The Armour Archive

Flonzy: "I still believe the 'wrap' is a blow you 'wined up' for."

As JPR said, only when it's thrown improperly. To add my 2-cents, I teach three basic blow variations -- two that use side recoveries, and one that uses an overhead recovery. This latter, if directed further to the right of the opponent, strikes the opponent with the back edge in the actual "recovery" portion of the blow. This is the "truest" form of the wrap (even JPR's grass-cutting, lefty-abominated version is a derivative ), and it requires no more "wind up" than a true edge strike.

That said, I still read JPR's and Gavin's arguments as heavily SCA-biased. In the first, left-handed SCA fighters (you know, the ones our medieval forebears drowned at birth?) tend to throw "extended" wraps, where they are attacking targets more forward than behind their opponent. This is to take advantage of the better angle an off-side attack presents. Right-handed fighters, on the other hand, find that they are better able to use the wrap as a very close-order attack, often throwing completely to the back of their opponent. Since there are more right-handed fighters than left (as it should be), this is the majority of wrap shots witnessed.

Gavin's arguments, on the other hand, depend heavily on the SCA conventions of non-offensive shield work and no grappling. The shield could be a devastating weapon, and the deep wrap preferred in like-handed fights would, IMnsHO, be met historically with a shield smash long before the blow was ever completed. And almost without exception, the historic manuals recommend wrestling at close range over blade work. From this I read that the early masters acknowledged that there is an effective range to any weapons form and that, sometimes, unarmed combat was superior to even the sharpest blade. In this case, the time it would take to commit to a wrap would very likely make it "scissors" to the wrestler's "rock". I am of the impression that the medievals tended to save their "scissors" for more appropriate "paper" targets.

With respect... -c-

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jean Richard Malcolmson:
<B>

My historical combat training is minimal. Two of Bob Charron's seminars and some training with the other SCA'er who attended them. I am interested in obtaining more training. I am looking towards procuring armor that will meet typical WMA requirements, but that will require time.


Regards,
Jean Richard
Ansteorra

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

Actually, you don't need any "armour" to begin training in WMA. As I'm sure you saw at Bob's seminar, armoured combat is only one aspect of the art. Even very spirited sparring can be done with specially designed training weapons, minimal protection, and good control (this is key). For longsword, I generally wear sports pads on my knees and elbows, padded gloves, a cup, and hard helmet with face shield for sparring with padded weapons. When working with blunt steel, I'll often wear a quilted doublet or light gambeson. If I could start over, I think I would try to learn in the order that Fiore lays it out. Wrestling, then dagger, then swords, etc, with armoured fighting being one of the last things. I actually find the wrestling and dagger plays from Fiore the most fun and interesting, but I have a hard time finding anyone else who wants to concentrate on these. Everyone wants to get to the glitzy and glamorous longsword stuff right away ;^)

-Matt Anderson
ARMA Virginia Beach

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Androu:
<B>
The wrap shot is clearly effective in SCA sword and shield combat, that's why it's done so much. I think this is due, at least in part, to the constraints that have already been mentioned. If you get close enough to me to reach around my shield and hit me in the back of the head or neck, you are close enough for me to bash you in the face with my shield, chop your foot or shin, thrust you in the foot, trip you, grab you and throw you to the ground, etc. None of these nasty things are allowed in SCA fighting from what I understand (except thrusting, although it is rarely done in the SCA fighting I have seen).

-Matt Anderson
ARMA Virginia Beach</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuckle.. now, it's exactly the emphasis on grappling that makes me really ponder the absence of wrap blows in the manuals. If you need to hit someone across the back of their person (read that as anywhere from head to heel across the back) because they've closed distance and there's no room for your sword to work between your two bodies for a "conventional" attack, then the blow that you need to use, the one that is capable of striking to the target you have, is a wrap.

Now, wouldn't it be nice to be able to counter someone's attempt to grapple and throw you down by wounding their leg severely ?

I freely grant that those of you who have reviewed available manuals haven't found any recognizable evidence of the technique. I just fail to understand *why* it is not there.

Since even with my limited review of manuals from the period, I've seen at least one representation of a two-handed sword stance that simply isn't physically possible (arms were crossed and twisted in a manner that's anatomically impossible), I wonder if some evidence of wraps has been lost in the illustration... the artist simply failed to draw the hand and arm in the proper position.

Now, for clarity's sake, I'm not arguing "they must have done it"..I'm wondering what possible reason they had for not doing it, and am genuinely mystified by its absence from the record.

Gavin

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vermin:
<B>One thing that has ALWAYS bugged me about the "wrap" is this-
Where are the mentions of people f*cking it up and cutting themselves?

You know, we've ALL done that, probably more than once (grin)...., but rattan doesn't leave scars, so it doesn't stick in the memory quite the same a blow to the face with steel......

That's the thing that always bugged me about the shot.
(Yes, I use the shot...er, strike....it WORKS in an SCA context, so why NOT?)

But, it's great if it works, but if you miss, you've done your opponents work for them.
At least that's the way I see it if it were used with live steel in an actual combat environment.

Or am I thinking about this the wrong way?

