The Armour Archive

I work in a call center and some nights have a lot of time available to surf the net between calls. During one such slow night, I got to thinking about the four basic German longsword stances (http://www.thearma.org/essays/StancesIntro.htm).

When fighting, I've never made use of the Fool stance, but recently saw it used in a video to good effect. In the video (which was live steel), the person fighting blocked incoming attacks incidentally while transitioning from Fool to another stance: go from Fool to Roof then throw a slashing attack, blocking an incoming shot during the transition.

The one incoming attack that I didn't see in the video was a flat snap to the head - one of the most common blows thrown one-handed in the SCA and one of the fastest.

After all that background, my two questions:

1) Has anyone here made frequent and effective use of the Fool stance when fighting with a two-handed sword of any length?
2) Have you ever successfully blocked a flat snap in the manner I described, for example by transitioning from Fool to Ox as the snap came in?

I'm looking for experience more than conjecture. I can conjecture without assistance.

Edit: (Deleted post that said I know more than I do, as a reply farther down proved.)

I've used it on rare occasion. Usually only when I notice my opponent is also using more historic technique.

It's fairly easy to convert into a thrust from the plug, but I don't think it has a lot of value in SCA combat because we have no lower leg targeting.

I have also found that many historic stances gain their value from the shear threat of death. That does not apply for us.

I find Alber to be the weakest guard to use vs an SCA opponent. A lot of times they just stand there and look at you and since Alber isn't a "starting guard" you have to transition to something else to attack. Or, they rush you and you have to give up the initiative to pass into (usually) left Phlug, or left Ochs (my preferred wrap shot block).
Also, keep in mind that the writings of the masters say you MUST keep the inititave in a fight. That means by using the master cuts from an out of range guard. Attacking brings you into range, and then the object (at least what I have learned in the German school) is to keep the initiative and use the cuts to disable the oppoents, launched from the guards which you only occupy for a brief second while throwing the next attack.

Note- The HARDEST thing about trying to stay true to the techniques is to lose the bad habit I picked up in SCA fighting of standing there and showdowning it with my opponent. Also, of getting too close to my opponent instead of maintaining a good range (since we can not grapple).

Yes, I've used that technique, starting in right Fool and transitioning up to left Ox to block the flat snap, then snapping the sword around into a sweeping cut to the opponent's right hip. It's a good move.

That said, against a standard flat snap I prefer to start in right Roof, and just throw a Zwerchau--you'll pick off the flat snap with your quillions and hit your opponent solidly in the shield-side head with your own attack (I'm a strong proponent of using the Zwerchau as the greatsword 'flat snap' over the top of the shield)

Another one you will like, if you like the fool guard, is a technique Marc de Arundel developed (look him up on Youtube). It's a slightly modified Fool position, with the pommel and left hand higher than the right hand, but tip still down. Raise the tip up quickly as if to strike at your opponent's head, then snap it quickly back down into the original position, hitting him 2 inches above the knee as soon as his shield twitches upward to block the head feint.

Have fun with it...there is a lot you can do successfully using historical tecnhiques in SCA heavy combat, especially with greatsword.

I find it works well against people to invite a thrust. Its an invitation or "pulling" action, and I would recommend you have a plan if you set up in it.

Because of that, I don't find it very useful against sword a shield except to drop the sword out of their line of sight. With a rapid passing step and a bit of maneuvering, you can sometimes deliver a thrust from down low, around the shield, up into the chin. (push your hands down and to the inside of the shield, while you pass to the outside, using their shield to cover until you clear) This works best when people open up their shields, either to see or as part of their technique.

Cheers,

What Leo said about initiative. Unlike Fiore, you NEVER wait to counterstrike/exchange thrusts.

Vladimir wrote:It's fairly easy to convert into a thrust from the plug, but I don't think it has a lot of value in SCA combat because we have no lower leg targeting.

Pflug is currently my favorite and most commonly used stance. From pflug, if the elbows are tight against the torso, it is possible to throw a quick killing-force blow with just a rotation of the hips: easily blocked but ideal for an opportunity attack. Move the pommel, and that hip twist becomes an upper leg shot.

I've used it a lot well before I knew what it was.
It is a guard of provocation. The point is to invite attack (no pun intended.) A feigned overcut to alber was often how I started. If a downward cut failed bring it to alber drawing them to attack where you want them to.

With SCA heavies I would often use it to provoke an attack that could end with me doing and absetzen. This is two handed sword to two handed sword mind you.

Russ Mitchell wrote:What Leo said about initiative. Unlike Fiore, you NEVER wait to counterstrike/exchange thrusts.

