Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[Galloglaich]

I think you are putting very undue weight on Silver as a source for analysis of the realities of warfare in his day. Though respected as a fight-book author, Silver is well known to be opinionated and pretty extremist in a lot of his opinions (Swetnam even more so), and he's post-Medieval anyway.

We could probably go all day comparing images of halberds, photos of antiques and so on, and never convince each other of anything. But you are misrepresenting the size of the 'typical' polearm if you are claiming that six feet was average.

If you think it's safe, let alone safer, to remain static in a particular guard when fighting with weapons, you need to spar a little more. It's also contradicted by all the manuals we know of which deal with polearms.

G

[Incanur]

I think you are putting very undue weight on Silver as a source for analysis of the realities of warfare in his day. Though respected as a fight-book author, Silver is well known to be opinionated and pretty extremist in a lot of his opinions (Swetnam even more so), and he's post-Medieval anyway.

I find considerable insight in the works of sixteenth-century English military writers. At the least they're clear and address relevant matters in detail.

But you are misrepresenting the size of the 'typical' polearm if you are claiming that six feet was average.

What's a typical polearm? I've been specifically talking about heavy polearms focused on delivering powerful blows: halberds, bills, pollaxes, etc. Furthermore, I've noted the distinct cultural and regional contexts in question.

If you think it's safe, let alone safer, to remain static in a particular guard when fighting with weapons, you need to spar a little more. It's also contradicted by all the manuals we know of which deal with polearms.

No it isn't. Meyer, despite all his acrobatic tricks, advised prudence with staff weapons because of the danger of getting offline and becoming vulnerable to attack. I can't quote because I sold my copy of the recent English translation, but I recommend it. Joseph Swetnam favored his low guard and instructed readers to studiously avoid excessive movement in defense.

[Galloglaich]

What's a typical polearm? I've been specifically talking about heavy polearms focused on delivering powerful blows: halberds, bills, pollaxes, etc. Furthermore, I've noted the distinct cultural and regional contexts in question.

I still don't know what you mean by 'heavy' polearms, halberds, bills and pollaxes were in the same weight range as spears, some heavier some lighter, but none anywhere near the sledge-hammer level of weight at the business end. All were used for cutting, striking (with back-spike/pick or hammer heads) and thrusting, as well as hooking and striking with the queue or the butt. This is what is in the manuals and what is in the artwork and what is in the records.

The only thing I could think of which might fit into a "heavy" polearm category are impact weapons like the godendag or the Morgenstern, which we haven't even been discussing(and even those two have spear-points), or the two-handed flail of the Czech style which is a totally different animal (and also tended to be much longer than 7 feet).

No it isn't. Meyer, despite all his acrobatic tricks, advised prudence with staff weapons because of the danger of getting offline and becoming vulnerable to attack.

The 'acrobatic tricks' you are referring to in Meyer are common in all polearm techniques shown in every fight-book treatise I know, where do you see a sharp distinction? Jumping from 'prudence' to staying in the same guard is quite a leap, do you have any support for that idea?

I can't quote because I sold my copy of the recent English translation, but I recommend it.

Meyer's polearm material is online, here (albeit, in German)

http://www.hauppauge.de/~freifechter...e_16r-23v.html

If you had a copy of the Forgeng translation (the only English translation I know of) I hope you got a good price, it's out of print due to the Chivalry Bookshelf fiasco and selling for over $300 right now

I have a copy though, let me know if you want me to look something up for you.

Joseph Swetnam favored his low guard and instructed readers to studiously avoid excessive movement in defense.

Favoring a guard and staying in a guard are two very different things. But none of this is necessary for you or I to speculate about, people all over the world have been doing polearm techniques from the fight books, Meyer to Talhoffer to Marozzo to the Jeu de la hache, for twelve years now. It's hardly a new thing.

G

[Incanur]

I still don't know what you mean by 'heavy' polearms, halberds, bills and pollaxes were in the same weight range as spears, some heavier some lighter, but none anywhere near the sledge-hammer level of weight at the business end.

See the Silver quotation above. Halberds and company have notably heavier heads than most spears. They're designed to deal out blows of great force on the battlefield.

The 'acrobatic tricks' you are referring to in Meyer are common in all polearm techniques shown in every fight-book treatise I know, where do you see a sharp distinction?

Swetnam, for example, doesn't include anything of the sort. Meyer is uniquely famously for flashy his flashy routines. While they all strike me as useful in the right circumstances, it's difficult not to think that they're in part for showing off during nonlethal sparring.