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


Not just a wrap issue The one and only time I've hit myself was the recovery on a forehand shot, passed the blade right through my instep... owowowowwww!.

And that's the whole deal, btw. Controlling your recovery. I don't think I've ever had a wrap miss in a fashion where I couldn't handle the recovery, and that straight shot where I hit myself, I only messed up the recovery by an inch or three (still hurts to think about it lol)

Gavin

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Winterfell:
<B>
The other aspect is that SCA combat is fought with cudgels. They are blunt trauma weapons, plain and simple. And while I can use pretty much the same techniques that I know, with a rapier, a single handed viking sword, and a baseball bat (and yes I have tried the same methods with all three) The type of damage that can result are completely different because they are different weapons.
That my friends is what is the big deal. One cannot equate the damage a sword can and cannot do with the damage a cudgel can and cannot do.
So can you swing your cudgel the same way you swing a real sword? Yes. Will it produce the same results as a real sword? No.
The real point is about the weapons, not the style. After all, if the cudgels did the exact same type of damage to a body as a sword does, then the SCA armour requirements would actually reflect it. (It doesn't. Don't try to argue it. We have 14/16 ga helms, kidney belts, and no fingergauntlets.)
Now that this particular horse has been rendered into a state of glue, I will add my last two cents.
Oh and the wrap shot is nothing more than a chop, it does not cut it is not meant to cut and all your really doing is banging against the armour. Burying your sword in wood is fine, but you chop wood, you cut people. That is why knights also had polearms, axes, maces, and morning stars.
TTFN

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

Cudgel versus sword isn't under discussion.
The question is use of the false edge, and the peculiar lack of historical evidence of what experimentation shows is a highly effective way of using the false edge.

The weapons don't do the same damage. Of course not. SCA uses these weapons precisely to avoid the injuries swords would produce.
I prefer to have my knowledge of the actual damage done by real swords against armor and human bodies come from examinations (by others, thank you ) of the battlemade corpses of the time. Actually sinking my sword into one of my friends sounds like an incredibly bad idea...


As for the wrap being a chop that would do nothing, we are back to the position that *no* edge strike would do anything, so why try to point this out as a flaw of the wrap technique ?

Gavin

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jean Richard Malcolmson:
<B> I guess I am defining as a "wrap" any blow thrown where the wrist breaks over (clockwise for lefties and counter clockwise for righthanders) to strike with the false edge. There are generally three ways to throw this.

1. A slow fall from the shoulder side arm motion which imparts the roll. This can work
but does not hit very hard and is likely to get your arm taken.

2. A straight forward throw which incorporates a full wrist roll where the wrist is rotated out (thumb to the outside) then up and over with the thumb to the inside. Whis is how most folks throw wraps. This hits reasonably hard and is quick enough to be resonably safe. In certain situations, this shot can be useful to throw around a defence.

3. I typically throw what I call a "snap wrap." The blow is thrown just like a straight forward downward front edge blow. As the arm reaches full extention the thumb is rotated inward and a "pop the whip" motion gives the sword tip a great deal of speed. This shot hits very hard and is very quick. It looks just like a front edge blow comming in. It takes a long time to learn to throw it without hitting flat or skipping off.

Regards,
Jean Richard
Ansteorra</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Snap-wraps are highly effective in large part to their deceptiveness. they *look* much like a true edge strike on the way in, right up to the point of commitment, typically, but, they then change, coming in at an angle of attack that reaches around the guard against the expected blow, and with a timing difference that can be very confusing.

(and I know you know all this Your Grace )

Two things I'll add. Throwing snap-wraps can be hazardous to your health. The motion results in a significant impact against your own shoulder muscles. In the East the single most prominent user of the snapwrap technique tore his shoulder apart over the course of a few years ;( It's possible for some people to use it safely without hurting thmselves, and their are others who should really never learn the technique. I'm in between, I use it sparingly because I feel it when I do.

The range for using wraps..I'm 6 feet tall, with arms like an orangutan. When I get in close, at those ranges where people are likely to shove with shields, and all those nasty leg sweeps, trips and grappling techniques come into play in a real fight, I like to go to the backside of my opponent with wrap blows. I'm extremely effective at delivering such blows, at ranges where there are no opportunities for strikes with the true edge. In my case, wrap technique was first taken advantage of for extremely close range combat, and I learned to work with it from further away over time.

Gavin

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Androu:
<B> I actually find the wrestling and dagger plays from Fiore the most fun and interesting, but I have a hard time finding anyone else who wants to concentrate on these.

-Matt Anderson
ARMA Virginia Beach

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

I agree with you 100%. There is some discussion in this area whether Bob's next seminar should be focused on wrestling and dagger or on sword techniques. A lot of folks want to do the sword stufe because it is a lot sexier. However, I feel that if you don't have at least a good underestanding of the wrestling and dagger plays, you are wasting your time working on the sword plays.

Regards,
Jean Richard
Ansteorra

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cheval:
<B>That said, I still read JPR's and Gavin's arguments as heavily SCA-biased.... Right-handed fighters, on the other hand, find that they are better able to use the wrap as a very close-order attack, often throwing completely to the back of their opponent. Since there are more right-handed fighters than left (as it should be), this is the majority of wrap shots witnessed.

