#I am simplyfing a lot of concepts here

[vidilpoge]

Hi reading this has made me recoil. Now bear with me.

From the first time I've stepped in a fencing hall I've been told by my instructor times and times again the same thing: you start fencing from a bind.

You see, to fence means to fence oneself from someone attacking, and the most safe thong you can do is to block (or parry, in our language is the same word, "parare"). Let's look at a sword, entirely made of metal, the first weapon to be invented by mankind with the sole purpose of slauthering other men. Why is it made entirely of metal if you use the tip of it to wound? Working metal was a big hassle back in the day, what good does it make? When you parry (or block) you get a lot of informations travelling thru the metal and the grip to your hand/hands. This is called in italian sentimento del ferro (iron's feeling) and in german if I can recollect is, also, füleng (feeling). It's up to a master swordfighter to now that the bind is done, either by attacking and getting blocked (or parried) or parring (or blocking) an incoming attack.

If you ask me, even wanting to disengage from a bind you have created from one (1) wee attack is an action on the bind. You honestly lose so much info when you disengage willy nilly.

Now for you wondering about why some systems seem to favor action from the bind more than others, it's not the momentum of a swinged blade. Let's keep in mind that the key for good action from the bind is using your degrees, as in "the blades is suddivided from the handle to the tip, the first third are your weak degrees, the second third are your middle degrees, the last third are your weak degrees". Only and if only you bind your strong on the weak or the middle you your opponent's sword you have the upper hand and can move their blade around, gaining the central line etc. I've never really done anything with a curved blade weapon but to my understanding trying to work the opponent's blade wirh yours is more awkward? Their weak degrees curve away from you so the action is much less straightforward (no pun intended).

It's never raw force. If the opponent tries to overpower you, you just use the degrees and you literally have leverage.

It's never measure. If your blades are touching, you already are in striking distance for your weapon and you should not not care about any of your bodyparts.

It's never about defence options. Like, if your weapon system has NOTHING against an opponent that tries to stay in bind, your system is sh incomplete.

It's never about weight, if you fence both with the same weapon. You can absolutely wreak havok with a two hander or greatsword against an arming sword but the weight is only a factor of many, to me having more leverage with the second hand on the pomel is much more incisive. Why wouldn't a smallword have binds? Here is a silly little story, during the lockdown I was starved for fencing and I've took the metal knitting needles my sister was about to use to knit from her hands. I've proceded, her unwilling at first, to demonstrate how a bind is felt and how to parry it and reposte without ever breaking the bind. She was for a brief moment delighted on how much she could sense in her hand from the needles touching.

It is funny you cited as an example the Star Wars' swordfights because in the beginning, when I was a newbie, the same instructor that said to me that to fence is to bind would scold us for not taking actions from it by saying "YOU ARE NOT IN STAR WARS! WHAT ARE YOU, GOING ON A STROLL ACROSS THE SPACESHIP WITH YOUR SWORD CROSSED???"

In conclusion, to answer your question:

Binds are very basic and not wierd at all

Binds are pretty weird right?

A bind is when two swords cross, and is one of the few acceptable situations where you should attack the sword instead of the opponent. You try to take controll of the centre and push your opponent to the side, which then allows you to strike or stab at them. This is rather common in, say, longsword, but it's very rare and dare I say ill-advised in, say, sabre.

There area of course situations in sabre where you "bind"; bearing, cutting under the sword, one or two disarming tricks. However longsword or sword & buckler (and many more I am sure but these are ones I am more familiar with) practically revolve around the bind, there are few situations where you don't at least expect your opponent to try and bind your sword.

As someone who started out with "sabre" (my dad taught me some vague amalgom of all kinds of one handed sword as sabre, and sources seem to only coincidentally have the same techniques he taught me as he never used any of the names from the sources we have or I have later found) this concept of binds was a bit weird at first, mostly thinking of them like in star wars where they EPICLY CROSS SWORDS and STARE AT EACH OTHER and DO NOTHING and just try to overpower their opponent with raw strength.

After a few years of doing sword and buckler in a HEMA group I have come around to it and understand it as the usefull tool for closing off and/or opening lines of attack, and as I learn more about other disciplines I start to think that maybe I'm the weird one for not binding? Originally I thought that it was a distance thing, maybe the extra length of the longsword prevents immediate attacks to the body and so you need to make an oppening first, but arming swords aren't long at all. Then I thought maybe it's a defense thing, with the longswords range and the buckler giving you a lot of defensive options and so you need to engage the weapons first, but apparently rapier also does binds. Lastly I thought it could be a weight thing, with a heavier sword having more momentum and thus you can force it into a bind, but a sabre would jsut slip out, but foil, which firmly sits in the wet paper towel of sword weight classes, apparently also does binds??

So am I the weird one?