The Armour Archive

Okay, I've taken some time to peruse the fechtbuchs (courtesy of ARMA and AEMMA).
Some things that occur to me after these first glances:

1) These books seem to be primarily focused on more civilian fighting. I.e. they seem to be concerned with the type of fighting that occurs during a civil disturbance (rather than a battle). On the other hand, the lack of certain techniques like punching and kicking (not completely absent, true, but a definite minority) seems to indicate that these techniques will be used against armored opponents.

2) I am impressed by the sophistication of some of the grappling. The joint locks and throws are beyond what I really expected to see.

3) Where is the groundwork? The authors seem to assume that once a man is on the ground he is no longer a real threat.

4) No one is aiming for the legs. A leg wound is pretty damn incapacitating and the foot, shins, and knees are really attractive targets. I understand the range argument (i.e. you get the greatest range out of your sword when it is extended straight out in front of you at shoulder height) but much of this fighting seems to be occuring inside that range.

5) Pommel smash good.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jester:
<B>Okay, I've taken some time to peruse the fechtbuchs (courtesy of ARMA and AEMMA).
Some things that occur to me after these first glances:

1) These books seem to be primarily focused on more civilian fighting. I.e. they seem to be concerned with the type of fighting that occurs during a civil disturbance (rather than a battle). On the other hand, the lack of certain techniques like punching and kicking (not completely absent, true, but a definite minority) seems to indicate that these techniques will be used against armored opponents.

2) I am impressed by the sophistication of some of the grappling. The joint locks and throws are beyond what I really expected to see.

3) Where is the groundwork? The authors seem to assume that once a man is on the ground he is no longer a real threat.

4) No one is aiming for the legs. A leg wound is pretty damn incapacitating and the foot, shins, and knees are really attractive targets. I understand the range argument (i.e. you get the greatest range out of your sword when it is extended straight out in front of you at shoulder height) but much of this fighting seems to be occuring inside that range.

5) Pommel smash good.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1.) I think most of them do focus *primarily* on "civilian" combat (i.e., unarmored combat), although some, like Le Jeu de la Hache, are concerned almost entirely with judicial combat. But almost all of the ones I've seen that were written during the period when armor was in current use tend to have at least a little armored combat in them. That armored combat tends to focus strictly on war or judicial combat however, with very lethal attacks, usually half-swording to unarmored targets.

2.) That's interesting: I hold a menkyo in ju-jutsu, and I have been profoundly *unimpressed* with the grappling. It seems remarkably crude and weak. For example, Fiore's technique of lifting the leg and pushing the body is fairly easy to counter, and isn't a very powerful throw regardless; I know a much better throw that works form the same situation. They also avoid showing the important parts of grappling, i.e., the setup stuff, like blows to vital targets and moving your opponent off balance or going with his force, etc. Of course, most claim to be intended only as memory aids for instructors who should already know things like that, so it's impossible for us to know if they understood those concepts or not.

3.) You're right; to ignore groundwork is just foolish.

4.) The reason the legs aren't often targeted in the fecthbucher is because they argue that if somone cuts at your legs you should be out of range. If you try it, you'll find that you have much longer reach to the head than you do to the legs, so if someone swings at your legs you can easily hit them in the head from out of their range. Unfortunately, that ignores engagements "from the bind" in which you are close enough to your opponent to negate that advantage.