Actually, Russ, that's incorrect. It's true that most sources say to never await your opponent's attack, but a careful reading of the Fechtbücher makes it clear that the medieval masters were no strangers to hyperbole. They often say to "always" do a thing, then give plenty of examples where you shouldn't do that thing. There are numerous places the Fechtbücher tell us to wait for our opponent to attack. Not just things to do if we get out-timed and our opponent is able to attack first so we have to respond, but cases where we are actually told to wait and let the enemy attack first. One example is the plays of the Sprechfenster as described in both Ringeck and von Danzig: In both sources, we are directed to assume Long Point and wait for the enemy to attack us. Another exmple is all of the plays of the 3rd guard of the halfsword in Ringeck and von Danzig; the very nature of the 3rd guard is one of waiting for the attack. You can read a more detailed argument on this subject here:
http://talhoffer.blogspot.com/2008/02/are-we-always-supposed-to-attack-first.html

Also, you should all be aware that these guards about which you are discussing are not applicable to the kind of fighting you do in the SCA. You do not practice unarmored swordsmanship.

SyrRhys wrote:Also, you should all be aware that these guards about which you are discussing are not applicable to the kind of fighting you do in the SCA. You do not practice unarmored swordsmanship.

Technically, we -are- fighting unarmoured, as armour is ignored in scoring hits. The armour is just there to allow us to hit each other without injury.

Keegan Ingrassia wrote:Technically, we -are- fighting unarmoured, as armour is ignored in scoring hits. The armour is just there to allow us to hit each other without injury.

Sorry, but that is incorrect: If it were correct, the force levels required would be much lower than they are.

SyrRhys wrote:

Keegan Ingrassia wrote:Technically, we -are- fighting unarmoured, as armour is ignored in scoring hits. The armour is just there to allow us to hit each other without injury.

Sorry, but that is incorrect: If it were correct, the force levels required would be much lower than they are.

True, the force level is intended to "defeat" the armour, yes. However, the armour is not a deterrant to any strikes being made, is my point. If your opponent is wearing plate, you can still leg him with a slash to the thigh. The armour, essentially, is ignored in your choice of attack. Were it not discounted, you would see more attacks to openings, such as the armpit, crook of the arm, eye socket, and so on, and less cuts and wraps.

SyrRhys wrote:Also, you should all be aware that these guards about which you are discussing are not applicable to the kind of fighting you do in the SCA. You do not practice unarmored swordsmanship.

Excuse me, but how do you know jack shit about what I practice?

Read your article. It's a mess. Dobringer says "zornhau ist lange oort." You're going to be in Long Point ANYWAY; he's merely advising you on where you should go if your first attack (the one your article admits you're supposed to make) fails.

Russ Mitchell wrote:Excuse me, but how do you know jack shit about what I practice?

You're talking about SCA fighting, therefore the inference is perfectly valid, especially as I added in "you all" to indicate that the second part of the message was intended for a wider audience than just you, to wit, the SCA fighters in general.

As for your tone, it is uncalled for. I was perfectly polite and respectful to you, you have no right taking that tone. I'm sorry if being corrected hurts your feelings, but that doesn't justify lashing out at others.

Russ Mitchell wrote:Read your article. It's a mess. Dobringer says "zornhau ist lange oort." You're going to be in Long Point ANYWAY; he's merely advising you on where you should go if your first attack (the one your article admits you're supposed to make) fails.

Yes, the end of a Zornhau *is* Long Point, that's true. But you can also assume it without making any strike. Von Danzig says:
"And this is also the Speaking Window. Note: when you have come almost [emphasis mine--HTK] to him in the Zufechten [Note: this is the beginning of the fight, before any blows are struck--HTK], then set your left foot forward and hold your point long from your arms against his face or breast before [emphasis mine--HTK] you bind to his sword and stand calmly to observe what he will execute against you." (von Danzig after Tobler, fol. 36v/p. 130).

From this, it's clear that in one version of the Sprechfenster you assume Long Point and await his attack before you strike a blow. There is another version of the technique in which you assume Long Point and use the Sprechfenster *after* you have struck a blow and bound, but that's not the one to which I'm referring here. I'm sorry, this is simply not open to interpretation. Also, you're ignoring the Halfsword 3rd guard techniques and the Döbringer reference to the Absetzen from Alber to which I make reference, among others.

Thus, my article is *not* "a mess," it is perfectly valid and accurate. People just make too much out of the frequent references in the Fechtbücher to "always" acting in the Vor. Mind you, I'm not saying we aren't supposed to normally act in the Vor, because we are. I'm merely correcting your misconception that we are always supposed to do so by showing you that there are actually quite a few techniques which are done intentionally (i.e., not when you can't help it, but on purpose) in the Nach.

