before that time, the advent of cannon and musket was the first note of its deathknell. Weapons that had needed significant force to damage the occupant of such a suit, like the holy water sprinkler were replaced by slim swords designed to cut or puncture a lightly armored opponent. Combat had changed.

And as combat changed, the schools which taught it changed as well, although there were dissenters. Schools of the fence sprang up throughout major cities, to teach the bravos and ruffians to survive in this new arena. We like to think of the musketeers of Dumas, skilled swordsman meeting their opponents at a pre-arranged time and fighting with and for their honor. But swordsplay was just as commonly an assault, as most knife attacks are today (for an excellent overview of knife attacks, I recommend Marc MacYoung's videos on the subject). Schools taught the use of a bar mug in the off hand as a parrying tool, since bars were a common place for these brawls. Cloaks would be wrapped around the arm, bar stools used to disarm, and the tactical use of a kick to the groin or sand thrown in the eyes was often stressed.

All of this is foreign to fencing as the Olympic sport. Such techniques, while helpful for practice, are removed from the chaos and ferocity of a real fight. As an example, current foil fencer will 'flick' their opponent, bending the sword around in an arc (thus avoiding the parrying blade) to strike the tip against their opponent. While the tip is, at such a time, the second fastest moving object in the Olympics (the fastest is the biathlete's bullet), an attack like that is not designed to disable an opponent, but to win a point. Can such an attack have any practical value?

Enter the sjambok. I received one of these weapons for Christmas, and promptly fell in love with it. A flexible weapon, it can be used like a stick, but unlike the stick is almost completely non-lethal (although one might strangle the opponent with it). The weapon will cut through blue jeans, as I have found through painful experience, and is exceedingly effective when used along eight of the nine lines of attack (it is by no means a thrusting weapon) just as a stick may be.

But the flicks which I thought useless and confined to sport fencing are where the sjambok truly shines. A proper flick will put a hole in an aluminum can. The angle of attack is such that it is quite difficult to defend against, as the sjambok will bend around a block easily, only gaining force as the circle about which it is turning has its radius shortened. While the sjambok cannot be used to damage as a stick may, or to entangle as a whip, it is a self-defense weapon without parallel, giving painful wounds that are almost impossible to guard against.