If you had a copy of the Forgeng translation (the only English translation I know of) I hope you got a good price, it's out of print due to the Chivalry Bookshelf fiasco and selling for over $300 right now

I sold it for around $120 a few years ago.

I have a copy though, let me know if you want me to look something up for you.

Just read the part of the polearm section I mention. Meyer counsels being careful to avoid being drawn out of position of advantage. It's very similar in its essence to Swetnam's advice.

Favoring a guard and staying in a guard are two very different things.

Are you talking about just standing there? I'm talking about cautious double-time defense, which is a critical dynamic of polearm combat. Manuevering for advantage is crucial. Meyer, Swetnam, and others described this in detail.

But none of this is necessary for you or I to speculate about, people all over the world have been doing polearm techniques from the fight books, Meyer to Talhoffer to Marozzo to the Jeu de la hache, for twelve years now. It's hardly a new thing.

I'm thoroughly familar.

[Galloglaich]

If y'all haven't seen this, pretty interesting. Buckler like shields from South America circa 8th Century AD, with dyed textiles on them

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...comm_ref=false

G

[Spiryt]

Moving faster is one of the things strength is and does in the human context. Olympic javelin throwlers, for example, hurl their projectiles much faster than I can. Why not assume superhuman strength means the same? The exact physics of course would depend on the details of the mechanisms involved. For fantasy purposes, though, I like just scaling up based on human dynamics. That means somebody twenty times stronger is also much faster - and tougher too, to prevent self-injury.

Yeah, quickness can, and often will be related with strength.

However, it can be mostly unrelated as well, badminton, fencing, or table tennis require ridiculous quickness, and theoretically little to no strength.

Of course, a lot of muscle power and strength is required for rapid change of direction, jumps, pushes etc. but this is strength purely for quickness purposes, not for working against any significant loads.

Some players will relay on it more, some less.

In the end, one can go like that for a long time, meeting more problems, which is why discussions about 'realistic' '20 times human strength' are mostly huge headache.

[Incanur]

Yeah, quickness can, and often will be related with strength.

However, it can be mostly unrelated as well, badminton, fencing, or table tennis require ridiculous quickness, and theoretically little to no strength.

Of course, a lot of muscle power and strength is required for rapid change of direction, jumps, pushes etc. but this is strength purely for quickness purposes, not for working against any significant loads.

In D&D terms, that sounds like the difference between Str and Dex. Being strong certainly doesn't automatically grant quick reflexes or good coordination. But even just moving one's body requires muscle power. The more power, the faster it moves. I've never practiced Olympic fencing myself, but I know lunges and such take a lot of effort. I'd be better at that sort of thing if I were stronger.

[Mike_G]

In D&D terms, that sounds like the difference between Str and Dex. Being strong certainly doesn't automatically grant quick reflexes or good coordination. But even just moving one's body requires muscle power. The more power, the faster it moves. I've never practiced Olympic fencing myself, but I know lunges and such take a lot of effort. I'd be better at that sort of thing if I were stronger.

Only to a point.

Healthy, athletic fencers are really fast. If a power lifter tried a lunge, he wouldn't be nearly as fast as a technically weaker gymnast or dancer or sprinter would be.

A fencing foil or sabre weighs close to nothing and the weight is centered very close to the hand, so it takes little strength to move it fast. And football linebackers may be the strongest players on the filed, but they don't move their bodies quicker a smaller, more agile player.

So Strength does not equal Speed.

[warty goblin]

If y'all haven't seen this, pretty interesting. Buckler like shields from South America circa 8th Century AD, with dyed textiles on them

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...comm_ref=false

G

I love how the immediate reaction of one of the researchers is that shields of those dimensions have to be for some sort of ritualistic combat. Archaeologists have a weird tendency to do that.

[rrgg]

Only to a point.

Healthy, athletic fencers are really fast. If a power lifter tried a lunge, he wouldn't be nearly as fast as a technically weaker gymnast or dancer or sprinter would be.

A fencing foil or sabre weighs close to nothing and the weight is centered very close to the hand, so it takes little strength to move it fast. And football linebackers may be the strongest players on the filed, but they don't move their bodies quicker a smaller, more agile player.

So Strength does not equal Speed.

That's why I prefaced my answer by asking whether the super human was also 20 times as massive. To increase the speed of an object (say, your arm) you would eithe need to be able to apply more force (more strength) or decrease the mass of the object. (For the record I'm sort of a lightweight, but when I did fencing I generally had trouble matching the speed and precision of more fit opponents. Also more tall opponents.)

