http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/A ... lising.php
It's a good well-written article, but there are several points in it that I disagree with. Primarily the assumption that Highland broadsword should look different to Lowland and English backsword.
In fact, except for the use of the targe and sometimes dirk, I do not see why Highland broadsword should have been different to English backsword by 1745. The Penicuick Sketches are artistic, but not at all a technical source to be used in comparison to fencing treatises. If you look at 19thC English romantic art of Victorian swordsmen fighting 'savages' you see the same exagerated positions, but this does not mean that Victorian swordsmen actually fought like that (though some may have abandoned their training under pressure!).
As far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that the Highland method of swordplay was notably different to English backsword, other than the use of the targe (which Page addresses, uniquely). The Scottish authors we know of - Hope, McBane, Mathewson etc, show systems which are broadly comparable with English backsword and to some extent also early British military sabre and sporting singlestick - they are not the same as each other and suggest differences between fencing masters, rather than a pan-Scottish system, let alone a Highland one.
Several referrences are made in the article to Silver, but there is little to connect Silver in c.1600 to Highland swordsmanship in c.1745. Would we not expect Highland swordsmanship in 1745 to more closely resemble other British sources of the 18th century, rather than an Elizabethan system? And how does Silver really differ: Really just in the greater use of passing footwork, grips and the remnants of one medieval-ish guard position (Open Ward) - his other guard positions are more similar to post-renaissance fencing and already it seems that the majority of his plays are conducted with a right-foot lead (as Swetnam). If we are looking broadly at British sources from c.1600-c.1800 what strikes us is the degree of continuity - the preference in Britain for the point-down hanging guard in various forms with a more or less bent elbow, the same set of guards/parries, the leg-slip and the predominant right-foot-lead.
However, the particular point I wish to address is this - Bethan states:
This mainly involves fencing with the point of the sword forward - this is all well and good for fighting with a smallsword, which is an edgeless thrusting weapon, but of little use with Broadswords, as it does not provide a secure true cross in the parry, and wide-spaces the defender. Of course, if both use the same guard, then both have the same disadvantage. The weight of the weapon, and its purpose, militate against such a guard also - the same guard is seen in nineteenth Century classical sabre fencing of the Hutton school, but works only because the sabre is a lighter, faster weapon, designed for slashing, rather than chopping. McBane uses similar systems; but this is certainly the usage of an officer, or a lowlander, rather than the Highland Gaels.
This I think is just wrong. Point-forward guard positions have been used in cut-and-thrust fencing systems for as long as we are aware - they are in i.33, the earliest fencing treatise, through the longsword and messer treatises and by the rise of the Bolognese school in the 16th century were very important. Becoming even more accentuated after Agrippa with the rise of the rapier. The fact is that military sabres weigh the same as English and Scottish basket-hilted swords. So do sideswords as used in the Bolognese school. Rapiers are often heavier than basket-hilted swords and they are also used to give cuts. So we have a wide range of cutting swords, weighing just as much or more than a Highland broadsword, used with point-forward guards for as long as we know. Hutton's Tierce or Waite's High Seconde see parallels in Marozzo in 1536. This is not a matter of sword weight or not using cutting swords. Cut-and-thrust systems which favour point-foward guards tend to make greater use of the point and tend to give cuts via a moulinette, rather than in a direct line (though they can do the latter as well). However they are perfectly capable of giving very quick and powerful cuts.
For whatever reason, some nationalities were somewhat 'backward' in the use of the point. Britain was famously so. As was the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East.
Moving away from that point I would just finish off by saying once again that it is a nice article, even if I disagree with it. I also think it is unfair to undermine Page's technical writing based on his profession. Most fencing authors have had other sources of income throughout modern history, and if Page's was selling swords, well I don't think that exactly unqualifies him for the job at hand!
