The Armour Archive

I think this is awesome and extremely well done. I am just now interested in making or buying a pell - I think I am going to try the bucket method, perhaps first bolting a piece of plywood to the bottom of the bucket to give it better stability.

I have a question, you mention the shaft of the pell (I think) as being a "pelicore"? What is that? I could not quite make out what you were calling it.

Steve

Sir Gemini is talking about a Peeler core. Its whats left over when they make veneers, so it is typically heart wood... Dense and rigid. They are often sold for use in landscaping.

Cheers,

Is he talking about landscaping timbers then? They are sort of round with a flat cut down opposite sides?

Where would one buy a "peeler core"?

Steve

Steve -SoFC- wrote:Is he talking about landscaping timbers then? They are sort of round with a flat cut down opposite sides?

Where would one buy a "peeler core"?

Steve

Hello Steve,

The peeler cores are found at Home Depot or lowes in the garden section for under ten dollars. Also, I have found putting a bolt through the very top (though the carpet ot padding of your choice) keeps it from sagginf down after time. Thank you for watching!!

Gemini

Hello Gemini,

I do enjoy the show and I appreciate you making it. So please understand that I bring up the following points for constructive purposes.

There are three things you say in the Cudgel video which are inaccurate:
1) "The sword was one of the most expensive things a knight owned"
2) "Sword on sword contact was avoided"
3) "Parrying would be done with the flat"

While a sword was not cheap in this era it was not the most expensive item either.

This particular topic was discussed here on myArmoury.

Steven H wrote:Hello,

Here is a link to Matt's discussion of the same on the Schola forum.

In short:
Archer pay = 3-6d a day
Most swords = 10-24d

Jeffrey Hull, in an article on the quality of swords, estimates the average price of a sword as 41d (2s 5d) and the average price of full harness as 276d (1L 3d).

Peter Reid in Medieval Warfare cites the pay scale in the Hundred Years War period as:
Foot soldier (billmen): 2d
Foot archer: 3d
Mounted archer: 6d
Man-at-arms: 12d (1s)
Knight: 24d (2s)
Banneret: 48d (4s)

Putting in their minimum of 40 days service and not counting the customary bonus pay or pillage even the lowliest soldier soldier could buy a new sword each campaign with money to spare even at the price Jeffrey Hull cites.

Professional carpenters also made 6d a day in this era, so we can think of most soldiers in the English army as being roughly equivalent to a modern middle class professional independent contractor. Buying a new sword accounted for at most a weeks wages. Replacing all of your kit maybe all 40 days pay (at worst) leaving bonus, loot and 300 work days left that year.

The gear simply didn't represent an unreasonable investment for professional soldiers.

So the knight can buy a nice sword with a days's pay. He owns plenty of things that are more expensive including things he brought to a battle. His horse was far more expensive (at least 10 times as expensive), his armour was more expensive. Just the helmet would cost a similar amount to the sword.

Additionally, he has cows, oxen, fine clothes, jewelry, a manor, lands and more that all cost more than the sword.
The sword simply isn't unreasonably precious.

Note that all this refers to the High and Late Medieval period. In the Early Medieval period a sword would represent a higher fraction of a knight's wealth, but still less than the armour, and horse.

Armour and horse were always more expensive.

Cheers,
Steven

Cont'd in the next post.

* edited to correct idiotic typos

Hello again,

2) Sword on sword contact was avoided.
While this may be true for some kinds of fights with a shield it certainly wasn't universal. And of course in a fight without a shield, such as longswords, then we have only two options: sword on sword contact i.e. parries, and dodges or voiding.

In the corpus of Medieval sword manuals dodging to avoid body blows isn't ever advocated. We are given advice on what to do to follow-up a on a miss, and to slip the leg against low attacks. But voids make-up only a small part of defenses and are mostly implied.

The primary defense is the parry with the sword. Even when using a shield, if it's a smaller shield like a buckler, targe or late period heater.

One of the ways we know that swords were used for parrying is the amount of damage found on swords. And lots of repaired damage as well. Ewart Oakeshott talks about swords with edges that are "wavy" from having so many nicks ground out (yes, this is distinct from flamberge type swords). Sagas speak of swords that look like saws by the end of a battle.