5.) Yes, the pommel (and the cross; look at Talhoffer's "mordenschlag") is a very effective tool! We could simulate this in the SCA by just making a thrusting tip on the end of our longswords.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">1) These books seem to be primarily focused on more civilian fighting. I.e. they seem to be concerned with the type of fighting that occurs during a civil disturbance (rather than a battle). On the other hand, the lack of certain techniques like punching and kicking (not completely absent, true, but a definite minority) seems to indicate that these techniques will be used against armored opponents.</font>

The techniques are oriented toward single combat in whatever venue that may occur. It could be civil disturbance, tournament, judicial combat, or a single encounter on the battlefield (as opposed to line fighting). There is some punching in Liberi, to soft areas like the throat and stomach. Kicks are kept low, mostly to the knee so balance is easily maintained. The crotch stomp is the highest I've seen one.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
3) Where is the groundwork? The authors seem to assume that once a man is on the ground he is no longer a real threat.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The assumption is that the guy on the ground has friends coming to kick your ass. The focus is on throwing them down while you remain standing. Often the throw includes things like breaking the arm or dislocating the shoulder on the way down, or throwing him hard onto his head or face. In that case he isn't much of a threat once on the ground, and you are prepared to face whatever is coming next.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
4) No one is aiming for the legs. A leg wound is pretty damn incapacitating and the foot, shins, and knees are really attractive targets. I understand the range argument (i.e. you get the greatest range out of your sword when it is extended straight out in front of you at shoulder height) but much of this fighting seems to be occuring inside that range.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the head and arm are closer targets than the leg, you must bring your own into his range in order to reach his leg. He can pull his leg back out of your range while still hitting you in the head or arm. The best defense for the leg is to simply thrust them in the face.

Even though it looks like much of the fighting happens within range of the leg, the fact is that most of the attacks begin from out of range and are made on the advance. The pictures typically show the end of a strike after the distance has been closed. In a real fight it is very dangerous to begin attacks from within range because they are fast and difficult to defend. With a large shield it's safer to stand there, but you still can't defend the lower legs effectively without moving them out of the way, and when close there just isn't time. The safest way to defend the legs is to keep out of range, and launching an attack at the legs from there opens you to counterattacks. If you have a shield it's more viable, but apart from the buckler they had fallen out of use by the time most of the fechtbuchs were written.


Iain

[This message has been edited by IainMcClennan (edited 02-06-2002).]

Jester spoke:

"1) These books seem to be primarily focused on more civilian fighting. I.e. they seem to be concerned with the type of fighting that occurs during a civil disturbance (rather than a battle). On the other hand, the lack of certain techniques like punching and kicking (not completely absent, true, but a definite minority) seems to indicate that these techniques will be used against armored opponents."

It depends on which manual you read. As has been pointed out here by others, some are intended for unarmored combat, others for either or, and some, like Gladiatoria, are entirely about an armored judicial combat to the death. Striking is pointed out profusely in the *text* of these manuals, which the casual viewer will not receive the benefit of, as it is in Medieval Italian, Old Swabian, etc. However, I can assure you that Ringeck, Fiore, and several others emphasize striking as one of the most important parts of close-quarters combat if not *the* most important part. Fiore advises to strike them with thumbs in the eyes, the open hand to their nose or under their chin, a fist to their throat and to their flanks. There's a great deal of striking going on.

"2) I am impressed by the sophistication of some of the grappling. The joint locks and throws are beyond what I really expected to see."

Yes, and most importantly they are simple and easy to execute. Rhys' criticism must be considered, but the key to understanding why they throw the way they do is that they are throwing in a way that will reduce the chance that you will be dragged by the victim to the ground with him. This is to be avoided at all costs in a combat environment for reasons that Ian stated quite well.

"3) Where is the groundwork? The authors seem to assume that once a man is on the ground he is no longer a real threat."

The throws are fashioned so that the victim lands on his head or shoulder. There's no rolling out of them if they are done correctly. This combined with what Ian mentioned about avoiding companions of your opponent is true of almost all the manuals that are not intended for instruction in county fair wrestling or judicial duel. In both these cases it is understood that no one will interfere in the fight.

"4) No one is aiming for the legs. A leg wound is pretty damn incapacitating and the foot, shins, and knees are really attractive targets. I understand the range argument (i.e. you get the greatest range out of your sword when it is extended straight out in front of you at shoulder height) but much of this fighting seems to be occuring inside that range."