Gavin's arguments, on the other hand, depend heavily on the SCA conventions of non-offensive shield work and no grappling. The shield could be a devastating weapon, and the deep wrap preferred in like-handed fights would, IMnsHO, be met historically with a shield smash long before the blow was ever completed. And almost without exception, the historic manuals recommend wrestling at close range over blade work. From this I read that the early masters acknowledged that there is an effective range to any weapons form and that, sometimes, unarmed combat was superior to even the sharpest blade. In this case, the time it would take to commit to a wrap would very likely make it "scissors" to the wrestler's "rock". I am of the impression that the medievals tended to save their "scissors" for more appropriate "paper" targets.

With respect... -c-</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My argument doesn't depend on SCA conventions, sorry. Is there any technique to which there is not a counter ? The answer, of course, is no. I've been on the receiving end of shield smashes, and there's a reason they aren't allowed in SCA, it's that "safety" thing again. We're playing hard, but we generally want to be able to go to work the next day, and so some things are disallowed as being overly hazardous. Hardly means it's never happened.

Is it possible that grappling would cure me of throwing wraps ? Yeah, it's possible, but I think it's also possible that wraps might cure my opponents of grappling. I'm willing to bet that wraps make grappling a more hazardous option.

Since I know how the techniques work for me and what *I* can do with them, I find it odd that they aren't there in the record. I hardly consider myself such a unique specimen that no one else could ever have used the techniques I use effectively.

And so my curiosity continues.. the techniques of wrapping the blade (and there are many, many of them) work for me, and work for me quite well. Since I'm generally bi-laterally symetrical, bipedal and humanoid.. and our ancestors were too, I wonder *why* these techniques are missing from their fighting manuals.

Gavin

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kilkenny:
<B> Chuckle.. now, it's exactly the emphasis on grappling that makes me really ponder the absence of wrap blows in the manuals. If you need to hit someone across the back of their person (read that as anywhere from head to heel across the back) because they've closed distance and there's no room for your sword to work between your two bodies for a "conventional" attack, then the blow that you need to use, the one that is capable of striking to the target you have, is a wrap.

Now, wouldn't it be nice to be able to counter someone's attempt to grapple and throw you down by wounding their leg severely ?

I freely grant that those of you who have reviewed available manuals haven't found any recognizable evidence of the technique. I just fail to understand *why* it is not there.

Since even with my limited review of manuals from the period, I've seen at least one representation of a two-handed sword stance that simply isn't physically possible (arms were crossed and twisted in a manner that's anatomically impossible), I wonder if some evidence of wraps has been lost in the illustration... the artist simply failed to draw the hand and arm in the proper position.

Now, for clarity's sake, I'm not arguing "they must have done it"..I'm wondering what possible reason they had for not doing it, and am genuinely mystified by its absence from the record.

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

With all due respect, I think your SCA paradigm is showing ;^) When done correctly, closing/grappling techniques will not allow you to hit me at all with your sword, either with a wrap or any other strike. The first thing I'm going to grab is likely to be your sword arm or your sword. In a historical combat context, without limitations or "rules" once we close, striking with the sword is likely to be ineffective if not impossible, then it's all about wrestling.

Matt Anderson
ARMA Virginia Beach

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Winterfell:
<B>Ok so what Jean Richard Malcolmson (french irishmen? [img]http://www.armourarchive.org/ubb/confused.gif[/img] ) is describing are snapshots.
So yes I can see them being used without telegraphing, and I can see them being used when striking offline.
BUT YOU ARE NOT USING A REAL SWORD!!!!!!!!
(See my post above.)
Apples and oranges folks, this is a pulpy dead horse.
SCA sport is a modern creation, end of story.
Thank you.

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

No, what Jean Richard describes are "snap-wraps". They're definitely wrap blows, hand turns over and the false edge lands the strike. They incorporate the body mechanics of Bellatrix's "snap" technique. As such they're a hybrid. Conventional SCA terminology for a "snap" refers to a blow with the leading/true edge of the sword.

Gavin

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cheval:
<B>Flonzy: "I still believe the 'wrap' is a blow you 'wined up' for."

As JPR said, only when it's thrown improperly. To add my 2-cents, I teach three basic blow variations -- two that use side recoveries, and one that uses an overhead recovery. This latter, if directed further to the right of the opponent, strikes the opponent with the back edge in the actual "recovery" portion of the blow. This is the "truest" form of the wrap (even JPR's grass-cutting, lefty-abominated version is a derivative ), and it requires no more "wind up" than a true edge strike.

That said, I still read JPR's and Gavin's arguments as heavily SCA-biased. In the first, left-handed SCA fighters (you know, the ones our medieval forebears drowned at birth?) tend to throw "extended" wraps, where they are attacking targets more forward than behind their opponent. This is to take advantage of the better angle an off-side attack presents. Right-handed fighters, on the other hand, find that they are better able to use the wrap as a very close-order attack, often throwing completely to the back of their opponent. Since there are more right-handed fighters than left (as it should be), this is the majority of wrap shots witnessed.