Even heroes blocked with the edge of the sword.

Of course this is consistent with the above. A sword was not so expensive that he had to worry about being bankrupted by it's destruction. Nor was it so fragile that using it properly to parry would break it quickly or easily.

Early swords, with minimal heat treating, were made soft so that they wouldn't break easily. Later swords are made of state of the art tempered steel. For many people the sword was the most high-tech item they owned. It had to be imported, and it's making was a closely guarded secret. But they were fantastic. I suggest reading Jeffrey Hull's article on their quality.

And while my phone is the highest tech item I own, it's not the most expensive - my transport (car) is much more expensive.

Cheers,
Steven

Cont'd below

Thank you, Steven. I was/am not really qualified to deliver this information. That was driving me a bit batty.

But this is said in countless books, no?

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:Thank you, Steven. I was/am not really qualified to deliver this information. That was driving me a bit batty.

But this is said in countless books, no?

What, specifically, is said in countless books?

And, I'm glad you found what I said helpful.

Cheers,
Steven

[quote="Steven H"]Hello Gemini,

I do enjoy the show and I appreciate you making it. So please understand that I bring up the following points for constructive purposes.

There are three things you say in the Cudgel video which are inaccurate:
1) "The sword was one of the most expensive things a knight owned"
2) "Sword on sword contact was avoided"
3) "Parrying would be done with the flat"



Hello Steven,

Thank you for the link to that and for the information. This debate is very hot with students of the sword and just people who like history and I do not want to make this thread a debate.
Put simply you are correct, armour and horses could be more expensive. If a knight owned livestock and lands than he may afford to replace the weapon. But put simply, knights like that were few compared to most that used the sword.
Many Knights, men at arms, and others had precious little in their lives just like today, and what they did own, they would have cared for as well as they could.
Blade on blade happens. But the simple truth is it shouldn't. I am very familiar with the works and method of Fiore, Talhoffer, the I.33 ect. But just as the show is called The Modern Medieval, I am also interested in the fight "today". And not just with the sword. We work every day with the hammer, mace, flail, spear ect. Taking from the afore mentioned authors
and even into Mrozzo, Monte, Pistofilo and Di Grassi ect.

(Continued)

So what I am saying is that yes, some were of the opinion that you should never strike edge to edge and some said it would happen in one instance or another. But I am also showing what the fight is and feels like right now.

The show is about history but obviously I cannot encompass it all. It is also about the modern interpretation of the art. Which quite frankly has been done a lot of damage by authors. I know that last statement is going to require an example so I will give one.

In many of the forums out there, when someone asks about the shield and how it was used in the medieval era, one of the first resources they are pointed to is SPADA and the work of Stephen Hand. I think Mr. Hand is a talented author and love his work with Silver and the interpretation he did on the I.33. However, the conclusions he comes to about combat with large shields is quite frankly suicidal. Put simply, it's just wrong and unfortunately has spawned countless others to begin interpretations from his work.

This show is not only about what was, but what the art can be. If you haven't guessed, I am and always have been a devotee of Bruce Lee. And like him I am of the opinion that just because it survived, does not always make it right.

When someone asks what art we study we do not even have a name for it. We always say "Western Martial Arts" or something of that nature. Well I have a name for it. I call our art Oplomachia the art of fighting in armour. There are many styles of it. From the authors of it's origin to today. DeGrendelus is one of it's newest forms.

Thank you so much Steve. I hope I can tap some of your insight for future shows or if you have any ideas for some please e-mail me.
As for this thread. I am so please people are enjoying the show and have some great plans for the future. Welcome to the Modern Medieval!

Gemini

It is implied in many modern works that arming swords were insanely expensive. While I am sure that some blingy arming swords -worn with street clothes- could be pretty pricey, but plainer weapons used in battle could not have been so expensive that worrying about damage would be a factor.

Sure you want to block with the flat of the balde when you can, but when you are smashing a sword into mail-clad bodies (and occasionally helmets) the sword edge is going to get damaged.

