The Armour Archive

Pietro Monte, in his "Petri Montii exercitiorum, atque artis militaris collectanea in tris libros distincta (Milan, 1509, he was the arms-master to a number of notables in the Court of Urbino) suggests that one should wear a swatch of mail on the left palm gauntlet in order to allow for secure gripping of an opponent's blade.

So, since that's period, why not allow it as a convention that would allow for half-swording? I understand that the SCA adheres to a more Victorian than Medieval sense of what fighting methods are chivalrous, but consider that you already have precedent for such a thing:

1) Your armor standards assume Norman equipment, which often includes mail mittens.
2) Your (heavy) tourneys forbid the thrust with the sword unless it's equipped with a thrusting point. Seems to me much the same thing: I can't poke unless I show the marshal I have a pokeypoint, and I can't grab my blade unless I show the marshall that I have "grabbing hands."

So you would thereby be able to move your fighting closer to the medieval standard w/o mucking up your normal hand regulations for combat.

Just thought I'd toss that out there and see what you guys think.

How do you propose we make these "gripping hands?"
Be prepared for the obligatory masturbation jokes by non grippers.

The biggest problem I see is getting whacked in the palm of the hand. The maille probably would do much to protect the palm if you tried to grab a sword that was in movement. It would still hurt pretty bad and I dont know too many people who would be comfortable trying to grab someone's club while they are swinging it. (not to mention it also would break the current grappling rules)

That's the point. As I understand, grappling would still be out. This would allow you to grab your own sword, thereby allowing for a number of period techniques which cannot currently be used.

How to construct? Not my problem. Ask POD for a very small sheet of very light gauge links? I have examined what had to be 22 gauge links in the back halls of a museum in Hungary. If need be, you could take metal cutters, and carve out the palm of a butcher's glove (and do something to get rid of that horrible yellow coating).

The confusion is in your first post where you state the maile was there to "...allow for secure gripping of an opponent's blade."

I think that techniques where I grip my own blade might be fun, personally, with a regular gauntlet.

Ahhh - I see. I dont know of anything that could be done to stop it. As long as you don't strike with the haft or the quillions you would be okay. Maybe try proposing it as an experimental rule to your earl marshal.

I had thought that rule was put in place for safety, as gripping the sword past the hilt adds more force to the blow. None the less, I would love to see it implemented.

Please note that it is expressely illegal in SCA rules to grasp a blade of a weapon. The origin of the rule is safety, ie to reduce the risks of broken hands in combat.

"IV. THE USE OF WEAPONS AND SHIELDS
A. 2. The blade of a weapon may not be grasped at any time, nor may it be trapped in contact with the fighter’s body as a means of preventing the opponent’s use of the weapon. Neither may the blade of a fighter’s own weapon be grasped to enhance the block."

Dan

I don't see how a prohibition on grasping your own blade can be made on the basis of blow force or safety. Grabbing your own longsword blade is no different from holding and swinging a polearm.


Iain

This is one area of the rules where the SCA should make changes based on historical evidence. Grabbing one's own blade, and grabbing the blade of the opponent were common practice, and done without armor, or even without gloves. The Medieval manuals are full of techniques which employ this.

All it requires is a simple rules change. We don't need to grab swinging blades, but any stationary, or stopped blade should be fine for grasping, and prevents no safety concerns.

------------------
Conn MacNiell

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob Charron:
<B>This is one area of the rules where the SCA should make changes based on historical evidence. Grabbing one's own blade, and grabbing the blade of the opponent were common practice, and done without armor, or even without gloves. The Medieval manuals are full of techniques which employ this.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, indeed, they even call those techniques "knightly."

I have to definately agree on this one. Count me in Russ(And I am sure I will hear more this evening)


Duncan Princeps Ansteorra

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DanNV:
<B>
"IV. THE USE OF WEAPONS AND SHIELDS
A. 2. The blade of a weapon may not be grasped at any time, nor may it be trapped in contact with the fighter’s body as a means of preventing the opponent’s use of the weapon. Neither may the blade of a fighter’s own weapon be grasped to enhance the block."