Gavin's arguments, on the other hand, depend heavily on the SCA conventions of non-offensive shield work and no grappling. The shield could be a devastating weapon, and the deep wrap preferred in like-handed fights would, IMnsHO, be met historically with a shield smash long before the blow was ever completed. And almost without exception, the historic manuals recommend wrestling at close range over blade work. From this I read that the early masters acknowledged that there is an effective range to any weapons form and that, sometimes, unarmed combat was superior to even the sharpest blade. In this case, the time it would take to commit to a wrap would very likely make it "scissors" to the wrestler's "rock". I am of the impression that the medievals tended to save their "scissors" for more appropriate "paper" targets.

With respect... -c-</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bravo Cheval!!!

This is one of the most intelligent, accurate, and well-reasoned posts I have ever read on this forum.

Matt Anderson
ARMA Virginia Beach

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Androu:
<B> With all due respect, I think your SCA paradigm is showing ;^) When done correctly, closing/grappling techniques will not allow you to hit me at all with your sword, either with a wrap or any other strike. The first thing I'm going to grab is likely to be your sword arm or your sword. In a historical combat context, without limitations or "rules" once we close, striking with the sword is likely to be ineffective if not impossible, then it's all about wrestling.

Matt Anderson
ARMA Virginia Beach </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, let me try another approach. As with all martial arts, every technique has at least a counter, in general, multiple counters exist. If you get to a point at which you cannot counter, then you have *lost*.

Striking with the sword using the blows in the manuals is clearly ineffective once the opponent closes past a certain range, you simply can't use the strikes on a target standing with one foot between your legs
But the wrap blows provide options for use in exactly that situation.

One can't strike with the sword when the sword arm is held. Generally true. Don't let the fellow get hold of your sword arm

This is one of those ages old sorts of MA debates I say I'll hit you with X and you say no you won't because I'll have you in a Y before you can do it. I say you'll never get me in a Y because I'll execute a W to escape and complete my X... or I say you'll never get a chance to put your Y one me because you won't even see X coming.

Bottomline on that kind of discussion is that both fighters are probably right some of the time, given reasonably equal skills. The techniques are there because they work, at least a reasonable proportion of the time

And it takes me back to my curiosity. My training, in SCA fighting, in shodokan, in Black Cat Kenpo Karate, all shows that the fundamental "wrap" technique is biomechanically sound and combat effective...
therefor the absence in the record screams to me of some kind of oversight.

I'm not ignoring the possibility that there's a well founded reason why our western predecessors did not use the techniques. Most of the arguments I see are to the effect that the techniques are inherently weak, but I find these arguments non-persuasive as they are directly counter to my own, extensive, experience using them.

Does grappling change the picture ? Certainly, but I'm not yet convinced it changes it in a way that eliminates wraps. Grappling negates other sword blows as well, but those blows are taught Why would wraps be excluded just because grappling would make them ineffective ? Perhaps because the only point at which they become effective is the grappling range, and there they may be negated.

The fact that efforts to re-invent a form of armored combat on foot with weapons has produced techniques that are quite different from those shown in the historical record is a curious one.

Some techniques in SCA combat *are* artifacts of our rules and equipment. Blocking with basket hilts, various specialized techniques for fighting from the knees or against an opponent on their knees, most of our great weapon versus shield techniques (indestructible shields are highly unrealistic and I think the effectiveness of our shields is enormously out of line with historical actuality). A number of blows exist that are dependent on things like blocking with basket hilts.

Some things are relatively basic matters of biomechanics, and that hasn't changed in 600 years, or a thousand. Maybe at 100,000 you start finding some real variance

I've taken the approach to armored combat on foot of trying to discover what a human in armor could do, and then finding what works. I don't pretend that this is studying historical swordsmanship or combat. It's trying to invent a combat style based on technology from a time. I do maintain that, done with reasonable approximations of period armor and weapons (and that doesn't require using steel weapons, imo) this approach will, of necessity, arrive at many of the same techniques that people taking the opposite approach find in the manuals.

I believe that these points of congruence validate both approaches. When I find a technique I've discovered without looking at manuals is effective, and it turns out to be a technique that Bob Charron can show me in Fiore, then we're both getting support. My technique turns out to be in their repertoire, and their technique has been, independently, discovered to be effective.

lol.. that went on forever didn't it ?

Gavin

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I agree with you 100%. There is some discussion in this area whether Bob's next seminar should be focused on wrestling and dagger or on sword techniques</font>

Hi there. We're in the final phases of preparation before I make the big formal announcement for February -- look for wrestling and dagger, with extra play time for your other favorite toy... I just have to NOT FORGET to email Bob about the final details... [img]http://www.armourarchive.org/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Regarding these "wraps" with the single-handed weapon, I have not seen anything that would have worked well with a single-handed cruciform sword -- the distribution of mass is wrong for it inside the blade. BUT, before you jump down my throat, I did a lot of techniques very much like these and winden in the traditional magyar sabre method I teach, and although we're only about a third done with the translation of Lechkuchner's messerfechten, there appears to be material that would support the basic idea, although in a markedly "wrestling" context -- the weight distribution is much different, and although the former probably only lends itself to nasty tip cuts, the latter is clearly workable as a "full-power" technique.

