Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
How some monsters in media are seen as swordsmen
Gallade, I'm explicitly looking at you, although I KNOW there are other examples
I just don't get how some of them are able to do anything that could be remotely seen as swordsmanship
I just don't get how some of them are able to do anything that could be remotely seen as swordsmanship
Comments
How is this not an Alex thread.
I was wondering that myself. In any case, in the spirit of the thread, has anyone noticed that there's "heroic swordsmanship" and "villainous swordsmanship", depending on the context of the work?
I think so? I've noticed mostly "roguish" swordsmanship, which I guess counts as heroic. Which is you know, lots of flynning and flamboyant moves.
Well, it depends entirely on the context of the work. In your stereotypical anime with themes based around perseverance and such, brutish, aggressive but heartfelt swordsmanship would be considered "good", with the technical mastery of the swashbuckler being considered a form of elitist "evil". The opposite may be true in a work with different themes, though, given that different forms of cinematic combat "contain" allusions to themes and whatnot.
yeah i'm mostly thinking of western stories involving swords.
Omnimon? Gallantmon? (yes, different franchise, I know)
Alkthash: I am almost certain that there is a werewolf in one franchise who is a "swordsman" yet uses its claws ala Wolverine. Gallade's my main example because it's extremely blatant (another example - yet again Pokemon - are the Legendary Muskedeers. They are seen as swordsmen... Yet use their horns. HOW IS THAY SWORDPLAY!?)
Conceivably, a horn on a nimble enough head could be used in a similar fashion to a rapier. After all, we often see weapons "binds" in the animal kingdom. The main different between animal weapon binds and human sword binds appears to be that animals tend to rely moreso on brute strength, whereas human beings find ways around their physical limitations when compared to a stronger foe.
^ "Binds"?
^Preventing someone from stabbing you by holding their weapon in a certain position with yours.
Technically, it only refers to the meeting between two weapons. When used intentionally, though, the above is exactly what a bind does -- your weapon becomes a barrier and you work from there with a variety of techniques. Usually, if you're overpowered, you try to weave around or through their defense; if you've got the stronger position, you can often make a direct thrust or continue the cut.
Huh. That's a lot broader than I thought. Interesting.
Most styles of swordsmanship tend to dislike the bind because of how dangerous it is. The Fiore tradition of medieval Italy takes to it a bit more, but the Liechtenauer tradition of Germany is the style that really mastered it. The logic goes that if other swordsmen dislike or fear the bind, then mastering its mechanisms helps one attain and maintain both technical and psychological advantage. For that reason, finding a large amount of bindwork is rare outside of the Italian or German traditions. For instance, the English took a very "footworky" perspective on combat, timing and range wherein they liked to enter range, attack and exit to minimise their time within "bind range".
The other thing to note here is that "bind range" is an important one, because it's the range at which one can launch an attack without taking a step. So combat is faster and more furious there, hence the danger. So the difference between fighting within "bind range" and using actual binds can become quite blurred, especially since techniques that work well from the bind are often applicable to non-bind actions within the bind range.
Where are the Musketeer Pokemon called Swordsman?
Well, those two are more "blade below the shoulder" guys, to use a TV Tropes term (I think). And they're pretty humanoid, so it's not hard to imagine them pulling off moves similar to humans.
Or was your issue something else?
^^ Kind of heavily implied, especially with Keldeo
Also outright stated for Keldeo:
Literally a sword.
Anyway I remembered it as being closer to a real sword, but it's still pretty swordlike.
But surely that has less to do with swordsmanship in particular, and rather more with the importance of willpower in general that's prevalent in several animes. Such fighting styles just reflect that. And of course, willpower is always a good guys trait, because they derive said willpower from the righteousness of their course. Eh, formulated like that it sounds a bit trite, but I actually prefer highly engaged heroes to stoic heroes, so hence I also like such fighting styles.
Well, the idea is that the "good swordsmanship" is physically reflective of the attitude the work of media wants to reinforce. Consequently, "evil swordsmanship" will be the opposite. Romanticist works will tend to focus on the feeling and intent behind the swordwork and enlightenment works will tend to focus on technical skill.
I'm not so sure romanticism/enlightenment is a meaningful distinction in modern media anymore
Or at least, not in these terms.
They're not as drastically relevant as they used to be, but there's mileage left in those terms.