Arming swords weigh like 800g (that's under 2lbs). Longswords (125-135cm length) weigh ~1,5kg (a bit over 3lbs).
They use leverage and the kinetic chain of the body. Big muscles help, sure. But they don't bypass skill.
I never disagreed with this, though…? Not sure why you appear to think otherwise. And yes, I'll grant you that sword-play is no-where near as dependent on musculature as unarmed forms of combat.
Also oly fencing weapons can easily kill if sharp, an epee is basically a smallsword which was super deadly.
Not to down-play your point of view, but it seems to me like you're thinking of opponents that are solely unarmoured humans. The reason I explicitly mentioned monsters with a thick hide is to illustrate a need for heavier thrusting weapons whose attacks need commitment. There's a reason that estocs were developed instead of pointed sticks.
I'm also fairly puzzled that you should mention the épée specifically. Olympic fencing in general, and épée fencing in particular, are not meant to emulate combat, but rather a duel to the first blood. The épée needs merely a light touch to score a point, whereas the foil and sabre
at least need the contact to have a slightly longer duration.
Far be it from me to denigrate Olympic fencing –there are two reasons why I deeply respect it, detailed at the end of this post– but you'll have to agree that, whenever it's had to choose between becoming more combat-like or more sport-like, it's consistently chosen the latter. I'm not even talking about how they don't need to navigate 2-D space, or about how everything stops if one lightly pushes the other, or about how they permit the usage of arbitrarily-light swords, or how you can't switch hands on your weapon, or how it's explicitly permitted to bend your sword to reach the opponent more easily; I'm talking about things like foil losing the point if you move your shoulders wrongly or sabre losing the point if you lunge with your back foot.
And oly fencers can destroy most HEMA fighters (using historical weapons like sword/rapier obviously) thanks to their speed, too. What use are the muscles if you've already been poked through?
So… you're saying that Olympic fencers make superior HEMA players than HEMA practitioners themselves do? Forgive me for being skeptical.
My point of view is that each sword was created with specific circumstances in mind; circumstances that must be taken into account when evaluating them, and (for this discussion specifically) circumstances that must be compared and contrasted to the ones detailed in this fictional piece. Let me remind you that the etymology of the word “rapier” itself is denigrating, as it means “dress sword”—after all, it was used much more commonly in society than in the battlefield.
As for your rhetorical question, let me answer it with one of my own: If your wrist is poked through shortly before you bisect your opponent, who has lost, really?
So far as I can tell, the benefits that physical strength gives to sword-fighting are not direct, but they are nonetheless important. Things like wielding a larger sword if one's speed doesn't suffer, or if holding the handle nearer the pommel to gain reach and momentum, or even using a two-handed weapon with one hand to free one's other hand for other uses.
PS: The main two reasons why I respect Olympic fencing are as follows:
- Learning to accurately control the tip of one's sword is very important, and Olympic fencing is the best at practicing that
- Even if the techniques themselves were useless, Olympic fencing would have my deep respect for another reason: When it comes to equipment safety, they don't fuck around. I've personally tested a kitchen knife against a mask's bib, and the bib wasn't even scratched.