Otherwise, Bob is correct: one must work from the sources out, rather than from the theory in. This is a common mistake, though, even among the professionals who are looking for "proofs..." have seen it time and time again as theories that look good on paper originally start to look truly embarrassing based on further primary source evidence. That the technique is essentially valuable when performed in a tactically-appropriate context cannot be disputed. But there are many techniques that are valuable and worthwhile, yet not represented within any given fighting system.

I strongly suspect that in a couple of years this will be a very, very dead horse. Just give us manuscript grubbers a little more time to get the stuff out...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kilkenny:
<B>


And it takes me back to my curiosity. My training, in SCA fighting, in shodokan, in Black Cat Kenpo Karate, all shows that the fundamental "wrap" technique is biomechanically sound and combat effective...
therefor the absence in the record screams to me of some kind of oversight.

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

I don't find it surprising at all that the wrap technique you have found to be so effective in your various martial activities is not shown by the medieval masters. I don't think it's an "oversight" at all. All the activities you list here are quite different from what is being done in the Fechtbuchs. Would you be surprised to find that a book on golf does not illustrate the use of a tennis raquet? If we found a 15th c. manual on fighting with rattan sticks and aluminum shields, according to a rule set similar to SCA combat which did not include the "wrap" then I would share your curiosity :^)

Matt Anderson
ARMA Virginia Beach

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Russ Mitchell:
<B> -- snip --
I strongly suspect that in a couple of years this will be a very, very dead horse. Just give us manuscript grubbers a little more time to get the stuff out...</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then what are you doing slacking off on the archive eh? Get back to work <whip-crak>!!! Translate!!!

Seriously, it would be great if a manual that described sword and shield combat (footwise) were found. Maybe it would help end all the suffering

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">, with extra play time for your other favorite toy..[/B]</font>

In public?!? My goodness!

Regards,
Jean Richard
Ansteorra

Let me suggest another reason why a false edge blow headed back toward the user isn't found in the Medieval treatises: the scientific premises they were fighting under.

George Silver has laid these out in English so we can understand them without the aid of translation (other than to the cultural context and linguistic idioms of his time).

All the masters are consistent. You do not want to spend any time fighting "in the time of the hand" (the distance in which your opponent can hit you without stepping) unless you are finishing your opponent in that moment. As George says, one man's hand being as quick as another, either man could be killed. It is unscientific and unsure. This is why after 20 years of practice and accomplishment in SCA combat I would still occasionally be struck by someone with no training at all. A great deal of the combat took place in the "time of the hand".

You want to keep your opponent in the "time of the hand and the foot" (make him step) in order to give you time to make proper defense.

Delivering an SCA wrap is definitely something done in the time of the hand.

If Medievally you had entered the time of the hand, you had already gained the distance and place in which to strike your opponent with no danger of the same to you. That is scientific combat.

If you have done this your opponent will be lying spent because of a thrust that didn't land, or he will be in some other similar horrible state. In this situation there is no need for a wrap. You simply cut him with a simple true edge blow from high to low or from right to left, or cut him with a simple false edge blow from low to high or left to right.

It's a different science, with different premises. Within these premises the wrap is not needed, so there is no reason to give your opponent the center line during the delivery of your blow rather than pass through it during the blow to deny it to him.

In armour on foot your blows will not be a reliable method of neutralizing your opponent with a sword. You have to thrust, and you might have to wrestle. You should do so, and most of the time the strongest thrusting/wrestling combination can be done at "half-sword" (gripping your blade with the left hand).

Sure wraps can be hard. Sure the SCA uses wraps. I don't believe the Medievals needed them, and I think that's why you don't see them in the treatises. It's a different science and a different set of considerations.

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

Bob I would like to add a thought to your awesome post. If you are fighting an unarmored person the back of the head, neck, and the back are not as good of a target as the front. Why you may ask? The face has softer tissue and thinner bones and the eyes to attack; the back of the skull is thick. The neck has the jugular vain in the front, and stabbing between the ribs, or hacking between the joint at the arm and chest, or stabbing the under arm will do more damage then any blunt trauma or gash on the back.

Just a thought.

Flonzy

------------------
Cheap garb is as bad as plastic armor.
http://home.armourarchive.org/members/flonzy

Well, you have a point, which is why humans naturally turn their backs to incoming damage.

Yet, this must be balanced by the desire to cross the opponent up, and try to turn him around. The most recurring technique in Fiore's system is the push of the elbow across the body, giving access to the knee, the ribs and the back of the head.

In armored combat this elbow push is followed up by some quite gruesome techniques: stabbing to the unarmored back of the knee or buttock, pushing the sword through any seam in the armor where it joins in the back, or sliding the point under the camail into the base of the skull under the helmet.

Turning him around is one certain way to "gain the place" and attack without fear of reprisal.

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

Gavin: "My argument doesn't depend on SCA conventions, sorry. Is there any technique to which there is not a counter? ...I'm willing to bet that wraps make grappling a more hazardous option."

Perhaps I misunderstood your original post, but isn't your successful experience with the wrap in a context devoid of shield smashes and grappling? This is the SCA construct to which I refer and, absent these counters, the wrap gains a disproportionate dominance over other, more historical techniques. Grappling and shield smashes, while denied to us, I surmise -are- the very effective counters to the wrap alluded to in your own words above.