The Tobler reference is from his book In Saint George's Name, Freelance Academy Press, 2010.

Keegan Ingrassia wrote:True, the force level is intended to "defeat" the armour, yes. However, the armour is not a deterrant to any strikes being made, is my point. If your opponent is wearing plate, you can still leg him with a slash to the thigh. The armour, essentially, is ignored in your choice of attack. Were it not discounted, you would see more attacks to openings, such as the armpit, crook of the arm, eye socket, and so on, and less cuts and wraps.

Oh? Then may you make a slicing attack in the SCA (i.e., placing your edge on a target and pulling it along to slice your opponent like a Thanksgiving turkey)? If it's unarmored combat then you should be able to do that.

The problem is that there are more than two kinds of fighting in the middle ages: There's unarmored combat, friendly combat in armor, and unfriendly combat in armor, and each of them were conducted differently. SCA rules are wildly inconsistent with reality, but they most closely match friendly armored combat (with some exceptions).

Still, I won't argue this any longer--I've given up trying to fix the SCA. My main point here was to correct a significant error regarding German combat, which I have done. So I yield the floor on the issue of armored vs. unarmored combat, you guys continue doing it however you'd like. I will only respond as regards the German school.

I always considered the SCA combat to be just that - SCA combat. It might be based on medieval knights tournaments (or at least the Victorian ideal of them) but that is as far as it goes.

We are not fighting for real, we are not re-creating historical techniques (although that can be done to an extent it is not the point of the system). It is what it is.

SyrRhys wrote:

Keegan Ingrassia wrote:True, the force level is intended to "defeat" the armour, yes. However, the armour is not a deterrant to any strikes being made, is my point. If your opponent is wearing plate, you can still leg him with a slash to the thigh. The armour, essentially, is ignored in your choice of attack. Were it not discounted, you would see more attacks to openings, such as the armpit, crook of the arm, eye socket, and so on, and less cuts and wraps.

Oh? Then may you make a slicing attack in the SCA (i.e., placing your edge on a target and pulling it along to slice your opponent like a Thanksgiving turkey)? If it's unarmored combat then you should be able to do that.

The problem is that there are more than two kinds of fighting in the middle ages: There's unarmored combat, friendly combat in armor, and unfriendly combat in armor, and each of them were conducted differently. SCA rules are wildly inconsistent with reality, but they most closely match friendly armored combat (with some exceptions).

Still, I won't argue this any longer--I've given up trying to fix the SCA. My main point here was to correct a significant error regarding German combat, which I have done. So I yield the floor on the issue of armored vs. unarmored combat, you guys continue doing it however you'd like. I will only respond as regards the German school.

you can if your playing Cut and Thrust :p theres at least one maker of C&T legal longswords iirc.

SyrRhys wrote:

Keegan Ingrassia wrote:Technically, we -are- fighting unarmoured, as armour is ignored in scoring hits. The armour is just there to allow us to hit each other without injury.

Sorry, but that is incorrect: If it were correct, the force levels required would be much lower than they are.

However, the force levels come nowhere near that required to defeat most period armors, at least not with the majority of weapons SCA rattan simulators are supposed to represent. Even the "SCA standard" armor we're supposed to use as the standard for counting incoming blows is considerably more effective than the SCA sportfighting game allows it to be.

I consider SCA Heavy to be something of an armored/unarmored hybrid. We wear armor (well, many of us do...others wear a "real" helm, and the rest is PJs and plastic), but we count blows that would not have defeated it. Our armor is ineffectual (but our shields are indestructible and impervious...). Some of us wear armor that effectively simulates moving and fighting in the real thing...while others are essentially wearing civilian clothes and a really heavy hat. We use force levels higher than needed in most unarmored combat situations...and not enough to penetrate armor, particularly with one-handed swords.*

tl;dr version: SCA Heavy is, in practice if not theory, an armored/unarmored hybrid.


*Of course, it can be argued that against a lot of the armor of the SCA's period, using a one-handed sword would be largely pointless, regardless. In my "war rig" (early 16th C plate), if I were facing a real version of the 2 pound Viking-era broadsword a lot of SCA rattan swords represent, I doubt I'd even bother to block anything that wasn't looking like it was going to hit a gap.

I was a bit unclear, initiative and attack are not the same thing. You have to maintain control and initiative in the fight.

Also, Hugh you are incorrect. I have had a lot of success using the techniques in the SCA combat I do. I had much MORE success using them in such things at the COTT, but they still do work in normal SCA combat as well. So say they "just won't work" is just untrue.