I saw Duke Lucan talking in a video about splitting a guy's skin wide open with an offside slapping blow that looks absolutely lame when you see him demonstrate it. To split a guy open through a mail shirt was very, very possible. To hit an armoured guy with a sword you ARE going to damage that sword. I think there must have been a great variety in the prices of arming swords. Captured weapons must have been constantly available to the average knight as well.

This is why I love watching Gemini fight with his mace...it solves all of those problems.

THank you Sir

Sir Gemini, I love the show and I appreciate your humor. Well done and thanks for sharing.

Hello again,

Sorry for the delay in continuing, life got in the way.

"Parrying would be done with the flat"

The problem with this statement is that you give it as an absolute, as in all parrying is done with the flat. This is simply not true.

The topic has been discussed, repeatedly, before on myArmoury, SFI and other forums.

Here is one of the better discussions from myArmoury.

And some highlights from that discussion:

Bill Grandy wrote:There is ample evidence of parrying with the edge in period fencing texts . . . Edge parry from Joachim Meyer's fechtbuch: "When your adversary strikes at you from his right side with an Oberhau, then hit with a zornhau from your right shoulder against it. Strike with your true edge and in your strong."

Edge parry from Codex Wallerstein, Plate 9: "...so deflect with you
short edge and run on him..."

Every Italian sidesword manual I've ever heard of very specifically says to parry with the edge, although there seems to be some disagreement between masters as to preferences towards the true and false edge. (Marozzo has a preference for using the false edge more often, Viggiani has a preference for using the true edge).

Every single saber manual I've ever seen specifically say to use the edge.

Rabbe Jan-Olof Laine wrote:Even that (hard stops with the edges meeting squarely on the forte) was advocated by some masters; Viggiani (and propably other Italian sidesword folks... I wonder if Tom Leoni visits here?) did it, the English backsworders did it, and, unless I'm mistaken, most sabreurs did.

"A Stop.
Is to receive your Adversary's Sword with a proper Guard upon the Edge of your own Sword."

- Page, "The Use of the Broad Sword"


"Student: 'In this manner, our two swords would meet cross-wise, true edge on true edge.'

Teacher: 'This is the common parry, taught by all Masters and used by most fencers.'"

- Viggiani, "Lo Schermo"

Stephen Hand wrote:So in short, were parries done with the edge? indisputably yes. Were they done with the flat? again, indisputably yes. There is indisputable historical evidence for parries that can only be done with the edge and ones that can only be done with the flat. Were these actions the same sort of parry? no, not at all. Can we come up with one overarching rule that covers all parries? no we can't . . . (emphasis mine)

Period instruction on the use of the sword from the earliest (I.33) to the 19th century all include instruction so parry with the edge.

Medieval literature includes clear descriptions of parrying with the edge and the damage it does.

Surviving swords show clear repeated damage from edge blocking. Even swords that can be tracked to great swordsman show the same kind of damage, as seen here.

We evidence of three kinds: literary, textual and archaeological. Each kind of evidence has numerous examples.

This plethora of evidence, in multiple kinds, that all point to the same conclusion leaves no doubt. Parrying with the edge was a normal and intentional part of swordplay.

Cheers,
Steven

Gemini wrote:Thank you for the link to that and for the information. This debate is very hot with students of the sword and just people who like history and I do not want to make this thread a debate.

Then I will present my evidence and you can present yours. Then others can decide which they find convincing.

If you find that the evidence I've presented so far is insufficient then I'll pull up more. There is plenty.

Gemini wrote:Put simply you are correct, armour and horses could be more expensive.

It's not that horses and armour could be more expensive - it's that they always were and by a large amount. 5-10 times more expensive for armour and 10+ times more expensive for horses.

Gemini wrote:If a knight owned livestock and lands than he may afford to replace the weapon. But put simply, knights like that were few compared to most that used the sword.
Many Knights, men at arms, and others had precious little in their lives just like today, and what they did own, they would have cared for as well as they could.