As Bob suggests, the underlying science is different, since the "rules" of engagement are different. I have learned from non-SCA training that, barring restrictions, the "inside" fighter -- the one controlling the center -- has the advantage. Bob puts his finger on this point very nicely -- surrendering the center to effect a strike to the back will result in a strong counter-attack in that line. It is only the SCA rule against grappling that prevents such a response, allowing our wrap to be as effective as it is.

With regards... -c-

I must respectfully disagree Flonzy with your statement that the back of the head is strong. As a former EMT I can assure you that it is the forehead area that is strongest and thickest in bone. The back of the skull is actually not very strong at all. Of course said area's vulnerability depends on the type of helm or absence of helm.

I think Bob's point about fighting principles makes a lot of sense. Given that we know that the medieval sword schools recognized that thrusting is more effective against plate armour than slashing/cutting, it follows that the wrap shot against the back of the helm violates that principle. It is a cut.

It is still an excellent shot in SCA combat, and I would imagine would be highly effective in real combat against an unhelmed opponent, or against the back of the neck in the absence of good neck protection.

Bob's point about avoiding getting stuck within the time of the hand also makes alot of sense. The wrap certainly appears to me to be a shot that requires a deep entry into the opponent's personal space, thereby opening the entrant to counter attack without the opponent needing to move his feet.

Still a mystery however that no one even commented on it in the old manuscripts... goodness knows Fiore has all kinds of strange shots described and drawn , and Silver in his book spends a lot of time complaining about and attacking the Italian system.

regards
Gilbert

[This message has been edited by gilbertdeschamps (edited 10-23-2002).]

Quote Gavin: "The motion results in a significant impact against your own shoulder muscles. In the East the single most prominent user of the snapwrap technique tore his shoulder apart over the course of a few years"

Would that by any change be Sigfried V.H.?

Richard Blackmoore
East Kingdom

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Richard Blackmoore:
<B>Quote Gavin: "The motion results in a significant impact against your own shoulder muscles. In the East the single most prominent user of the snapwrap technique tore his shoulder apart over the course of a few years"

Would that by any change be Sigfried V.H.?

Richard Blackmoore
East Kingdom</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure would.

Gavin

Hey Gilbert

I know the forehead is the thickest part of the skull, I was say the back of the skull is thicker than the areas of the face, plus the tissue on the face is soft and full of nerve endings that hurt like hell if you smash them or cut them.

Now bringing a dagger up under the base of the skull or in the buttocks or the back of the knee like Bob mentioned would really suck.

Flonzy

------------------
Cheap garb is as bad as plastic armor.
http://home.armourarchive.org/members/flonzy

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob Charron:
<B>Let me suggest another reason why a false edge blow headed back toward the user isn't found in the Medieval treatises: the scientific premises they were fighting under.

George Silver has laid these out in English so we can understand them without the aid of translation (other than to the cultural context and linguistic idioms of his time).

All the masters are consistent. You do not want to spend any time fighting "in the time of the hand" (the distance in which your opponent can hit you without stepping) unless you are finishing your opponent in that moment. As George says, one man's hand being as quick as another, either man could be killed. It is unscientific and unsure. This is why after 20 years of practice and accomplishment in SCA combat I would still occasionally be struck by someone with no training at all. A great deal of the combat took place in the "time of the hand".

You want to keep your opponent in the "time of the hand and the foot" (make him step) in order to give you time to make proper defense.

Delivering an SCA wrap is definitely something done in the time of the hand.

If Medievally you had entered the time of the hand, you had already gained the distance and place in which to strike your opponent with no danger of the same to you. That is scientific combat.

If you have done this your opponent will be lying spent because of a thrust that didn't land, or he will be in some other similar horrible state. In this situation there is no need for a wrap. You simply cut him with a simple true edge blow from high to low or from right to left, or cut him with a simple false edge blow from low to high or left to right.

It's a different science, with different premises. Within these premises the wrap is not needed, so there is no reason to give your opponent the center line during the delivery of your blow rather than pass through it during the blow to deny it to him.

In armour on foot your blows will not be a reliable method of neutralizing your opponent with a sword. You have to thrust, and you might have to wrestle. You should do so, and most of the time the strongest thrusting/wrestling combination can be done at "half-sword" (gripping your blade with the left hand).

Sure wraps can be hard. Sure the SCA uses wraps. I don't believe the Medievals needed them, and I think that's why you don't see them in the treatises. It's a different science and a different set of considerations.

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

Would I be wrong to say that all blows land in "the time of the hand" ? That's the range at which you can make contact, correct ? Makes it rather a matter of definition, that if you are hitting the opponent, you are in the time of the hand ?

The issue here is one of timing and range control, concepts that are certainly both well known to fighters in the SCA I'm sure Bob you can explain, and regularly do, which techniques in Fiore are appropriate for use when.

Jean Richard has described a wrap that gives extended range, isn't an inside blow at all. I'm fonder of the closer in wrap techniques myself. Neither is always the right answer, but both can be.