Dan</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgive the rambling nature of this post.

I've read that myself. and I understand the part about trapping the opponent's blade, But how does that explain the SCA use of Greatswords with a ricasso. The great majority of ricasso equipped greatswords differ from "regular" ones by the elimination of "edge tape" near the quillion. I have only seen one that used (small quillions/pokey bits) above the ricasso.

As for hand safety, this is no more dangerous than great Axe or Polearm fighting.

With the exception of the "St. George" guard (one hand on the handle and one near the tip of the sword) I believe grabbing your own weapon is a non issue.

Grabbing/trapping your opponents could be interesting though...



------------------
Vogeljager
www.angelfire.com/nf/dfowler/

I would love to be able to half-sword my greatsword. That would really expand my repertoire. With current SCA rules, using a greatsword in a tourney is strictly a labor of love. I made a 5-foot axe so I could use some of the techniques, but it's not the same thing. I really don't see a safety problem, as long as we don't try to grab somebody's blade as it's being swung.

Now, when it comes to hammering a guy with the crossguard...

------------------
"Come, winds! Blow, wrack! At least we'll die with harness on our back!"

From The Middle Kingdom Armoured Combat Marshal's Handbook:

2.4.2 SWORDS
In addition to Society standards:
A. TWO-HANDED SWORDS (GREAT SWORD/BASTARD SWORD)
Any sword with an overall length of 4 to 6 feet. The grip and ricasso together may not exceed one-half the total length of the weapon.

For those of us in the Middle Kingdom, this should allow plenty of room to grip the blade. I'm looking forward to trying some half-sword techniques when I learn two handed sword.

Bob Charron said:
"Grabbing one's own blade, and grabbing the blade of the opponent were common practice, and done without armor, or even without gloves. The Medieval manuals are full of techniques which employ this."

Please educate me. I thought swords were supposed to be sharp! I can see grabbing blades if one has a chainmail palm but not without armor or gloves.

I have a reasonably sharp sword and I just could not imagine holding onto the blade with an unprotected hand and letting some brute drive the blade deep into my hand by blocking his blow.

I can only conclude that these swords must have dull edges for tournament use or were used for bludgeoning a heavily armored opponent.

The first time I ever used a great sword at a fight practice, my first blow was blocked and I half sworded and thurst. Got him dead centre,from the reaction of all there would have thought I kicked him between the legs and spit on him when he was down. Spent the next 15 minutes being told how unsafe it was and not very knightly. Yet the same move is legal with a polearm? Never could figure it out! I think that it is long over due to be allowed in combat, at least it would show why a fighter with a great sword was not to be taken lightly on the field, not that some great sword fighters are taken lightly now

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by igelkott:
<B>Bob Charron said:
Please educate me. I thought swords were supposed to be sharp! I can see grabbing blades if one has a chainmail palm but not without armor or gloves.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It can be done once the momentum of the blade is stopped. So long as there is no movement of the blade edge relative to the hand, you will not be cut.

As Russ says, it can be done without injury with a reasonably sharp blade, but also remember that many (I won't say most or state a % that I've pulled out of the air because I don't know for sure, but I'd LIKE to say MOST) swords were not "cutting sharp" but were a wedge like an axe. They do their damage as a wedge with mass and cleaving, not with slicing and cutting.

Count me in on this. I'm all for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Morgan:
<B>They do their damage as a wedge with mass and cleaving, not with slicing and cutting.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was the view until very recently. What we have found lately is that indeed they cut. Boy do they cut. Also, medieval swords tended to be what we would nowadays consider ridiculously light. The typical sword which could be wielded with one hand (war sword, short sword, light longsword / bastard sword) would weight, on average, about 2 lbs. 6 ounces.

VERY light, very fast, quite sharp, no value as a mass weapon whatsoever, unless you hit with the crosspiece, or have one of a fairly small selection of heavier blades like anti-plate 16th c. longswords, the zweihander, or a rapier. Yes, I meant that. Most rapiers were actually heavier than most medieval swords.

So you can imagine what it would be like to half-sword with....

