The Armour Archive

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 1:57 pm**

Partly because I have heard from many quarters that the style of fighting armoured combat with a pair of pretty much matched swords is not historical, and partly because I've never been able to manage a regular sword in my left hand, I've authorized with two-weapon using the so-called "Crusader" or "Christian Madu" style, holding a great sword (with downswept quillains) vertically point-down by the ricasso in my left hand.

Another Archiver asked me if I knew of any historical examples of that or a similar style being used.

I haven't, and I'm really not sure where to begin looking. I tried searching here, but the search function doesn't seem to be working at present.

So, fellow Archivers: Can anyone confirm or essentially deny the historical validity of that style?

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 2:41 pm**

H'm, I see the views (30+ so far) stacking up but no replies.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 2:51 pm**

Could it have happened? Sure.

Was it taught as a style of fighting? Not to my knowledge.

Now, maybe a sword and broken lance tip in combination, or 6 ft spear and sword, but honestly, using a greatsword upside down like that really limits the use of that weapon.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 2:56 pm**

True enough . . . given the power of a greatsword, IRL a fighter would do better to toss aside or sheathe the broadsword and slash through the opposition with the two-hander.

I suspect that the style, like that of using a pair of swords, is a SCAdianism.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 2:57 pm**

I saw a figure doing it in a fectbuch once.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 3:05 pm**

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:I saw a figure doing it in a fectbuch once.

</center>

Can you remember which one? If I can point to even one instance, I've got validation, however tenuous.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 3:09 pm**

I think it has come about tdo to a misunderstanding of some fechtbook illustrations- probably Gladitoria but I may be mistaken. There are instances, particularly in judicial duels where the contenders start with thrown spears and hold the sword in the offhand so that it can be brought to bear faster than if they had to draw it. Essentially you throw your spear and follow it in with your sword ready for half-swording.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 3:17 pm**

Cet wrote:I think it has come about tdo to a misunderstanding of some fechtbook illustrations- probably Gladitoria but I may be mistaken. There are instances, particularly in judicial duels where the contenders start with thrown spears and hold the sword in the offhand so that it can be brought to bear faster than if they had to draw it. Essentially you throw your spear and follow it in with your sword ready for half-swording.

I gotta agree with Cet here and the others pointing out that it isn't historical. Since your hardly ever going to hit anyone with a sword held that way why not just use a shield? I mean that question both from the standpoint of understanding the history and for you personally.

Why not use a dagger if you want to have a second weapon? What are you looking to gain with the sword?

(My intention is to be though provoking - not merely challenge you.)

Cheers,
Steven

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 4:31 pm**

Donal Mac Ruiseart wrote:Partly because I have heard from many quarters that the style of fighting armoured combat with a pair of pretty much matched swords is not historical...

The evidence is thin on the ground (Boru -- possibly two long knives, two Norse sagas written well after the event described, and the late-era "case of swords"), but it exists. Certainly not representative, but not without provenence.

Donal Mac Ruiseart wrote:... I've authorized with two-weapon ... holding a great sword ... vertically point-down by the ricasso in my left hand... Another Archiver asked me if I knew of any historical examples of that or a similar style being used.

I have seen no evidence to date. Again, the sagas tell of sword and spear used simultaneously, but there is no equivelent I know of for greatsword. This is consistent in context, however, since the GS doesn't appear until the age of plate and, as already noted, the use of a single sword would be all but useless in this environment.

With respect,

Alfred of Carlyle

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 5:40 pm**

carlyle wrote:
Donal Mac Ruiseart wrote:Partly because I have heard from many quarters that the style of fighting armoured combat with a pair of pretty much matched swords is not historical...

The evidence is thin on the ground (Boru -- possibly two long knives, two Norse sagas written well after the event described, and the late-era "case of swords"), but it exists. Certainly not representative, but not without provenence.

So, in other words, the same as magical reindeer skin armor. Musashi claims to have invented it (long and short sword) for fighting multiple opponents but I think that's 17th Century and also unarmored.

I doubt that "christian" style , or the near equivalent "broadsword and 4' axe with butt spike" have any medieval provenance. Sword and spear, perhaps, but it seems weird and artificial to hold a spear vertical to block with.

Nothing in this post should be construed as disdain for those who fight with Madu or any other SCA two weapon form.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 6:14 pm**

I think Cet just explained it better than I could. It was in Gladitoria.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 8:05 pm**

Use a broken lance in the style that HG Radnor uses.
Some one out there is bound to have pics.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 8:20 pm**

carlyle wrote:
Donal Mac Ruiseart wrote:Partly because I have heard from many quarters that the style of fighting armoured combat with a pair of pretty much matched swords is not historical...