That said though, biology, isn't really my forte so it would be interesting to know whether there was some other major factor limiting how quickly humans can move.

[Telok]

Ok I was a lightweight when I fenced, probably weighed less than a hundred pounds when I was 16 years old. Modern sport fencing is not predicated on upper body strength or overall power. Upper body strength will only come into play with beats and binds as a tertiary effect after skill and speed, while your lunges will be very slightly faster if you have strong legs.

I regularly lost to an 11 year old in my salle, mostly because he'd been fencing for four years and I'd only been fencing for two.

Strength or speed alone is not very useful, overall fitness (definitely including endurance and conditioning) and training is much more important.

[warty goblin]

That's why I prefaced my answer by asking whether the super human was also 20 times as massive. To increase the speed of an object (say, your arm) you would eithe need to be able to apply more force (more strength) or decrease the mass of the object. (For the record I'm sort of a lightweight, but when I did fencing I generally had trouble matching the speed and precision of more fit opponents. Also more tall opponents.)

Whenever I've sparred with fencers, I've noticed they tend to be faster than I am. On the other hand they're even worse at fighting from a bind. Therein lies my one and only advantage.

That said though, biology, isn't really my forte so it would be interesting to know whether there was some other major factor limiting how quickly humans can move.

I suspect the amount of fast twitch muscle a person has makes a difference.

[Trekkin]

I have a bit of an odd maths question about bullets.

I've always understood that really fast bullets are designed to minimize wave drag, which is why the noses follow Haack's equations for pointy, low-drag shapes.

What I don't get, then, is the flattish tail. Why do bullets have a flat or slightly narrowed tail, rather than just being a Sears-Haack body? Is it a manufacturing concern, or am I missing something fundamental about internal ballistics?

[Yaktan]

The big reason is probably because you need that to get the bullet out of the gun in the first place. If you had a football shape, it would be hard to get a good seal against the gun, and without a good seal you lose too much gas.

It is not just that the back of a bullet is flat. I know with minee balls, which were what allowed rifles in the Civil War to match musket fire rates, operated by having the back slightly hollow, so when the gun fires the back actually spreads out to form a good seal as the bullet goes down the rifling. I would imagine that modern bullets involve similar mechanics, which would not work if the back end was pointy, because then the force would go around the bullet instead of pushing at the middle of the back.

[Incanur]

Healthy, athletic fencers are really fast. If a power lifter tried a lunge, he wouldn't be nearly as fast as a technically weaker gymnast or dancer or sprinter would be.

That depends on the folks in question. Elite gymnasts and sprinters are very strong - I'm not sure about dancers.

A fencing foil or sabre weighs close to nothing and the weight is centered very close to the hand, so it takes little strength to move it fast.

But the human body still weighs quite a bit.

So Strength does not equal Speed.

Explosive strength - the kind that matters for Olympic lifting and fighting - is speed. In crude terms, it's a matter of power-to-weight ratio. The really big guy might be slower than the smaller person because conditioned smaller people tend to be stronger for their size than hulking brutes.

Whenever I've sparred with fencers, I've noticed they tend to be faster than I am. On the other hand they're even worse at fighting from a bind. Therein lies my one and only advantage.

The only fencer I've ever sparred - using Lance's RSWs - didn't seem any faster than I am and didn't have much a clue how to deal with George Silver's style. (Note: I don't claim this says anything about modern fencers in general.)

[AMX]

I have a bit of an odd maths question about bullets.

I've always understood that really fast bullets are designed to minimize wave drag, which is why the noses follow Haack's equations for pointy, low-drag shapes.

What I don't get, then, is the flattish tail. Why do bullets have a flat or slightly narrowed tail, rather than just being a Sears-Haack body? Is it a manufacturing concern, or am I missing something fundamental about internal ballistics?

Just off the top of my head...
You need a cylindrical shank, both to ensure the bullet remains straight while travelling through the barrel, and to properly seat it in the case.
Anything behind the shank will take up space inside the case, which is supposed to be used for propellant.

A very long, fine tail would result in a very long bullet, which would require a faster twist to remain stable in flight - excessively long projectiles can not be spin-stabilised at all.

[BayardSPSR]

That depends on the folks in question. Elite gymnasts and sprinters are very strong - I'm not sure about dancers.

Dancers are strong - especially male dancers, who traditionally hold people above the ground on a regular basis.