All of the zwei-handers I've seen are set up as polearms (padded), not swords. There is a limit to the length of the grip of a two-handed sword, and the ricosso would make it too long.

------------------
Owen
"Death is but a doorway-
Here, let me hold that for you"

I have to definately agree on this one. Count me in Russ(And I am sure I will hear more this evening)


Duncan Princeps Ansteorra

Your Highness I will deffinitely jumkp on this band wagon. the more period things we rae able to safely do the better.
Vivat ANSTEORRA!
Angus Gunn

Russ, I'd love to see some of the evidence you are talking about for the light weight of medieval swords. It may seem really trivial to some, but I feel that constructing a weapon that accurately represents true weights and balance is key to recreating combat techniques and styles.

Patchwerk,

Here is a link to a small sample of period sword weights.
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/shield_and_weapon_weights.html

Jurgen

Igelkott,

With all respect,

Please look at any of the Medieval manuals on longsword use: Talhoffer, Flos Duellatorum, Gladiatoria, Goliath, etc.

Grabbing your blade, and the other fellows, were part and parcel of Medieval swordplay.

The "sharp swords can 't be grasped" rule is something of a modern invention.

I'm sure I'll understand it better after the Kinser event with Bob, and can promote it. I'd be glad to ask our Earl Marshall to allow it as an experiment, but I'd feel much better being able to tell him, "yes, we tried it on our own, no one was hurt, it should work" etc. I think it would be better received.

I respect you all very much!

I am not disagreeing with the fact that swords were grabbed. In fact, my eyes have been opened to the possibilities. The only thing I objected to was the contention that swords were grabbed with bare hands.

Thank you for pointing out these books! I immediately went to the HACA website and found some parts of them there and they are very interesting. I agree that the books show people grabbing swords with bare hands. I would contend that either:

1) These are training manuals and show techniques that can be practiced without armor with dull weapons, but the real thing would be done with fully armored hands (and fully armored bodies (see my note below about the gladiatore book)

2) Real swords that were used in the time period of these books were dull. I would also grant the argument that dull is relative and that they could be wedge shaped. However, I consider this option as unlikely.

As to the argument that one could grab a blade when it is not moving and not get cut. Yes and no. yes, I can grab the blade and as long as I don't move my hand along the blade it will not get cut. However, consider the following experiment. Take a piece of chicken. Place a kitchen knife with the edge against the chicken. Give the back of the blade a hard whack and watch how the chicken gets cut. In my opinion, this simulates what would happen to your hand when you try to parry a blow while holding a sharp sword in your hand. (I'd rather not try it on myself).

Also, when one attempts to grab an opponents blade, his first reaction is to attempt to withdraw the weapon (or thrust), hence causing your bare hand to slide along the blade and get cut. Hopefully you will have killed him with surprise first but I wouldn't want to take that chance. Hence, I do not believe in bare handed sword grabbing.

On another rant.....

One needs to be careful about making sweeping generalizations (such as "medieval swords tended to be what we would nowadays consider ridiculously light"). The medieval period (at least as far as the SCA is concerned) extends from the fall of the roman empire to the 1500s. During that time swords varied in purpose from killing bare-naked celts to armored tanks back to bare-naked musketeers .

Also, the time periods covered by the above mentioned manuals include one at 1300 (Fechtbuch I.33) and the rest in latter 1400s and 1500s. Warfare was much different then from warfare in the 1000s for example. It would help if you qualify when you say "they did such and such" with who did what when.

BTW, I did not see any sword grabbing in the Fechtbuch I.33 book (1300). Perhaps this is only a later period fighting style?

Sorry about ranting but I guess it is one of my pet peeves about movies in which people are portrayed as blocking with their swords with bare hands and I find this unrealistic. However, I do now agree that this can occur if one has protected palms, but I do not accept bare hands.

On another note, the Gladiatore book (mid 1400s) is very strange in that it shows fully armored fighters EXCEPT for they don't have gauntlets! One guess I have is that perhaps hand and finger position is very important and the author wanted to clearly illustrate this?