Ian explained this well. Geometry means that the distance to his leg is longer than the distance to his head. Fiore says never to cut at the leg unless your opponent's sword point is on the ground. If you do, your opponent will react by removing the leg backwards and striking you in your open head or arm. This is an almost universal response in all fencing manuals. You protect your legs with the use of distance, not by parries.

"5) Pommel smash good."

Yes, all parts of the weapon are used. In addition the gripping of your blade and your opponent's is an integral part of the system.


------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms

[This message has been edited by Bob Charron (edited 02-06-2002).]

SyrRhys

I am a 2nd Dan in a Tai Kwan Do (Tang Soo Do, meaning Chinese hand way) and KAJUKENBO (an mixed art including ju-jitsu) and I have an instructor who studied under the Gracie’s at one time who teaches us grappling (modern). I find the Talhoffer manual impressive for it's time. I uses allot of wrestling and fairly good holds in it. Of course ju-jitsu is superior but I still think that there grappling wasn't anything to sneeze at.

"Of course ju-jitsu is superior..."

Oh yes. Of course it is...




[This message has been edited by Joaquin (edited 02-06-2002).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob Charron:
<B>
Yes, and most importantly they are simple and easy to execute. Rhys' criticism must be considered, but the key to understanding why they throw the way they do is that they are throwing in a way that will reduce the chance that you will be dragged by the victim to the ground with him. This is to be avoided at all costs in a combat environment for reasons that Ian stated quite well.

"3) Where is the groundwork? The authors seem to assume that once a man is on the ground he is no longer a real threat."

The throws are fashioned so that the victim lands on his head or shoulder. There's no rolling out of them if they are done correctly. This combined with what Ian mentioned about avoiding companions of your opponent is true of almost all the manuals that are not intended for instruction in county fair wrestling or judicial duel. In both these cases it is understood that no one will interfere in the fight.

"4) No one is aiming for the legs. A leg wound is pretty damn incapacitating and the foot, shins, and knees are really attractive targets. I understand the range argument (i.e. you get the greatest range out of your sword when it is extended straight out in front of you at shoulder height) but much of this fighting seems to be occuring inside that range."

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Bob! Long time no spar! <grin>

I don't know that I buy your argument about the throwing: For example, that throw you see in Fiore where you lift his leg from the inside and push his chest gives him a great opportunity to grab you and pull you down. If you slip to the outside and lift his leg from there you'll find you have a much more powerful throwm and one which gives your opponent much less of a chance to grab you.

The fact that these techniques are fashioned so as to finish your opponent doesn't obviate the need for groundwork. In the first place, just because a throw is supposed to finish the fight doesn't mean it will (and we see this in Talhoffer, where he drops down and stabs the man whom he has thrown with his dagger); you have to know how to follow the fight wherever it goes in case your throw doesn't render him hors de combat. Also, it doesn't help you if *you're* the one who has been thrown! You need to know what to do when you're down on the ground, or else it's not a complete system. Just writing about what to do in a perfect world ignores the fact that combat is messy, and things often don't go as planned.

As for the legs, when you are engaged in the bind you are then in the time of the hand, and even if you try to step back you are certainly vulnerable to a leg blow from your opponent while still in his range; in fact, that's an excellent time to throw a leg blow, especially if his hilt is high. To ignore this is one of the serious weaknesses of some of the manuals.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by flonzy:
I am a 2nd Dan in a Tai Kwan Do (Tang Soo Do, meaning Chinese hand way) and KAJUKENBO (an mixed art including ju-jitsu) and I have an instructor who studied under the Gracie’s at one time who teaches us grappling (modern). I find the Talhoffer manual impressive for it's time. I uses allot of wrestling and fairly good holds in it. Of course ju-jitsu is superior but I still think that there grappling wasn't anything to sneeze at.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope I didn't give the impression I think these books are completely useless; I don't at all. I think some of the stuff in them is a bit crude at best, but I also think some of it is clean and highly effective under the right circumstances.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

That's what has been bothering me! Thank you all. The books *all* assume victory!