But as the data I presented above show no soldier was paid so little that they couldn't afford to replace a broken sword. The lowest paid soldier was making 2p per day. And the lowest cost sword was only 2p. Sure, you wouldn't want to buy a new sword every day, but edge blocking won't break a sword a day. Not even close. For what it's worth, I've been practicing for four years with steel without seeing one get broken (while blocking the way you insist I shouldn't).

Gemini wrote:Blade on blade happens. But the simple truth is it shouldn't. I am very familiar with the works and method of Fiore, Talhoffer, the I.33 ect.

Then from your familiarity you also know for certain that everyone of them unambiguously describes blocking with the edge.

Gemini wrote:But just as the show is called The Modern Medieval, I am also interested in the fight "today".

I'm not sure how this relates to the topic at hand. Are we discussing historical inaccuracy in movies (which started the conversation) or are we discussing your modern eclectic teachings?

Gemini wrote:Taking from the afore mentioned authors
and even into Mrozzo, Monte, Pistofilo and Di Grassi ect.

Then you are familiar with even more authors who specifically advocate edge blocks.

* * *

There are two things to bear in mind about edge parries.

1) Most parries are done obliquely (but not all, see Silver's "Stop"). As such the edges don't meet head-on and so the likelihood of damage is lessened and the severity of damage that may occur is lessened.

2) Parries are correctly done with the strong of your sword against the opponent's weak. Such a parry means that it is his sword which is more likely to break. Not your own. Viggiani specifically describes this - that with a solid block you can break off the last few inches of the opponent's sword.

These two aspects of parrying mean that while edge damage will occur, it will seldom be the kind of catastrophic damage that breaks sword and concerns you and it will usually be the other guy's sword. And, again, the archaeological record supports this, with many swords showing clear evidence of having nicks ground out over and over again.

Cheers,
Steven

Gemini wrote:So what I am saying is that yes, some were of the opinion that you should never strike edge to edge and some said it would happen in one instance or another. But I am also showing what the fight is and feels like right now.

I'm not aware of any master, across 600+ years of instruction who says you should never use edge blocks at all. If I'm wrong on this then please provide the reference.

And it's not that Fiore and Lichtenauer say you will block with the edge in "one instance or another". Edge parries are the primary techniques of both systems. Lichtenauer goes so far as to call them the Master Strikes. Edge parries are the most common response to the other guy trying to get you.

Gemini wrote:In many of the forums out there, when someone asks about the shield and how it was used in the medieval era, one of the first resources they are pointed to is SPADA and the work of Stephen Hand. I think Mr. Hand is a talented author and love his work with Silver and the interpretation he did on the I.33. However, the conclusions he comes to about combat with large shields is quite frankly suicidal. Put simply, it's just wrong and unfortunately has spawned countless others to begin interpretations from his work.

I've seen Stephen Hand's material. It is well researched, he shows plenty of examples from period sources to back up his interpretation. And I've also used it for a few years now. It's not suicidal. I've had no significant problem using it.

With all due respect, if you've found it unworkable then you are probably not using the material correctly.

Gemini wrote:This show is not only about what was, but what the art can be. If you haven't guessed, I am and always have been a devotee of Bruce Lee. And like him I am of the opinion that just because it survived, does not always make it right.

But these arts didn't survive. We aren't talking about arts that lingered for a long time. These arts died - no one says they are right because they've been around a long time. Our sources are all first generation. People who would've died or been defeated if their art didn't work. Fiore fought in 5 duels to the death, unarmoured, with sharp swords before writing his treatise. I trust Fiore far more than I trust anyone who's never fought with sharps, because if he was wrong he would've died.

You and I will never fight to the death with sharps. So we have no choice but to trust primary sources instead.

Steven,

You are not following this very well. The bit in the movies is to show that not only edge to edge is not a great idea, but the method shown in fighting was terrible. I am sorry is you did not get that.

Also, Fiore, Talhoffer, show both parry on the flat and the edge, we have established and run that horse into the ground.

I am glad Stephen Hands shield style works for you. It would not against any other logical style. That is easy enough to show. We can put the styles to the test. That era of the art may be gone, but a new one is certainly here. And I do not agree that is had died. Much of it remains in many forms.