I will also like to look more closely at these books. Unfortunately the translations aren't all there.

I look forward to further discussion of these issues!!!!!!!!!

I'm not expert, but I had a couple of thoughts. Correct me if any of my assumptions are wrong. While I realize that SCA covers a large time period, I think it best to look at this issue while only considering a particular time period, such as the high middle ages in this case.

Weapons used in tournaments were probably dull. This was done lessen the chance of major injury. Weapons used in battle were sharpened, because you were trying to kill people, some in armor, others unarmored. Even if most damage was done by cleaveing or hacking, it wouldn't hurt to have a good cutting blade in battle.

Half-swording would probably have been used mostly in tournaments. Knights in battle would have carried a shield, therefore preventing most two-handed techniques. In tournaments, shields were rarely used.

So it seems to me that if you're running a tournament based on the high middle ages, such as a pas de armes, half-swording should be an allowable manuever, as long as it is safe. Even grabbing the opponents blade would seem ok.

However, not every SCA "tournament" is a tournament. Some events expect losers to "fall dead" when they lose. If these events are trying to depict mortal combat, such as Gladiatorial games, or trial by combat, then blades would be considered sharpened, and you should probably not allow the grasping of blades.

igelkott,

While I agree that placing a kitchen knife against a chicken and smacking it will definately cut the chicken, I'm somehow doubting that most swords were sharpened *anywhere* near this sharp. Especially swords that were meant for armoured combat. An edge as sharp as I keep my kitchen knives would be absolutely useless against armour. An edge more along the lines of a sharp cold chisel would work much better. The weapons pictured in many of the manuals are also designed for chopping type attacks, not draw cuts where a less sharp blade is just as(or even more) effective than a razor edge. I also don't think the manuals would show the technique if it were not effective and useful.

I'll agree with your statement about sweeping generalizations. Though there is significant evidence as to the the actual weight of a large variety of medieval sword styles. They are usually lighter than most people think.

Jurgen

igelkott,
Take your example with the kitchen knife. Now, hitting your hand against the flat end of the knife did not hurt you, or at least you clearly still have a hand. Now, period war blades were at times this dull, having a rounded, or completely flat edge.
This is easily proved. Imagine finding a sturdy plate of steel, and hacking at it with the edge of said sharp blade. After a half hour, unless it is a super-space age blade, it has become very dull. Now, if one hits flesh with this dull blade with force, the blade will still travel through. Also, with this dull blade, one may bash in plate armour, doing decent damage. So a dull blade is still a useful one. Sometimes, just the last 3 in of a blade were left sharp, for drawcutting, and the rest was dull.
I have experimented with half swording, with steel weapons and no armour, at mid-speed, and a good amount of force. If done properly, the blade grasping hand is quite safe. Experiments like this are useful; soldiers do NOT practice useless techniques, in any time period.
Also, skin is a better friction surface than maille (at least mine), so one might favor no maille for the grip. Making entire plate palms is going to restrict body movement, which enhances one's chances of being killed.
Try this with wooden swords; fight one handed, and try to cautiously grab your opponent's blade. It can be done, and with practice, is not too hard, nor too dangerous. Remember, in real combat their are no rules.
Hope this helps. Please, fire away if I have said something meriting it.

------------------
Magmaforge
"To Armour is to live"

[This message has been edited by Magmaforge (edited 03-17-2001).]

There are some good points here, but also a lot of misconceptions, so allow me to irritate the two of you for a moment.

Igelkott: That's a good analogy, but unfortunately, dead flesh doesn't react like live. Especially after it's been frozen. To wit, last night I took my bastard sword off the wall... it is not razor sharp, but more than sharp enough that we had a cutting practice on sunday. So, call it not-noticing-the-presence-of-milk-jug sharp. I bounced it off my hand repeatedly, hard enough to set the whole blade vibrating. And did it to my wife. As you can see, I'm still typing. Would I stick the same hand in the way of a full-on swing? Not unless I had the ability to "stuff" the cut down by the hilt. Even then, that's not what the techniques are shown for.
Regarding "sweeping generalizations," technically, you're right, but technically, I am too: even Viking-era blades turn out to be very, very thin, and very, very light. So do almost all of the late medieval swords, with the exception of one or two anti-plate jobbers, and even they aren't particularly heavy, just rigid, diamond-cross-sectioned, and rather pointy.
You don't see any sword grabbing in I.33, because he's holding his buckler. However, if you looked closely, you still saw a number of binds.
re: gauntlets. They're uncomfortable. Vast numbers of medieval warriors apparently went without hand protection in battle, if we can safely trust our surviving artworks.