Thinking back on it I cannot recall seeing a single counter in any of the manuals I have looked at (Fiore [online Novati], Duerer, I.33, Talhoffer). They all assume the iniative. If you're the guy ending up on the ground you're SOL.

Some of you who have read the texts, do they address this? Do any of the authors have anything to say about what to do if you get dumped on your ass by your opponent?

I'm going to have to think on the thoughts that follow, but something else about these manuals is nagging at me. Books are hard to write at any time, and harder still to produce. This is particularly true during the middle ages and especially of books that rely so heavily on illustrations. But these manuscripts/books were produced in enough numbers (and were of sufficient importance) to survive until we could see them. And these books are dealing with fighting *outside the realm of warfare*. These are books, by and large, for people who wanted to survive encounters in the street, civil disturbances, judicial combat and the like. The corpus of material on these subjects dwarfs the corpus of material on purely military fighting.

I believe "Medieval Warfare" by Koch contains a (17th Century) sample plate from a manual for musketeers that shows two musketeers demonstrating various combat techniques. These guys go at tooth and nail, literally. They use pieces of their equipment (bandoliers, helmets, shooting stands) as weapons in addition to the swords they both carry. So I am disinclined to believe that these manuals are showing people out of armor for the sake of simplicity. And none of the period accounts of fighting that I have read detail any grappling (okay, knife-fighting I have seen accounts of).

To my mind this says something about medieval society. Maybe its just me having to re-adjust my view of medieval society, but I'm not sure.

Counters are extensively discussed in these texts. But again, as Bob said, you can't get this stuff just by looking at the pictures... He has pulled information out of Fiore that provides keys (pun intended) to understanding Fiore's fighting, and in the other texts I've been involved with, Codex Wallerstein in particular, there are counters and counter-counters mentioned constantly.

In terms of sophistication, well, that's highly situational, and the pictures are clearly not the whole story. Wallerstein is even less comprehensible without the text than Fiore...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jester:
[B]That's what has been bothering me! Thank you all. The books *all* assume victory![B]

It's a major failing in some at least.

[B]Thinking back on it I cannot recall seeing a single counter in any of the manuals I have looked at (Fiore [online Novati], Duerer, I.33, Talhoffer). They all assume the iniative. If you're the guy ending up on the ground you're SOL.[B]

Actually, there are a great many counters in the texts. Fiore, for example, is *mostly* showing counters; he argues against taking the initiative most of the time. Others, like Ringeck or Le Jeu are split between the two concepts in what I believe to be a more realistic approach.


------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Greetings all,

Actually, the German medieval fighting manuals are rife with ground-fighting techniques. My forthcoming book on Sigmund Ringeck's manuscript includes some, while others, including the von Danzig manuscript, have lots of the stuff.

Best,

------------------
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Christian H. Tobler:
<B>Greetings all,

Actually, the German medieval fighting manuals are rife with ground-fighting techniques. My forthcoming book on Sigmund Ringeck's manuscript includes some, while others, including the von Danzig manuscript, have lots of the stuff.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn, then that translation must be even worse than I thought; I didn't realize that. I'm liking Ringeck more and more, Christian. I still disagree with some of his concepts (like not hitting from the side of your back foot), but most of his philosophies of combat seem very much in tune with what I learned as an SCA fighter, from feints, to hitting high/low-right/left, to always fighting with all your strength.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

What little i have left to add is for all the Jui-Jitsuka on the thread, remember for every move there is a counter, for every counter there is a reversal, for every reversal there is a move.

Maybe it was just the way Conn taught it, but i saw many similarities between BJJ and Fiore. For ex the dagger defenses were almost identical to several Gracie knife defences. I'll form a more informed opinion on Fiore when the I get Conn's book and can see more of the depections for myself.