The simple fact is that if your sword breaks on the battle field, you die. If it breaks on campaign, having a new one handy is not likely. A huge amount of remaining swords we have left are named. If they were a dime a dozen, why bother?

This is not a discussion that really has a finnish so I will not go into much of the rest. That fact is that you nor I were there. Fiore says he fought five duels but all we have is his word. Musashi is revered for his Five Rings, yet his actions and demeanor were questionable at best at times.

We can argue about what we think they said or we can prove what works and what does not and possibly never did. And I am always simply interested in what works, how it's the same, and what has changed. That is what the show is for.

Let us end this part of the discussion. I have a new episode I need to get out by Monday. And I think you all will get a kick out of it

Gemini

Just a thought on swords.

A modern take on how I personally feel towards my cudgel.

Sure I have had lots over the years and I have never really named one. Still I do feel a certain bond to my stick. Each one is special. I am sure this is true of any favored tool. Hammer, saw whatever.

Perhaps it's just being used to how the weapon feels. Like being used to your car and then driving another.

It is very concievable that this bond or favoring is amplified by the fact that the sword was a life or death tool.

I doubt even if they were easily replaceable that most men would go out with the intent on fighting with a style that would easily render his weapon useless.

Just one mans take on it.

Ogedei

A friend of mine read this thread and asked me to comment. It is far past time for people to stop trying to answer questions about medieval combat based on their twenty-first-century "gut feelings," and time for them to look at the historical record to find their answers.

First, the mistaken notion that swords were fabulously expensive items, far too valuable to risk, has already been addressed above, but we would do well to consider it again. That claim in the video is simply not supported by facts. Swords could actually be quite inexpensive—some less than a few days pay for a lower-end soldier. In 1300, a common soldier (not a knight or man-at-arms), was paid 2 d./day; knights earned more—2 to 4 shillings per day. (Contamine, P., War in the Middle Ages, tr. Michael Jones, Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1984, p. 94). In the middle of the century, a common sword might be as little as 6 d. (Dryer, C., Standards of Living in the Later Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 174). So swords were not the equivalent of "thousands of dollars" in today’s money as claimed in the video (see video at 2:10), and almost any soldier could have afforded several.

Moreover, we know that it was considered good practice to use the edge of your sword for displacements because the experts tell us so. We can see it here, in the Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (BSB-Hss Cgm 1507 fol. 53r):
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00001840/images/index.html?seite=111
And we read it in George Silver’s work when he says: "[W]ard his blow with the edge of your sword." (“Brief Instructionsâ€

Hugh,

I do want this to be done with. Have your opinion and be well with it.




"Moreover, we know that it was considered good practice to use the edge of your sword for displacements because the experts tell us so. We can see it here, in the Paulus Kal Fechtbuch (BSB-Hss Cgm 1507 fol. 53r):
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00001840/images/index.html?seite=111
And we read it in George Silver’s work when he says: "[W]ard his blow with the edge of your sword." (“Brief Instructionsâ€

Gemini wrote:I do want this to be done with. Have your opinion and be well with it.

Whereas I would like to see this modern myth dispelled; then I shall be, if not well, then at least a bit better.

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/bsb00001840/images/index.html?seite=111
Those swords are showing their rain guards.... That means they are showing the flat....

Of course you can see the rainguards; these are medieval artists, not modern photographic artists. Many medieval sources show sword flat-on when the edge-on position should be shown because they just drew swords that way. It's the technique to be looked at: If you don't use an edge-on-edge displacement your swords just slide past each other. No, they don't meet at 90 degrees, but it's still edge-on-edge, and it still nicks the edge. That is not a serious problem, after the fight you simply buff the edge out or replace the sword.

And I notice you ignored the quote from Silver telling us to use a 90-degree displacement. This kind of displacement is called a "true cross" and is quite common, especially in English swordsmanship.

So they fought with the edge too much and the sword was ruined...

Precisely. So whether you think it wise or economical or not, the fact remains that that is how it was done. Preaching otherwise in a video to people who know no better promulgates error, not knowledge.

Four more broken swords? They should have just hit each other and saved the steel...

Thereby demonstrating that modern notions about medieval combat don't reflect actual practice.