The evidence is thin on the ground (Boru -- possibly two long knives, two Norse sagas written well after the event described, and the late-era "case of swords"), but it exists. Certainly not representative, but not without provenence.

SNIP

With respect,

Alfred of Carlyle

Alfred is correct, there is evidence of it in Iberian material, by indirect reference in later authors, in the 15th century by the lost authors, some evidence of close to being matched weapons in some of the fechtbucher from the late 15th century, and the historical incidents he quotes and more. Plus the Bolognese and other Italian material or Italian derived material to which he alludes. One MS we have from Portugal has about twice the material that we have from Marozzo.
Steve

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 8:40 pm**

It wasn't Boru, but his son - Murrough. Of the accounts I've been able to find, it the weapons are described as having blades long as his "fingertips to elbows". Since both Brian and his sons were well over 6' tall by accounts, I wouldn't necessarily call them knives - shorter than the common sword of the day, ture - but not a knife either.

.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 8:45 pm**

Dilan wrote:It wasn't Boru, but his son - Murrough.

Doh!

Dilan wrote:...both Brian and his sons were well over 6' tall by accounts...

Yes, but I hear they had arms like a t-rex :twisted:

... AoC

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 8:57 pm**

Any of you Celt-lovers know the name of the fellow who fought with two gladius?

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 9:32 pm**

carlyle wrote:
Donal Mac Ruiseart wrote:Partly because I have heard from many quarters that the style of fighting armoured combat with a pair of pretty much matched swords is not historical...

The evidence is thin on the ground (Boru -- possibly two long knives, two Norse sagas written well after the event described, and the late-era "case of swords"), but it exists. Certainly not representative, but not without provenence.

Donal Mac Ruiseart wrote:... I've authorized with two-weapon ... holding a great sword ... vertically point-down by the ricasso in my left hand... Another Archiver asked me if I knew of any historical examples of that or a similar style being used.

I have seen no evidence to date. Again, the sagas tell of sword and spear used simultaneously, but there is no equivelent I know of for greatsword. This is consistent in context, however, since the GS doesn't appear until the age of plate and, as already noted, the use of a single sword would be all but useless in this environment.

With respect,

Alfred of Carlyle

Nicolle's A&A of the Crusading Era (Western) shows a drawing of a fellow holding two relatively matched swords, I think it was c12thC.

One of my Scythian books talks about it being common for 'hero's' to be portrayed as using two weapons at once, and specifically mentioned Hungary as an example. One of the parade shields in the Kienbusch collection (Philly) show an al antiqua scene with one of the heros using both a broadsword as well as a falchion. (I think I posted that some time ago)

Romans had plate...

Sarmations were supposed to have been the only peoples that could break the Roman line, using fully armored horse&men armed with two handed swords. One of Nicolles other books contains a photograph of a local standing next to a very long sword in 'excavated' condition that was probably about 5' long.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 10:05 pm**

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:Nicolle's A&A of the Crusading Era (Western) shows a drawing of a fellow holding two relatively matched swords, I think it was c12thC.

Can you post a scan of that page or provide some additional context? I'd be very interested to know something more of the provenence of the image (for example, is it an actual combat page? Was it a romantic depiction of Balin of the Two Swords?).

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:One of my Scythian books... One of the parade shields in the Kienbusch collection (Philly) show an al antiqua scene... Romans had plate... Sarmations were supposed to have been the only peoples that could break the Roman line...

Don't you have anything a little more New Testament? As a classic medievalist, I subscribe to the prejudice that all relevant written history begins with Bede

... AoC

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2009 10:12 pm**

carlyle wrote:
Baron Alcyoneus wrote:Nicolle's A&A of the Crusading Era (Western) shows a drawing of a fellow holding two relatively matched swords, I think it was c12thC.

Cam you post a scan of that page or provide some additional context? I'd be very interested to know something more of the provenence of the image (for example, is it an actual combat page? Was it a romantic depiction of Balin of the Two Swords?).

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:One of my Scythian books... One of the parade shields in the Kienbusch collection (Philly) show an al antiqua scene... Romans had plate... Sarmations were supposed to have been the only peoples that could break the Roman line...

Don't you have anything a little more New Testament? I'm sorry, but as a classic medievalist, I subscribe to the prejudice that all written history begins with Bede ... AoC

Posted: **Sat May 30, 2009 10:12 am**

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:One of the parade shields in the Kienbusch collection (Philly) show an al antiqua scene with one of the heros using both a broadsword as well as a falchion. (I think I posted that some time ago)

I misspoke a little...