I'd also have to agree on the ground fighting, we teach our guys that you only go to the ground if the guy is alone. Other wise you do a standing ankle lock, break the arm stomp the groin or throat ectect. Now we teach ground fighting from day one, but we tell ya not to go there if the bad guy has 4 buddies with him.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Murdock:
<B>Maybe it was just the way Conn taught it, but i saw many similarities between BJJ and Fiore. For ex the dagger defenses were almost identical to several Gracie knife defences. I'll form a more informed opinion on Fiore when the I get Conn's book and can see more of the depections for myself.

I'd also have to agree on the ground fighting, we teach our guys that you only go to the ground if the guy is alone. Other wise you do a standing ankle lock, break the arm stomp the groin or throat ectect. Now we teach ground fighting from day one, but we tell ya not to go there if the bad guy has 4 buddies with him.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that it's almost always a bad idea to go to the ground *on purpose* (except in a sacrifice throw, most of which I think belong more in the sport arena than the street). My point was that you often end up on the ground *against your will*, and my complaint against some of the fecthbucher was that they didn't discuss what to do when you got there.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Several points:

1) throws and them trying to grab you during them - we've done Fiore's throws (incorrectly, so the companion can roll out of them) in a wrestling room full of mats, encouraging the person being thrown to grab and try to pull the other person down. What we found was that if the throw is done close to Fiore's instructions, the most the companion can only try to grab a piece of the opponent, and it's not much of a problem to slip it. If they do catch hold of you strongly, they have now committed their arms to grabbing you and you strike them very hard in the throat, put a thumb in their eye, break their nose, etc. Then they are more compliant for throwing and arm locks.

2) ground work - as has been said, in combat systems that assume there will be outside interference, even modern systems prefer that you not go to the ground. If, however, you find yourself there, all the wrestling and striking techniques still apply. Those who put on gear and spar with this material will tell you it works just fine on the ground if you blow it and end up there. You just want to focus on getting back on your feet. You do not want to be down there. In a combat situation with multiple opponents, the fight is over for you if you go to the ground. You better just curl up and hope the get tired of kicking you.

3)outside the realm of warfare - well, Fiore fought in a battle or two, and in addition to being the teacher of arms to the bodyguard of the Marchese da Ferrara, he also had a role as a military advisor. He states that the art is used for duel, riot, and battle, and there is an extensive armored combat section in the manual. The point about them being techniques for use against one individual at a time is valid. There are other treatises which have techniques for use against groups.

However, what we find by reading chronicles of battles is that you fight differently in the the army. You maintain disciplined formations and fight from within them. To break ranks is to invite disaster. You have a limited number of things you can do in that situation (shoulder to shoulder with a couple hundred other folks). As I recall there is a Renaissance master that advises when you are fighting another in the street do not fight as they teach you to do in the army, for that is technique designed for formation fighting and will get you killed in single combat. I'll have to dig up the quote.

4) initiative - Fiore advises that you always maintain a position just out of the range of the weapons being used. Silver articulates this by saying that you should make sure that your opponent must take a step to attack you. This gives you time for making a proper defense. Otherwise it's a dice-roll, as the hand is too fast to follow reliably, and in the one cover you miss, that blow can bring you death. There is both attack and defense in Fiore, but most of all it is the maintenance of the proper distance that is crucial.

5) cutting for the leg in the bind - Yes, you should keep in mind that he may do it. As to advising your students to do that, however, I would advise against it. If you are in the bind and cut for his leg, you are just as likely to get hit in the head as you do it as if you have stepped back (you're still in the time of the hand). I believe the advice still applies. You don't want to get hit at all.

6) counters - there are remedies to being attacked, there are counters to remedies, and there are counters to counters all in Fiore - most are to be found in the text, but many are in the illustrations if you understand how to look at them (crowns and garters on the players). Fiore advises that he does not show much beyond the counter to the counter because the more the fight progresses in this fashion, the less reliable it becomes for the practitioner (it begins to get dicey and fall apart). Better to break and begin again than to become too mired in a tangle where you lose your way with respect to technique.