1.) A sword in tact in a fight is priceless, if it breaks it's your life. 2.)Instances yes, if you have to. Always, no.

And yet medieval experts--men who had been there--disagreed with your concerns enough that they still blocked with their edges. This fact cannot be ignored, which demonstrates that there must be more to this than you realize. In other words, either swords did not break as often as you believe in edge-on-edge displacements, or else the men who used them simply accepted the liklihood of that happening and were unconcerned by it.

3.) I want people to use a sword well. Not as if you have five on stand-by.

Then I submit the historical evidence suggests your notions of using a sword "well" are at odds with the historical record and the writings of those who used them professionally. Your video implies to your viewers that you are knowledgeable about medieval swordsmanship and are passing facts about that subject to them.

Hugh, thank you for your information. If I break a sword now, I can't replace it easily. Little things like food and other essentials of life take precedence and would be on the mind our our knight in history as well.
I will show my method and why I use it, and gladly test it as we do here every day. But for now... just enjoy the show... or just don't watch.

In other words, your modern notions of the economy of swordsmanship are important to you. That's fine, but then you should have said it that way. I think the right thing to do would be to make another video in which you admit that your previous one was incorrect, and that the real reason you worry about using a sword in the manner they were used in period has to do with your unwillingness to have your sword damaged, not because that's what was done in period, as your video claims.

Of course you can see the rainguards; these are medieval artists, not modern photographic artists. Many medieval sources show sword flat-on when the edge-on position should be shown because they just drew swords that way. It's the technique to be looked at: If you don't use an edge-on-edge displacement your swords just slide past each other. No, they don't meet at 90 degrees, but it's still edge-on-edge, and it still nicks the edge. That is not a serious problem, after the fight you simply buff the edge out or replace the sword.

So even after the explanation we are talking about a nick and not a strait edge to edge strike. Not the best example...

And I notice you ignored the quote from Silver telling us to use a 90-degree displacement. This kind of displacement is called a "true cross" and is quite common, especially in English swordsmanship.

I ignore Silver a lot....

So they fought with the edge too much and the sword was ruined...

Precisely. So whether you think it wise or economical or not, the fact remains that that is how it was done. Preaching otherwise in a video to people who know no better promulgates error, not knowledge.

Not sure where you are on that one Hugh. I don't think it's wise at all. And I am saying so.

Four more broken swords? They should have just hit each other and saved the steel...

Thereby demonstrating that modern notions about medieval combat don't reflect actual practice.

Thereby saying, "Don't do that." If you want to, then go right ahead.

1.) A sword in tact in a fight is priceless, if it breaks it's your life. 2.)Instances yes, if you have to. Always, no.

And yet medieval experts--men who had been there--disagreed with your concerns enough that they still blocked with their edges. This fact cannot be ignored, which demonstrates that there must be more to this than you realize. In other words, either swords did not break as often as you believe in edge-on-edge displacements, or else the men who used them simply accepted the liklihood of that happening and were unconcerned by it.

You are assuming I am ignoring the fact that it happened. All I am saying is don't do it.

Then I submit the historical evidence suggests your notions of using a sword "well" are at odds with the historical record and the writings of those who used them professionally. Your video implies to your viewers that you are knowledgeable about medieval swordsmanship and are passing facts about that subject to them.

No. What they are showing is that if you do it, chances are you will ruin or break your sword.

Again. Thank you Hugh for your writing.

(Walking away and whistling from the dead horse)

Gemini

I ignore Silver a lot....

Obviously not just Silver.

You are assuming I am ignoring the fact that it happened. All I am saying is don't do it.

Oh, I misunderstood. So what you are saying is you think it is a bad idea because you know better than medieval swordsmen! Fine, then why didn't you say that instead of implying that you were telling people historical fact?

Your argument on the video was quite explicit: You said that swords cost the equivalent of thousands of dollars in today's money and that that means medieval swordsmen avoided edge-on-edge contact so as to avoid breaking their swords; I watched the video, and that is a precise summation. You did not support any of your contentions with evidence, and all of them have been proven false *with evidence*, so now your position is that you know better than they did, and we should practice our swordsmanship your modern way rather than the way it was done in period. All I am saying is that you should admit your previous claims were made in error and publish your new, improved position.