Leo Medii wrote:Also, Hugh you are incorrect. I have had a lot of success using the techniques in the SCA combat I do. I had much MORE success using them in such things at the COTT, but they still do work in normal SCA combat as well. So say they "just won't work" is just untrue.

Agreed 100%. It requires practice and effort to successfully use these techniques in SCA sport combat, but most things that are worthwhile require effort.

Although I've often been able to substitute 'dumb luck'...

The true value of the fechtbucher (for the practitioner of medieval weapon combat recreation) is in the study they require you to make. You may slavishly copy the techniques for so long as you like, but until you look behind them and ask 'why?' you will not realize their full value. A great deal of the information in the fechtbucher can be applied to SCA combat. But only if you understand the principles involved and can adapt them for the specialized conditions of SCA fighting.

In regards to the origional questions:
1) No. I've not been fighting so I've had no luck using the fool's guard. It is a foolish guard in that it is forward and low and, thus, preserves none of the power of a point back posture or the speed of a point forward posture. As others have mentioned, it is a guard which invites attack. We could debate whether it invites attack so strongly that represents a sort of 'pull' vor rather than the more conventional 'push' vor, but that's probably a subject for a different thread. In any case, a posture which invites attack invariably relies upon binding with the opponent's weapon when they attack and executing a follow-on or simultaneous counter-attack. Given that binding is extremely difficult in the SCA due to the nature of our weapon simulators, I think you'll find the fool's guard to be a very unprofitable guard to assume. Someone with more knowledge and more experience than me could probably make it work.

2) No.

SyrRhys wrote:From this, it's clear that in one version of the Sprechfenster you assume Long Point and await his attack before you strike a blow. There is another version of the technique in which you assume Long Point and use the Sprechfenster *after* you have struck a blow and bound, but that's not the one to which I'm referring here. I'm sorry, this is simply not open to interpretation. Also, you're ignoring the Halfsword 3rd guard techniques and the Döbringer reference to the Absetzen from Alber to which I make reference, among others.

Absetzen from Alber is in a specific context. Cherry-picking random passages out of their given context in order to argue against the general dicta is silly. Do I admit Dobringer says there are (specific) times you don't? Sure. But that hardly undermines the general rule.

Also, I don't owe you squat.

Jester, I've always seen it as both a provoking stance. Meyer, IIRC, uses it in his devices as throwing a zornhau from out of range, and ending in alber to invite the attack from your opponent. When they attack from on high, you parry/cut with the false edge (short edge) to ochs or vom tag and deliver the cut or thrust from there with a step offline.

You can see an identical sequence in Italian swordplay for either single sword or longsword, from Fiore to Manciolini/Marozzo and dall'Agocchie.

(And it's a sequence which works beautifully in rapier, C&T and SCA armored combat. I imagine it will work out pretty well in Adria, too.)

Bing! Yep. You may not have actually stuck the guy, but in assuming the position, you have obtained the initiative by dictating the terrain/geometry of the fight, and are in the Vor.

I've never played Alber with SCA tools. With swords and decent-quality wasters, Alber turns into the equivalent of Leckuchner's Indignation Strike, letting you weed out the guys who don't know how to fences almost immediately.

Dafydd wrote:...Of course, it can be argued that against a lot of the armor of the SCA's period, using a one-handed sword would be largely pointless, regardless. In my "war rig" (early 16th C plate), if I were facing a real version of the 2 pound Viking-era broadsword a lot of SCA rattan swords represent, I doubt I'd even bother to block anything that wasn't looking like it was going to hit a gap.

+1

Russ Mitchell wrote:I've never played Alber with SCA tools.

You mean the swords, or the fighters?

Seriously, there are some changes that need to be made due to the nature of armored combat (no real change in rapier or C&T, since those are steel) and specifically rattan. Rattan simply doesn't allow for anything remotely resembling ablaufen/running off, so you have to pay more attention to the angle of your parry vs the angle of the incoming attack, and adjust for appropriate impact.

Nota bene: I suck as a heavy fighter, but I'm specifically working at applying period Italian styles to SCA combat, rather than trying to learn SCA combat and then modify for period technique. It's a much more pain in the ass process, but there's plenty of crossover.

(It's also damned amusing to have an experienced heavy fighter tell you that the crap from the books may look pretty, but it will never work in real combat...and then proceed to show you a nearly picture-perfect technique from a period style without realizing it.)

Local fighters to me are good guys and skilled within the game, which I have a lot of respect for -- so yes, I'm describing rattan. Your average waster is, imnsho, pretty crap, too, since they're heavily overbuilt and thus don't have differential flex between the flat and the "edge."