It is in the Studies/Keinbusch book, but the shield is actually in the Louvre, catalog # OA1138.

Posted: **Sat May 30, 2009 11:33 am**

Steve Hick wrote:<Snip>One MS we have from Portugal has about twice the material that we have from Marozzo.
Steve

Twice?!?!?!

Dear lord.

Is there a portugeuse language version available online anywhere?

Posted: **Sat May 30, 2009 11:44 am**

Thaddeus wrote:Use a broken lance in the style that HG Radnor uses.
Some one out there is bound to have pics.

I found one better, Video from a West Crown!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgbqvsBNS5A

Really, view it in HD!

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2009 8:15 am**

carlyle wrote:
Baron Alcyoneus wrote:Nicolle's A&A of the Crusading Era (Western) shows a drawing of a fellow holding two relatively matched swords, I think it was c12thC.

Can you post a scan of that page or provide some additional context? I'd be very interested to know something more of the provenence of the image (for example, is it an actual combat page? Was it a romantic depiction of Balin of the Two Swords?).

AoC

I was slightly mistaken in my attribution. It is actually his Eastern rather than his Western volume, but it is #14, so it barely escaped the Western. :wink:

I'll try to get a scan later today, but it shows a man in full chain with a long sword in his R hand, and a shorter one in his L. They are straight, but curved due to the nature of the bowl. It is 10th C Byzantine sgraffito-ware ceramic in the Hermitage Musuem in Petersburgh, Russia.

#728 shows a skeleton of a man with a sword that reaches from the middle of his feet to his shoulders. It is from a 10-12thC grave at Chokurcha, Russia.

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2009 2:20 pm**

I've been waiting to use this!

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2009 3:21 pm**

Kilian_the_warlike wrote:I've been waiting to use this!

Kilian, I believe this is the Gladitoria reference Vitus and Cet spoke to earlier in the thread. Prevailing wisdom is that this is not depicting close-quarter combat (perspective being sacrified for the sake of other illustrative objectives). Respectfully... AoC

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2009 3:30 pm**

carlyle wrote:
Kilian_the_warlike wrote:I've been waiting to use this!

Kilian, I believe this is the Gladitoria reference Vitus and Cet spoke to earlier in the thread. Prevailing wisdom is that this is not depicting close-quarter combat (perspective being sacrified for the sake of other illustrative objectives). Respectfully... AoC

oh. poop.

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2009 10:34 pm**

There are several manuscripts that show one or both of the combatants in a judiclal duel holding a drawn sword and buckler like in the above drawing. Most everyone I've talked with about it thinks that it's showing how to carry all the weapons that are required in a judicial duel. Hurl the spear, grab the sword in your good hand and go in sword and buckler. Our ruleset makes two weapon more effective thn it was in a medieval European context, otherwise there would be more evidence of it. Now, Renaissance cut and thrust, that's a whole nother thing.

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2009 11:00 pm**

Fearghus Macildubh wrote: Our ruleset makes two weapon more effective thn it was in a medieval European context, otherwise there would be more evidence of it. Now, Renaissance cut and thrust, that's a whole nother thing.

What is it about the rules that you think makes it work better in the SCA? (I'm rather new to SCA fighting so it isn't obvious to me).

Thanks,
Steven

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2009 11:14 pm**

Steven H wrote:What is it about the rules that you think makes it work better in the SCA? (I'm rather new to SCA fighting so it isn't obvious to me).

Thanks,
Steven

Contact kills, not blade orientation. If you went with blade orientation (which requires some way to judge a blade edge cut/slash/hack without actually doing it), a number of commonly used shots just wouldn't work.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:09 am**

Raeven wrote:
Steven H wrote:What is it about the rules that you think makes it work better in the SCA? (I'm rather new to SCA fighting so it isn't obvious to me).

Thanks,
Steven

Contact kills, not blade orientation. If you went with blade orientation (which requires some way to judge a blade edge cut/slash/hack without actually doing it), a number of commonly used shots just wouldn't work.

Which ones?

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:59 am**

Raeven wrote:
Steven H wrote:What is it about the rules that you think makes it work better in the SCA? (I'm rather new to SCA fighting so it isn't obvious to me).

Thanks,
Steven

Contact kills, not blade orientation. If you went with blade orientation (which requires some way to judge a blade edge cut/slash/hack without actually doing it), a number of commonly used shots just wouldn't work.

SCA contact *does* require blade orientation. Would you let your opponents take blows as good which were struck with the flat of your blade?