(Walking away and whistling from the dead horse)

Obviously it is not a dead horse or you would not have felt the need to make the claims you did in the first place, nor failed to admit your errors in the second.

Gemini, I have been enjoying this show a lot, as a competitive practitioner of 'modern' medieval fighting. Thanks for creating this.

Whenever someone puts in the effort to actually create something there are always naysayers. Don't let that bother you.

Just keep on truckin'

Unrelated question: I was going over your site, and I read somewhere that the next La Prova Dura is going to be in...Australia? Is that right?

I also very much enjoy the show, and think it has a lot to offer just in the two episodes I have seen. I am going to build a pell this weekend based on them. I love the enthusiasm, and the style, and the video work. It's very good and I like it a lot. I can't wait for future installments! I hope you keep making these videos.

But I do not understand why Sir Gemini is so resistant of correction of facts. I'm no expert in sword fighting, but the evidence presented seems very compelling, and the "swords were the most expensive thing a knight owned" statement seems like one of those oft-heart-and-repeated-but-untrue medievalisms that we have all fallen victim to at one time or another.

Remember the old saw about how a man in armour could not get on his own horse, or, if fallen, could not get up?

That medieval meat was covered in sauces to hide the fact that it was rotten?

That people thought the world was flat?

When you fall victim to one of these, just accept the correction with grace.

Steve

Steve -SoFC- wrote:But I do not understand why Sir Gemini is so resistant of correction of facts. I'm no expert in sword fighting, but the evidence presented seems very compelling, and the "swords were the most expensive thing a knight owned" statement seems like one of those oft-heart-and-repeated-but-untrue medievalisms that we have all fallen victim to at one time or another.

<snip>

When you fall victim to one of these, just accept the correction with grace.

Steve

Thanks Steve. I assume at this point that this is the best we can hope for in this thread. It is clear now that no amount of evidence, facts or research will change Gemini's mind. But if the evidence is sufficient to convince those with an open mind then that will do.

And I do still plan to watch the other episodes. I find them otherwise good.

Cheers,
Steven

I made my own pell this weekend using Sir Gemini's excellent, low-cost, portable design:

http://www.forth-armoury.com/photo_gall ... l/pell.htm

Steve

More please

Cyrano wrote:More please

^^^
this!

Episode 3 of The Modern Medieval is up. This show talks about kicks, begining a series that will jump in and out about the well rounded fighter a knight would have to be.

You can see it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMYf7QZEQZ0

Thank you,

Gemini

The more I read first person written accounts of the Middle Ages, the more I know that I don't know enough, that there was no "one true way" and they were very smart. I stand on the shoulders of giants and fools, and due to their work can see the stars as well as the pulse of an atom.

Gemini wrote:Episode 3 of The Modern Medieval is up. This show talks about kicks, begining a series that will jump in and out about the well rounded fighter a knight would have to be.

PREPOSTEROUS! Studying the ancient masters clearly shows that kicks were done with the EDGE of the foot, not only the TOE! Sure, you would rather break your toe than your whole foot, but that doesn't mean a Knight didn't train to kick with all parts of his foot!

(in case it's not obvious, I have not watched Episode 3 yet)

I am a firm believer in the knightly "snap kick"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8q-KF28bow

13 sec. in

Nice! I've enjoyed all three episodes. Keep them coming.

Also-- I'm an English prof. and freelance copywriter. I'd be happy to look over your scripts if you'd like. Tweaking the wording to avoid language like "always" and "most" can go a long way towards diffusing arguments about historical accuracy, etc.

Halfdan wrote:Nice! I've enjoyed all three episodes. Keep them coming.

Also-- I'm an English prof. and freelance copywriter. I'd be happy to look over your scripts if you'd like. Tweaking the wording to avoid language like "always" and "most" can go a long way towards diffusing arguments about historical accuracy, etc.

Thank you! I am learning a lot and have been very glad of the advice. And as you may have seen from the contributors on this episode, not afraid to ask for help

Gemini