Writing a Believable Sword Fight Scene (Part II)

Quite a long time ago I wrote a post here on writing a believable sword fight scene. It continues to be popular, and I've had numerous requests to post more on the topic. I do think there is more to be said.

Importantly, I want to clear up one important point. Fencing and medieval sword fighting are not the same thing. In fact, they have very little in common. Fencing and the use of thrusting weapons such as the rapier first came into vogue in the 16th and 17th centuries. Before then, it is a mistake to represent a rapier being used. The fencing terms that are still used today were invented in the late 1500s and should not be used in any sword fight before that time. So if you are writing about medieval rather than Renaissance sword fights, you can't take a fencing lesson or watch fencers to find out what it looked like; however there are organizations such as the Society of Creative Anachronism that have groups and lessons in using medieval weapons.

Now I would like to go more into how fighting was usually done in the middle ages.

You need to be aware of a number of misconceptions about medieval sword fighting, which was done almost entirely by the knight classes. Swords were not heavy. Wielding one was was tiring, but the weapons themselves were surprisingly light. A typical longsword or hand-and-a-half sword weighed about two and a half pounds. A typical two-handed sword such as the supposed Wallace sword on display at the Wallace Monument weighed about six to eight pounds. (Parts of the "Wallace Sword" might in fact date early enough to have been used by Wallace although the entire sword definitely does not) However, a sword or sword and shield was not a knight's preferred weapon. Given a choice, a knight would fight with a lance and would never voluntarily give up being mounted. So most knightly combat was done on horseback, beginning with a lance.

Of course, if the fight began on foot then that was not a choice, but it would be the normal beginning of any duel. The assumption that the largest weapon and person always won, an assumption made by even excellent writers such as G. R. R. Martin for example, is simply wrong. I could cite (but won't for brevity) a number of cases where agility, experience, and maneuverability were the deciding factors.

And unless it was a duel of honor, which did happen on occasion, there was no shame in a friend bashing your opponent over the head or stabbing them through the back. Throw sand in their face? Of course. Bash them up the side of the head with your shield? Given the chance because a shield was also a weapon, one most knights chose to use. Two-handed swords tend to be over rated since they provided little in the way of defense. Of course, what is often referred to as a longsword or hand-and-a-half sword could be used either with a shield or as a two-handed weapon which is one reason they were so popular.

One of the other important factors is that knights with few exceptions spent their entire lives from an early age studying and practicing fighting. Of course, like any activity the ability would vary and you might write about a knight who had little innate ability, but if your character is good at sword fighting, just as with any physical activity, they don't have to think about the details while doing it. Does professional basketball player think about exact hand and foot placement in the midst of a game? Of course not. This is something that is second nature by the time they're playing at that level. The same would be true of a sword fighter. Watching for openings, judging their opponent, and seeing how to take advantage of the environment are much more likely to be what they think of. They certainly won't stop in the middle to describe who is watching or philosophize about why they're fighting.

For all hand-to-hand combat, I observe a fairly simple rule: always keep within a close point of view. What would your protagonist see and think? That is all I want in a sword fight scene. One thing for sure is that they aren't going to try to be the fanciest possible with an opponent swinging a very sharp sword at their gut. A sword fight is short, brutal, and generally has only one object which is to kill your opponent.

Why Battles Are Like Sex

All right, maybe not exactly. But I write about them the same way. I got a funny look from someone the other day when I said that, so I'm going to explain the similarities.

First -- non-sex related unless you have different tastes than me, but who knows *grin* -- and this applies to sword fights or just describing warriors and knights in general, don't get tied up in what I once saw an editor call "weapon porn". I am a heck of a lot more interested in what the armour and weapons are called than 99% of my readers. I know the name, weight and capabilities of every piece. So should you, but don't necessarily list it. They really just want to see what it does, not hear its name. But do get the capabilities of the weapons right, please. Please. Swords did not weight 30 pounds, and it was not a matter of the heavier the better. Most weigh less than 3 pounds. 6 pounds is about tops for a functional sword that is not for ceremonial use only.

Swords cut. They do not crush.

Know all that to make the scene authentic but don't burble it all out and bore your poor reader to death--or on to another novel.

(Possibly that is more like a sex scene than I thought. Don't list all the body parts either!)

Now on to the sex part:

1. The senses do not stop working during battle or during sex. Battle is noisy and smelly. Things touch; things taste. The coppery taste of blood in your mouth. The tickle or sting of sweat trickling down your sides. The shit from dead horses and men. The senses put the reader there in either type of scene. Don't leave them out.

3. Battle and sex are both drippy. There are a lot of fluids. Blood in the mouth, on your hands, in your face. Sweat dripping. Horses lather and bleed. Mud squelches under your feet. Important stuff. I'll leave the sex dripping to you. *grin*

4. Don't announce orgasms OR winning the battle. In a battle, no one holds up a sign and shouts, "it's all over". Battles take a long time, sometimes all day, and even when you've won, the fighting rarely stops with that. There are enemies to be hunted down or an escape to be made. Or you're a prisoner wondering who of your friends survived. From your spot in the battle, you may not even know whether you've won or lost. There's a good chance you won't just like you don't necessarily know... *chuckles*

5. It is ALL in the feelings. Exactly where you put the feet or how the sword was swung doesn't mean a thing any more than how "Part A goes into Slot B". What matters are the emotions and reactions. There can be all kinds of feeling in battle. Cool calculation as you figure out how the enemy will react to what you do. Or you might be totally lost in the moment, seeing nothing but the next swing of the sword and the next victim ridden down. It may be fear and terror. It may be elation. But it is the feelings that count! If you don't know that about sex... well, I don't know what to tell you.

6. You had better feel it yourself. You notice I describe it as though it is happening to you. If your sex scenes don't arouse you, they probably have a problem. If you don't feel your own battle scenes, then you probably need to get more inside your character.

So that's why I think they're the same. Kind of. But I do try to be alive and unbloodied after sex. My characters can't necessarily say the same after battle, because I try to always have them at risk. And that's another essential point. If there is no risk to your characters, is there really any point in writing the scene? Just another thing to think about.

My own novel, Freedom's Sword, is based on the life of Scotland's hero, Andrew de Moray. You can find it at Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Smashwords.