[fusilier]

Just off the top of my head...
You need a cylindrical shank, both to ensure the bullet remains straight while travelling through the barrel, and to properly seat it in the case.
Anything behind the shank will take up space inside the case, which is supposed to be used for propellant.

A very long, fine tail would result in a very long bullet, which would require a faster twist to remain stable in flight - excessively long projectiles can not be spin-stabilised at all.

A boat-tail bullet design (which is pretty common), has a slight taper toward the back -- it still has a flat back, but it's slightly narrower than the widest point. Most (if not all) that I've seen have a cylindrical section, but that section could be quite short (see the original boat-tailed spitzer round, the French "Balle D").

I think a flat base is a more efficient surface for the propellent to act against when the gun is fired (less surface area means greater pressure?). A boat-tail design, therefore trades a decrease in propellant efficiency, for a decrease in drag. Probably a slight amount for each, but you can compensate for the propellant probably without too much stress on the barrel.

Like AMX mentioned, there are also issues of stability in addition to aerodynamic considerations. In fact, spitzer bullets are known for being tail-heavy and easily deflected -- this effect could be used (or even enhanced, by further lightening the nose) to make wounds worse, by hoping that the bullet would tumble when it hit flesh. On the other hand, I've heard it claimed that if firing through light brush, what you want is a heavy round nose bullet with fast spin.

[Yora]

Also manufacturing. With modern machines, that probably becomes negible, but I think making bullets with a long tail is more difficult than with a flat base.

[Silver Swift]

I have a few questions about (naval) combat in the colonial era.

1) Somewhat related to the above question about bullet geometry, what kept a bullet inside a gun once it was loaded? I think during those times they still used round bullets loaded from the front of the gun, right? So what is there to prevent a bullet from rolling right back out once the gun is lowered, or did they just not point their guns down after loading them?

2) Was it common for ships to be captured, and if so, how did they move the captured ship back to port? Did all ships have sufficient crew to man multiple ships? It seems unlikely that you can just tow large battleships like that with another ship (at least the image that this conjures in my mind looks patently stupid).

3) What was the command structure on a typical ship during those days, Was it Captain > bunch of officers > bunch of crew members or did they have more elaborate chains of command?

4) Were larger ships always faster/slower than smaller ships or were there ships build specifically for speed and ships build specifically for firepower?

[hamishspence]

1) Somewhat related to the above question about bullet geometry, what kept a bullet inside a gun once it was loaded? I think during those times they still used round bullets loaded from the front of the gun, right? So what is there to prevent a bullet from rolling right back out once the gun is lowered, or did they just not point their guns down after loading them?

They put paper wadding in after the powder- and rammed the ball into the wadding.

[warty goblin]

The only fencer I've ever sparred - using Lance's RSWs - didn't seem any faster than I am and didn't have much a clue how to deal with George Silver's style. (Note: I don't claim this says anything about modern fencers in general.)

I'm not a particularly quick person, never have been, so being a faster sword than me is pretty easy. I think my only advantage over people with some minor training in sport fencing is that the only real rule we adhered to growing up was 'no serious injuries*' which means I don't expect only a particular sort of attack.


*A rule I'm pleased to say we held to admirably. Although our knuckles didn't escape unscathed much of the time.

[Galloglaich]

I love how the immediate reaction of one of the researchers is that shields of those dimensions have to be for some sort of ritualistic combat. Archaeologists have a weird tendency to do that.

yes, it really underscores the important role that historical fencers are now playing in academia, and the generally sad state of research that is overspecialized as it so often is today. These people can't begin to grasp the context of what they found.

G

[warty goblin]

yes, it really underscores the important role that historical fencers are now playing in academia, and the generally sad state of research that is overspecialized as it so often is today. These people can't begin to grasp the context of what they found.

G

My favorite remains that magical period when pretty much every single bronze age weapon or armor found was 'for parade or display.' Reading between the lines of artifact descriptions written circa 1970, one got the distinct impression that nobody actually had wars in the bronze age, they just dressed up and had parades where they wore pauldrons on their heads.

[Berenger]

I have a few questions about (naval) combat in the colonial era.

1) Somewhat related to the above question about bullet geometry, what kept a bullet inside a gun once it was loaded? I think during those times they still used round bullets loaded from the front of the gun, right? So what is there to prevent a bullet from rolling right back out once the gun is lowered, or did they just not point their guns down after loading them?

2) Was it common for ships to be captured, and if so, how did they move the captured ship back to port? Did all ships have sufficient crew to man multiple ships? It seems unlikely that you can just tow large battleships like that with another ship (at least the image that this conjures in my mind looks patently stupid).

