Could you give us a bit more of a specific time-frame than 'ye olde times,' as well as a culture you're looking at?

I'm not a historian, but do study historic european swordfighting as a sport, in particular the german style longsword fighting from the 15th century. This field of sports is based primarily on the study of fighting manuals from the 14th and 15th centuries, written by master swordfighters who lead the dominant fightschools in those times.

What we can conclude from both these historical sources, including historical accounts of actual duels, as well as from the modern incarnation of these fencing styles, is that a bout of swordfighting between two combatants would usually last no more then a couple of seconds before one or both of the combatants is wounded or dead.

On of the main central points of longsword fighting is that whenever a opponent is close enough to strike at you, you are also close enough to hit him. Every defense should in principle be aimed to simultaneously keep you safe and kill your opponent. Even though it might be possible to parry several consecutive strokes in a fight, in practice the one of the fighters will score a hit within seconds, practically always ending the fight.

This situation may be different when fighting with shield or armor. For sources on historical european swordfighting (including links to the old manuals) check www.hroarr.com, also the /r/wma community has quite some info on historical european fencing.

The classic man-on-man swordfight from films (for example in The Princess Bride where it's taken up to 110%) was not how fighting with swords usually worked, no. At least, not in the mid to late medieval European time period, which is what I can talk about. This is quite general and I've mostly done it from memory; I can get some sources for it when I get home later if required.

The basic way to look at is this; what you see in the movies is fencing. And fencing is to genuinely fighting someone with a sword as boxing is to genuinely fighting someone with your fists. It works within a set of rules, so while there are shared skills, it's an entirely different ballgame - or rather, it's not a game at all. The big reasons why you wouldn't just go in and fence are;

• It's rare to have just man-on-man combat in a battle. Infantry were clumped together, so you wouldn't have room to dodge back and forth, grab a chandelier, roll under a table and whatnot.

• Swords were not the most common weapon used. The average foot soldiers would usually have some kind of polearm (stick with sharp edge/spike on end) as it offered better defence from cavalry troops. Nobility were just as likely to use mauls and axes as they offered much better penetration against armour (more on this next). You can't do the classic parry-riposte type of fighting with these weapons.

• To be simplistic about it, one man in armour fighting another man in armour is not a delicate situation. You can't just slash and stab like you can with an unarmoured man. Grappling techniques, trying to poke your sword through any gap you could fine (half swording), using shields or bucklers to defend yourself, were all common. It was not, on the whole, graceful.