There is no blow that always works, no guard that cannot be bested. It's always a matter of putting your opponent in a position you can then take advantage of. That's the fundamental law of fighting. One clear corollary to that law - the more ways you have of taking advantage, the more positions you can take advantage of. (oh god no, he ended the sentence with a preposition )


If one looks at modern books on martial arts, I think you will find that the vast majority of them present basic techniques, fundamentals on which one will build, on which more advanced techniques will be based.

Is it unreasonable to think that the early authors did the same ? And yes, I understand that going beyond what is in their manuals as we have them takes us into speculation.

There's certainly a point to the concept that they were trying to present scientific methods for fighting. My question at this point moves into the issue of whether these are anything more than introductory manuals teaching the fundamentals.

Gavin

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cheval:
<B>Gavin: "My argument doesn't depend on SCA conventions, sorry. Is there any technique to which there is not a counter? ...I'm willing to bet that wraps make grappling a more hazardous option."

Perhaps I misunderstood your original post, but isn't your successful experience with the wrap in a context devoid of shield smashes and grappling? This is the SCA construct to which I refer and, absent these counters, the wrap gains a disproportionate dominance over other, more historical techniques. Grappling and shield smashes, while denied to us, I surmise -are- the very effective counters to the wrap alluded to in your own words above.

As Bob suggests, the underlying science is different, since the "rules" of engagement are different. I have learned from non-SCA training that, barring restrictions, the "inside" fighter -- the one controlling the center -- has the advantage. Bob puts his finger on this point very nicely -- surrendering the center to effect a strike to the back will result in a strong counter-attack in that line. It is only the SCA rule against grappling that prevents such a response, allowing our wrap to be as effective as it is.

With regards... -c-</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, what prevents that strong counterattack is a thing called timing. Remember that no technique works if done with poor timing.

You don't throw the wrap when your opponent is in a position to effectively counter it.

Just as with every other technique.. you don't throw it when it will be countered effectively, you throw it when it has an opening to exploit.

Gsvin

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob Charron:
<B>Well, you have a point, which is why humans naturally turn their backs to incoming damage.

Yet, this must be balanced by the desire to cross the opponent up, and try to turn him around. The most recurring technique in Fiore's system is the push of the elbow across the body, giving access to the knee, the ribs and the back of the head.

In armored combat this elbow push is followed up by some quite gruesome techniques: stabbing to the unarmored back of the knee or buttock, pushing the sword through any seam in the armor where it joins in the back, or sliding the point under the camail into the base of the skull under the helmet.

Turning him around is one certain way to "gain the place" and attack without fear of reprisal.

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


Working to your opponent's rear is a principal found in many martial forms. The reason for this is not one of what areas of the body are more easily damaged, but of how we defend ourselves.

What is it you use to block an attack ? Primary blocking devices for humans are our arms/hands. Secondary blocking devices are our legs. In general, in order to block you need to be able to see the attack as well.

Now, our arms don't reach around behind our backs very well (some better than others), and our legs really don't go that way much at all.

The result is, when you attack from behind, your opponent can't see where you are attacking and has tremendously reduced capacity for blocking even if he could see.

The point of attacking the backside of a human being is that it's far less well defended than the front.

Gavin

Gavin,

1) The striking of the blow is the end of an action. That action can be done with the hand alone, or can be done with the hand and foot, or the hand and foot and body. In fact, it can be done in Silver's "false times", where something other than the hand moves first. These are dangerous in that the user presents a target before he presents a threat. So in the language of the science, no, all blows are not thrown in the time of the hand.

2) Timing and range control are critical, of course. They must be used in a scientific way to ensure that when you strike your opponent there is absolutely *no* chance of being hit while doing so.

3)The treatises (for they are treatises and not manuals) are mnemonics for students that had studied with the masters. This is why they often do not include any fundamentals, but rather focus on the concepts that the student must use. If anything, the treatises are advanced, rather than fundamental in nature. They are much, much more than fundamental works, and in fact it is often quite difficult and takes years of work to get to the fundamentals of the art by using a treatise.

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

Gavin: "...what prevents that strong counterattack is a thing called timing."

This is a red herring. When the counter is prohibited by regulation, the question of timing is moot.

Gavin: "You don't throw the wrap when your opponent is in a position to effectively counter it."

If I am in the position to counter with a shield smash or throw, but these techniques are denied me by the rules of engagement, then my opponent's attack is successful only because of the rules, and not because of the superiority of the technique.

Gavin: "...you don't throw it when it will be countered effectively, you throw it when it has an opening to exploit."

Again, you have resorted to a fallacy of argument. This is not a discussion of -when- to execute a particular technique, but the fact that the SCA prohibitions on the use of medieval techiques has given rise to an attack that, up until now, has no historical provenence.

You marvelled in earlier posts at the absence of any period reference to the wrap in light of how successful it is in your experience. Since you have not revealed that you have used this technique in other than an SCA context, and the SCA prohibits the most obvious close-order counters of grappling and shield punches, I suggested that your conclusions are prejudiced by SCA conventions. Until someone discovers documentation to the contrary or you get an opportunity to test the wrap in an SCA-style bout incorporating grappling and offensive shieldwork, any suggestion that the wrap is something "overlooked" by the medievals is, at best, a modern conceit.