3) What was the command structure on a typical ship during those days, Was it Captain > bunch of officers > bunch of crew members or did they have more elaborate chains of command?

4) Were larger ships always faster/slower than smaller ships or were there ships build specifically for speed and ships build specifically for firepower?

1) Like hamishspence said, wadding made from paper or cloth. Not only for muskets, but also for cannons. Otherwise, fighting an uphill battle would have been beneficial for the lower side. It also prevents pressure from escaping through the gap between bullet and muzzle.

2) Military vessels will have a prize crew for that very purpose. If the captured ship is much smaller than the capturing ship, a relatively small part of the normal crew will suffice to man the smaller vessel. In a pinch, you can force the surving enemy crewmen to sail the ship for you, but obviously this is risky and you will need marines to supervise them closely. Most of the time, the goal is just to sail the prize to the nearest allied harbor. Unlike combat or longer voyages, this can be done with a skeleton crew (this is not a crew of undead sailors but the minimum crew to keep the ship moving).

3) Can vary wildly between nations, civil, pirate or warship and individual leadership style, but generally ranks were both elaborate and important. For example: Ranks & Duties in Royal Navy ca. 1790

4) Im no expert and will leave a detailed answer to someone else, but it was possible to build ships for specific purposes. Especially warships could be faster than trading ships of an equal size, because large cargo holds were less important for them. Generally, being able to "outgun what you can't outrun and outrun what you can't outgun" was a desirable trait.

[Hawkfrost000]

That depends on the folks in question. Elite gymnasts and sprinters are very strong - I'm not sure about dancers.

Speaking as a dancer of nine years; Dancers are extremely strong. They have a huge amount of endurance as well. Practices and rehearsals go on for a very long time. Its kind of like the long hours that actors put in but you are also running and jumping all the time.

Its actually quite hard, dancers need to be very strong but they also need to be very flexible and quite thin. It's especially hard for the girls, who are often expected to be supermodel thin and still have massive strength and endurance.

DM

[fusilier]

I have a few questions about (naval) combat in the colonial era.

1) Somewhat related to the above question about bullet geometry, what kept a bullet inside a gun once it was loaded? I think during those times they still used round bullets loaded from the front of the gun, right? So what is there to prevent a bullet from rolling right back out once the gun is lowered, or did they just not point their guns down after loading them?

Wadding of some sort was usually used, it could be paper, cotton, cloth, whatever was handy (I've heard of soldiers using grass). The wadding was usually put in after the ball, but there were exceptions.

Sometimes with cannons, wadding was placed in between the powder and ball, and then maybe some more wadding to hold the ball in place.

If the ball is tight fitting (on a rifle or musket), then wadding can be dispensed with.

A "patch" (typically of some sort of cloth), might be used, usually with a rifle. That would be pounded down with the ball, making a tight fit.

If using paper cartridges, the paper was left tied around the ball when loaded, serving both as a crude, and very poor, patch and wadding to hold the ball in place.

With the introduction of the minie-ball, patches or wadding to hold the bullet in place were found to be unnecessary by experiment (the tolerance was very tight, and the bullet would not work itself loose).

2) Was it common for ships to be captured, and if so, how did they move the captured ship back to port? Did all ships have sufficient crew to man multiple ships? It seems unlikely that you can just tow large battleships like that with another ship (at least the image that this conjures in my mind looks patently stupid).

I think ships could be towed, and that was done if they were battered so much that they couldn't be sailed themselves.

Most sailing ships, even a pretty large one, can be manned by a surprisingly small "skeleton crew". You couldn't fight with such a crew, but you could sail the ship.

3) What was the command structure on a typical ship during those days, Was it Captain > bunch of officers > bunch of crew members or did they have more elaborate chains of command?

You need to a bit more specific about the "Colonial" period you are referring to -- as that could range from the early 1500s for the Spanish, to almost 1800. Things changed quite a bit, and there were also differences among the nations.

Traditionally, the "Master" was in charge of the ship, and the "Captain" commanded only the soldiers put aboard the ship. This was when warships were basically civilian ships that were commandeered for war. The title of the movie "Master and Commander" makes a reference to this ancient practice. Although by the time of that movie's setting the Captain was in complete control (thus the "and"). I think the Spanish carried on this practice in many of their sailing ships (i.e. Galleons) for longer, but I would have to double check.

This strange combination of different leaders could lead to complicated hierarchies. Also, there were many officers (and warrant officers -- another holdover) who were specialists.