Weak? I don't think so. Sound advice when truly fighting "for your life", and not, as Fiore says by comparison "for amusement."

------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms

[This message has been edited by Bob Charron (edited 02-07-2002).]

Hi Bob,

Well that's the thing, isn't it? Are you fighting in a multiple attacker situation, or single combat. With its heavy focus on judicial duelling, the ground work makes sense for the German material.

In a judicial duel, it's one on one and there's a strong likelihood that you'll go to the ground. And when that does happen, you *should* pursue your man to kill him. After all, this isn't a self-defense situation - one of you is going to die in the encounter.

Kinda like Thunderdome - "two men enter, one man leaves"

In the battle, riot, or 'on the street' self-defense situation, the ground-fighting is a thing to avoid at all cost. As you point out, bad guys often have buddies.

Best,
Christian

------------------
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar

There is a lot of ground to cover here.
Most of my replies are going to be based on Fiore's book, since that is my current area of study.
He has armored and unarmored section, since the techniques in the unarmored sections wont works again plate, and vise versa.

One thing I have been struggling with, since I also have a backround in Eastern Ma's, is the tendency to look at the techniques through a filter of what I already know. The techniques in Fiore are not so much joint locks as we are used to seeing them, but breaks. and Like someone already mentioned, the throws are done specifically to make a guy land on his head. Rhys, for the throw you talked about, you are not actually lifting the leg. You instead drive that elbow forward and back, much more of a displacement, and when the opponent's leg pops up as they start to fal, you actually are scooping so that you can aim the back of their head against the ground
The ground work question has been answered to death, I would assume that Fiore would say to "strike the places of pain" and get the hell back up.

Jester, when you say that much of the Longsword fighting occurs close enough to be in the time of the hand, it makes me wonder if you are coming from an SCA backround. This is not a critisism at all, I fight in the SCA as well, but generally (not always) SCAer's fight at a closer distance than most of the manuals show. Regardless, at close distance, there are usuall better targest than the leg, unless you have your opponents sword otherwise occupied. ( Bob, is it Fiore who says not to swing at the leg unless the other guys sword is under yours?) Fiore does talk about covers. Look at Boar's Tooth. Makes a pretty good leg cover, and if you are striking correctly in the manner of Fiore, you end up there anyway. In the manual, when the people already seem at close range, the swords are crossed After the have already stepped in, not as a starting place.
And of course, pommel smash good!
I hope this rambling reply makes sense, I always find it very exciting when I see these kind of conversations.
Mark H.


[This message has been edited by markH (edited 02-07-2002).]

Well, I'd just like to say (again) that it is very exciting to see this lively and informative discussion of fechtbuchs here on the archive. I certainly can't add anything of consequence to the superb comments by Mr. Charron and other scholars who have posted already, I'm just soaking up the knowledge and looking forward to the Bob Charron Fiore Seminar in Fairfax VA next month! Hope to see you all there! It would be a great opportunity for anyone who is curious to see just how well these techniques really work. There is really just no substitute for grabbing a waster and trying it for yourself, especially under the tutelage of someone who has spent a great deal of time interpreting and practicing these techniques.

Matt Anderson

Androu,

Thanks for your kind words.

Just to add more grist to the mill, yes, the ligadura (arm locks) are intended to be dislocations and throws, not static positions that you hold, and the throws are intended to land them on their head, shoulders or face. Mark explained the one throw quite well.

And yes, Mark, it is Fiore who says that you should not cut at the leg unless the other fellow's sword point is on the ground.

Christian's point I continue to emphasize - the ground work is for either sport wrestling or judicial duel where there will be no interference. That's why Gladiatoria and others which focus on judicial duel include it. If you want to learn it, it's there

Thanks for a great discussion!

------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms