The reason I ask is I Fence (as in swords not ..ermm fences).
I fence mainly with a foil but can use an epee. This is a very modern sport with all of the electrics, gadgets and rules not to mention the change in the swords themselves, however it did sort of start about 1200 BC.
What do people on here think? Do any of you Fence or do you see modern fencing different to primitive weaponry?

Just wondering really so any thoughts welcome.

Cheers,

rope

I used to fence quite a bit, mostly épée. I'm not sure that I'd agree about the technology required to make a foil. Admittedly the modern ones are relatively sophisticated, but the improvements have been to safety/uniformity not basic function. Light practice gear has been around for a very long time, it just used to hurt a little more and the possibility of points breaking and doing serious damage was worse.

The electrics allow the "sport" style of competition to score very fast and light hits, and to remove some of the possibility of judging bias. Fencing without scoring gear, touches need to be a little more deliberate (more "realistic").

The right of way rules (in foil/sabre) seem at first glance to be artificial constraints, but if you look at it from a skill development point of view, they make sense, and ingrain habits that are important. With "real" point weapons, if someone makes a strong attack, it would be foolish for the defender to try to land a light hit "first" (thus scoring a point) without controling the oponents blade. Scratching the other guy a split second before you are run through is not particularily fine tactics. Makes sense if you are using wooden swords or something as well, as a warning to your sparring partner: "I'm attacking now, you practice defense and then riposte" rather than just hacking away dangerously.

Primitive though? We're getting pretty close to renaissance age tech. That's not primitive enough in my book. I think Romans should be excluded too, and the Chinese etc. You might suggest that anyone with written history should be out, but that would exclude some of the american pre-contact civilisations (barely) and they mostly qualify. Debate for a new topic maybe?

Matthias

I think Gun's right. Technically, an atlatl is pretty advanced, as far as the physics involved, more so than a fencing foil, which boils down to a long piece of metal, even though the atlatl is far older. I think its pretty relative really, as to what we dub primitive. To say that the Mayans or Olmecs were primitive from a Eurocentric viewpoint is bordering on racism, if you consider that at the same time period, the South americans had Zero, the wheel, advanced astronomy, and larger and cleaner cities than were to be found in Europe simultaneously.