I think the real reason we don't see more of this style has more to do with the effectiveness of shields than the lack of effectiveness of two weapons. When every wound has the potential to kill - permanently, as opposed to "until I rez" - then suddenly greater defense begins to take on much more meaning. That, and two weapons tend to be much less effective than weapon and shield in formation fighting, which was the dominant battlefield paradigm for a very long time.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:50 am**

Two swords in the SCA is not particularly more or less effective than sword and shield - in tournament combat

However -
1) it's not easy to do well (although easier than greatsword and probably glaive as well), and requires a high energy level.
2) it hurts, and is in general harder on the body (of both parties!)
3) - and this might be the critical issue - it's a much higher variance form.

To clarify (3) I start with an example. I know a few fighters who, in my opinion, are much more dangerous two sword than they are sword and shield. However, in THEIR opinion, they are not as effective. Now, part of that is me, but I also think part of that is there is a bunch of randomness in a two sword fight. A two sword fighter, in my opinion, is much more likely to upset a "better" fighter, but in turn, is also more likely to GET upset by an inferior one.

I also think that the proliferation low profile thrusting tips on Sword and Shield fighters in the last 5 years or so has not been favorable, balance-wise, to non-shield fighters.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:59 am**

SCA contact *does* require blade orientation.

SCA contact requires TAPE orientation. In all bluntness, there is a tremendous difference between hitting with tape on a blunt stick than hitting with an oriented edge on a bladed weapon. This is far more prevalent in large melee, where most blows people throw would be nothing more than a stinging annoyance.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:40 pm**

Steven H wrote:
Fearghus Macildubh wrote: Our ruleset makes two weapon more effective thn it was in a medieval European context, otherwise there would be more evidence of it. Now, Renaissance cut and thrust, that's a whole nother thing.

What is it about the rules that you think makes it work better in the SCA? (I'm rather new to SCA fighting so it isn't obvious to me).

Thanks,
Steven

Well, first and foremost, our game isn't really lethal, so you can sacrifice some defense in favour of offense. Second, in a historical combat sense, what we do is more akin to what the German masters called Blossfechten, or fighting in clothes. One good blow ends the fight, which wouldn't happen in most armoured combat in our period. Third, look at how many two weapon fighters there are in the SCA. Now look at medieval art and read medieval stories and historical accounts. You've got Murrough, the son of Brian Boru fighting with two Irish swords, somebody in the Icelandic sagas fighting atgeir and sword and.........that's about it. If it really worked well in an armoured combat context, there would be more accounts of it, even if it were only heroes in ballads and tales. As I wrote before, when you move into the Renaissance you see more evidence of two weapon styles, when fighting in street clothes mainly, though I think the Bolongnese school has some sword and dagger work in half harness. Oh and lastly, we can't whack someone with the shield or buckler.

Now, don't take this as an anti two weapon rant, I fight Christian and sword or axe and sword or spear and sword quite often.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:24 pm**

Leo Medii wrote:
SCA contact *does* require blade orientation.

SCA contact requires TAPE orientation. In all bluntness, there is a tremendous difference between hitting with tape on a blunt stick than hitting with an oriented edge on a bladed weapon. This is far more prevalent in large melee, where most blows people throw would be nothing more than a stinging annoyance.

It's also much easier to hit edge on with a bladed weapon than with a stick. Aerodynamics.

But I had a small ephiphany about war fighting and throwing blows (with a single handed sword) this last weekend. I realized that when I fight singles, I am much more willing to be less committed to a shot, because my opponent is "always" aware of me, and looking to counterstrike. Furthermore, I get as many shots as I need (as long as I don't get hit) - there is never any time pressure.

Not so in battle. In battle, you might get one - two opportunities to swing at someone in the same engagement - so you should probably make sure it COUNTS. Also, if they are engaging multiple opponents (the common case) they are not EXPECTING a shot from you, so a little more force is often required.

The Armour Archive

So-Called 'Crusader' / 'Christian Madu' Style - Historical?

So-Called 'Crusader' / 'Christian Madu' Style - Historical?

Re: So-Called 'Crusader' / 'Christian Madu' Style - Historic

Re: So-Called 'Crusader' / 'Christian Madu' Style - Historic

Re: So-Called 'Crusader' / 'Christian Madu' Style - Historic

Re: So-Called 'Crusader' / 'Christian Madu' Style - Historic

Re: So-Called 'Crusader' / 'Christian Madu' Style - Historic

Re: So-Called 'Crusader' / 'Christian Madu' Style - Historic

Re: So-Called 'Crusader' / 'Christian Madu' Style - Historic

Re: So-Called 'Crusader' / 'Christian Madu' Style - Historic

Re: So-Called 'Crusader' / 'Christian Madu' Style - Historic