4) Were larger ships always faster/slower than smaller ships or were there ships build specifically for speed and ships build specifically for firepower?

Yes, sort of. Big ships could be relatively fast and maneuverable, or slow and cumbersome, depending upon whether they were built for war or trade (and big merchant ships like East Indiamen could be very well armed). A smaller ship will probably be more maneuverable; a bigger ship can put out more sail, and if the conditions are right might actually be faster. Some ships might be faster sailing into the wind than others, and vice versa. Ships also evolved, so a heavy war galleon might be reasonably maneuverable and fast for its day, might appear slow and cumbersome in Nelson's navy (and definitely under armed).

For an overview you might want to look at the old GURPS Swashbucklers book (which I think is good for circa 1700), or the GURPS Age of Napoleon if you are interested in the later period.

[Raum]

2) Was it common for ships to be captured, and if so, how did they move the captured ship back to port? Did all ships have sufficient crew to man multiple ships? It seems unlikely that you can just tow large battleships like that with another ship (at least the image that this conjures in my mind looks patently stupid).

Capturing ships wasn't uncommon - short of fire, ships were amazingly resilient. Prior to explosive shells holed ships could be patched at sea without too much trouble.

As for captured ships, they'd be sailed by members of the victor's crew. In 1797, the USS Constitution had 450 crew members (including 55 marines and 30 boys). For comparison, a large merchant ship might have 150 crew including traders and clerks. Minimal sailing crew was probably less than a third of that.

Towing ships was usually done by one or more "boats" and not something you'd do for any distance unless desperate.

3) What was the command structure on a typical ship during those days, Was it Captain > bunch of officers > bunch of crew members or did they have more elaborate chains of command?

Military ranks were very structured but even merchants had set command structures. You have the Captain followed by some number of Lieutenants (or Mates if civilian) depending on the size of the ship. Then you have your midshipmen - young officers in training. Warships will have gun crews as well as able seaman and ordinary seaman ranks. You'll also have specialists such as carpenters, sailmakers, surgeon, and even cooks.

4) Were larger ships always faster/slower than smaller ships or were there ships build specifically for speed and ships build specifically for firepower?

There's a lot of variation but, in general, larger warships were slower than smaller warships. Of course age, maintenance, ship type, crew skill, and the sail pattern / design are going to affect speed.

Edit: I highly recommend reading Six Frigates if you're interested in that era of sailing ships.

[Mr Beer]

Speaking as a dancer of nine years; Dancers are extremely strong. They have a huge amount of endurance as well. Practices and rehearsals go on for a very long time. Its kind of like the long hours that actors put in but you are also running and jumping all the time.

Its actually quite hard, dancers need to be very strong but they also need to be very flexible and quite thin. It's especially hard for the girls, who are often expected to be supermodel thin and still have massive strength and endurance.

DM

I've heard anecdotal stories of (good) soccer players taking dancing classes and being distressed by the cardio fitness required, let alone the strength.

[Mike_G]

That depends on the folks in question. Elite gymnasts and sprinters are very strong - I'm not sure about dancers.

Never said they weren't. I said a power lifter is stronger. Dancers and gymnasts have good co-ordination and are fit. But they don't lit 500 pounds. Being co-ordinated and fit will help you fence, lifting 500 pounds, not so much.

But the human body still weighs quite a bit.

And a muscle weighs a lot, so if you are much much stronger, you will be likely to be much heavier.

Explosive strength - the kind that matters for Olympic lifting and fighting - is speed. In crude terms, it's a matter of power-to-weight ratio. The really big guy might be slower than the smaller person because conditioned smaller people tend to be stronger for their size than hulking brutes.

An elephant is way stronger than a squirrel. Which one moves quicker of the line?

Quick and accurate is more important in fencing than brute strength. People who train for precision and speed will do better than the "I pick things up and put them down" guy. So being "20 times stronger" means pretty much nothing. I'm sure the big, hulking, Olympic power lifters can lift a boatload more than I can. I'm also sure I can make a quicker lunge with a foil.

The only fencer I've ever sparred - using Lance's RSWs - didn't seem any faster than I am and didn't have much a clue how to deal with George Silver's style. (Note: I don't claim this says anything about modern fencers in general.)

I did a lot of fencing, and did a bit of SCA sparring, and my observed experience was that fast little people were likely to be better fencers than big, strong people. Maybe not better fighters, but more likely to win he 'tag with swords" game that is fencing.

I did get as USFA rating in sabre, before I was old and arthritic, so I do know a little bit about sport fencing.