E: This can be fixed in ten minutes flat by anybody with a joiner in their garage, btw, to taper the flats. Or, energetic teenagers with woodfiles who want pizza.

The early research of the mid-to-late 90s was dominated by guys saying that the techniques don't work, that the manuals don't really say what they say, etcetera. What, Saviolo says this is single-time! Impossible, because we know from 19th-century fencing that.... etcetera. Same deal with longsword. If you come to the zufechten and you move to long point, he can only do a certain number of things which faze you -- if he does nothing, or the wrong moves, gakk him and move on, done.

Sir Rhys: in retrospect I see what you were trying to say regarding armored/unarmored. It was *very* clumsily phrased, but I can be that way before coffee, too. No-harm/no-foul.

Leo Medii wrote:Also, Hugh you are incorrect. I have had a lot of success using the techniques in the SCA combat I do. I had much MORE success using them in such things at the COTT, but they still do work in normal SCA combat as well. So say they "just won't work" is just untrue.

I didn't say they wouldn't work, I said they weren't applicable.

Saritor wrote:Jester, I've always seen it as both a provoking stance. Meyer, IIRC, uses it in his devices as throwing a zornhau from out of range, and ending in alber to invite the attack from your opponent. When they attack from on high, you parry/cut with the false edge (short edge) to ochs or vom tag and deliver the cut or thrust from there with a step offline.

You can see an identical sequence in Italian swordplay for either single sword or longsword, from Fiore to Manciolini/Marozzo and dall'Agocchie.

(And it's a sequence which works beautifully in rapier, C&T and SCA armored combat. I imagine it will work out pretty well in Adria, too.)

Yes, and completely forgetting the rebatere I show my ignorance once again.

Russ Mitchell wrote:Absetzen from Alber is in a specific context. Cherry-picking random passages out of their given context in order to argue against the general dicta is silly. Do I admit Dobringer says there are (specific) times you don't? Sure. But that hardly undermines the general rule.

Sure the Absetzen from Alber is in a specific context--so what? So are the plays of the 3rd Halfsword guard. So are the plays of the Sprechfenster done in the Zufechten. So are the plays of the Krumphau from Schrankhut (which I haven't mentioned previously, but I just wanted to show there are other plays of this sort that I haven't mentioned yet). I wasn't arguing *against* the general rule, merely correcting your statement to the effect that the rule was absolute. You said that in the German school you *never* wait on purpose, so I corrected that by showing quite a few techniques in which you do (and, remember, these are *categories* of techniques; the 3rd guard plays alone consist of at least five different techniques, all that must be done by waiting for your opponent to attack). I, myself, said that you generally are supposed to attack first, so I didn't try to invalidate any base principle of the art, I merely corrected your inaccurate statement.

Also, I don't owe you squat.

Because it would be too difficult to admit your negative tone was uncalled for, I suppose, just as you've tried to weasel out of admitting I was exactly correct about the main issue. I often see that.

Edited to add: My god, I can't believe you did this. This is so infuriating I had to come back to it. Your original quote was:

"Unlike Fiore, you NEVER wait to counterstrike/exchange thrusts."

The emphasis on the word "never" was yours--that's an exact quote. Then when I say you are mistaken, and provide you with *numerous* examples, citing chapter and verse, you turn around and accuse me of "cherry picking" and taking things out of context in an effort to deny the general principle, even though I, myself, pointed out that the exceptions I was citing did not invalidate the general principle and that I was merely correcting your statement (which I did in my post timestamped 2:29 AM). I have rarely seen a more blatant example of someone who's so embarrassed by being corrected that he tries to twist the debate any way he can to avoid having to admit he was completely wrong.

*This* is a prime example of why debates on the internet are so full of misery.

Thomas MacFinn wrote:

Vladimir wrote:It's fairly easy to convert into a thrust from the plug, but I don't think it has a lot of value in SCA combat because we have no lower leg targeting.

Pflug is currently my favorite and most commonly used stance. From pflug, if the elbows are tight against the torso, it is possible to throw a quick killing-force blow with just a rotation of the hips: easily blocked but ideal for an opportunity attack. Move the pommel, and that hip twist becomes an upper leg shot.

I personally do not care for pflug as it is easily broken by a krumphau or an sheilhau, not to mention a zwerchhau. Also you can thrust at someone in pfulg and then turn the thrust into a cut and hit him very easily. It is not a safe posture.

alber is not a very safe stance. you do not threaten a thrust all that much and the danger of a cut from that posture is not very great, if the enemy is experienced. Better to use the boar's tooth or the right weschel, if you must lie low. But against an experienced enemy I would not risk lying low because if he knows krumphau or zwerchhau, he will break your low posture very easily.