Patchwerk: yes, weapons used in tournaments were even beyond dull, they were rebated. They were "blunts." During the portion in time when the longsword was widely used (before that halfswording can't really be much of an issue, can it? We have no information on sole-sword fighting methods for earlier than that), it was becoming steadily less common to carry a shield. You could reasonably expect to come across opponents w/o one. After all, this is a sword that works well in one hand, and smashingly well in two. Half-swording and grappling were techniques for battle, as well as tournament/duel, where the crush of men made it impossible to get a full swing on your weapon. In fact, the germans schools go so far as to call these techniques "war."

Igelkott,

Thank you for your gracious exchange.

It does come as a surprise to find that all this offensive and defensive blade grabbing went on. It surprised me when I discovered it too

I agree that you would not want to play "tug of war" with the opponent's blade, and risk having him pull it through your hand. In fact, in one of Dei Liberi's plates he says, "I will grab your blade, and before you can make me let go I will hurt you." So clearly he wasn't after playing push-pull with a knife in his hand.

Similarly, care would need to be taken when parrying from half-sword. Almost all the parries we see in the masters are what Fiore would call "sbatterlo" or "knocking aside". They are redirections. They do not receive the blow full-force on a static block. This should also address some of your concerns.

They are also not grabbing full-force cuts out of the air. That would be foolish.

What they did was grab blades that were motionless, grab their own blade as a means of combatting other armored opponents, and did this often without wearing any hand protection at all.

Perhaps some of the above addresses your concerns.

------------------
Conn MacNiell

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by igelkott:
BTW, I did not see any sword grabbing in the Fechtbuch I.33 book (1300). Perhaps this is only a later period fighting style? </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Russ Mitchell:
You don't see any sword grabbing in I.33, because he's holding his buckler. However, if you looked closely, you still saw a number of binds.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, actually....Look at this image from I33 at http://www.thehaca.com/i33/33.jpg.
It shows the fighter on the right holding his sword in his buckler hand while reaching out to grab his opponents blade. The counter of this is yanking the blade out of his hand (possibly cutting it?). The fighters do appear to be wearing long cuffed gloves or gauntlets on both hands in all the I33 images.

I missed this one for a while too.

[This message has been edited by Joe Keith (edited 03-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Joe Keith (edited 03-18-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Joe Keith (edited 03-18-2001).]

in sca combat you are presumed to be wareing chainmail mittens so half swording would only be a danger if you were catching a blade in motion i think it would be permissable to do this if you were waring full gauntlets (or hockie gloves) but ill legal if you were waring demi-gauntlets or leather gloves

this could change sword and bord, two stick, pole, and great sword styles if you could grasp a blade as long as it isn't in motion With gauntlets


for give the spelling it has been a long day

Nugg

I went back through some of my pictures from Italy and made an astounding realization in the context of this discussion. A museum in Florence has a pair of chainmail gauntlets from 1565. They are leather with chainmail on on side. I assumed that the chainmail was on the back of the glove to protect against strikes. I took a closer look at the picture and realized that the chainmail was on the inside!!!!!!!

Take a look at http://ulster.net/~chrisl/medieval/firenze/firenze.htm and scroll down to the gauntlets.

Notice how the thumb on the glove on the right sticks up and overlaps the index finger. That glove goes on the left hand. Now I wish I had taken better pictures!

I would guess that there were probably originally a pair of plate gauntlets covering the back and the chainmail would protect the palm of the hand when grabbing opponents weapons.

The card says: Paio di guanti da presa, Maestro Andrea, Firenze, ca.1565