With regards... -c-

[This message has been edited by cheval (edited 10-24-2002).]

I'm still enjoying this discussion very much but Bob Charron and Cheval have already said what I wanted to say better than I could have.

-Matt

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Since you have not revealed that you have used this technique in other than an SCA context, and the SCA prohibits the most obvious close-order counters of grappling and shield punches, I suggested that your conclusions are prejudiced by SCA conventions. </font>

Given the later context of the thread after my post, I just want to specify, so that there's no confusion, that what I'm finding in Leckuchner is in NO WAY related to any wrap that might actually be returning towards your own head during the strike, but is rather more like the single-handed zwerchhau that's used in my own tradition and which, delivered on a vertical plane, is what I"m assuming that Jean-Richard is describing.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Russ Mitchell:
Given the later context of the thread after my post, I just want to specify, so that there's no confusion, that what I'm finding in Leckuchner is in NO WAY related to any wrap that might actually be returning towards your own head during the strike, but is rather more like the single-handed zwerchhau that's used in my own tradition and which, delivered on a vertical plane, is what I"m assuming that Jean-Richard is describing.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, what I call my "snap wrap" does begin vertical, but ends roughly 30 to 45 degrees above horizontal. This abrupt change in vector is part of the crack the whip portion of the strike.

This strike is actually very effective for me as a misdirrection. I (as a lefty vs. a right hander) will throw some backhands at the left side of their head and then move strongly to their shield side, which I do a lot to get behind a fighter. However, after I have taken my first strong step with my right (shield side) foot and their defense shifts to their left, I drop a wrap back to the right side of their head. I can throw this blow when my shoulder is past their head, which I could never do with a front edge strike.

I have not seen Bob or Gavin mention what I consider the most fundimental difference between SCA combat and Fiore. (Keep in mind everything I know about Fiore, I learned from Bob.) In SCA combat (within the bounds of honor and chivalry) the primary goal is to defeat your opponent, ie. TO WiN. Fiore taught his students how NOT TO LOSE, because in 15th Century Italy, if you lost, you probably died and did not get back up. There is no imperative to actually engage in combat with your opponent. An accetable risk in SCA combat was not an acceptable risk for Fiore. In corollary, in real life people did try to grab you so Fiore taught grappleing. This was a dangerous but necessary thing to do, which imparts a risk of injury that is not acceptable to SCA combat.


Secondly, in many of Fiore's plays, the extra range gives you time to respond to an attack. Many of Fiore's plays assume the atacker is unskilled in the art. Of course, if he is, there are counters to counters to counters to learn.

Regards,
Jean Richard
Ansteorra

Jean Richard,

It may indeed appear to some that Fiore's plays assume incompetence on the part of the opponent, but when viewed as a whole this is not necessarily true.

Fiore cautions in his prologue to always fight as if your opponent knows the counter, and there are specific plays where the text includes the observation that since it appears (through preliminaries of the fight) that the opponent does not know grappling well that a particular technique is appropriate.



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

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cheval:
<B>Gavin: "...what prevents that strong counterattack is a thing called timing."

This is a red herring. When the counter is prohibited by regulation, the question of timing is moot.

Gavin: "You don't throw the wrap when your opponent is in a position to effectively counter it."

If I am in the position to counter with a shield smash or throw, but these techniques are denied me by the rules of engagement, then my opponent's attack is successful only because of the rules, and not because of the superiority of the technique.

Gavin: "...you don't throw it when it will be countered effectively, you throw it when it has an opening to exploit."

Again, you have resorted to a fallacy of argument. This is not a discussion of -when- to execute a particular technique, but the fact that the SCA prohibitions on the use of medieval techiques has given rise to an attack that, up until now, has no historical provenence.

You marvelled in earlier posts at the absence of any period reference to the wrap in light of how successful it is in your experience. Since you have not revealed that you have used this technique in other than an SCA context, and the SCA prohibits the most obvious close-order counters of grappling and shield punches, I suggested that your conclusions are prejudiced by SCA conventions. Until someone discovers documentation to the contrary or you get an opportunity to test the wrap in an SCA-style bout incorporating grappling and offensive shieldwork, any suggestion that the wrap is something "overlooked" by the medievals is, at best, a modern conceit.

With regards... -c-

[This message has been edited by cheval (edited 10-24-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's really no way to respond to this, since what you've decided is that anything I say is undermined because of what you perceive as my bias.

Gavin

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob Charron:
<<Snip>>
All the masters are consistent. You do not want to spend any time fighting "in the time of the hand" (the distance in which your opponent can hit you without stepping) unless you are finishing your opponent in that moment. As George says, one man's hand being as quick as another, either man could be killed. It is unscientific and unsure. This is why after 20 years of practice and accomplishment in SCA combat I would still occasionally be struck by someone with no training at all. A great deal of the combat took place in the "time of the hand".

Bob- Why does so much of SCA combat take place in "the time of the hand"? What is different about our basic set up that allows this to go on? I know that Michael Longcor has followed Silver's advice and has been very succesful with it. Is it just that the rest of us do not take defeat as seriously as Silver does and we consequently have the luxury to fight in a less than realistic manner?

You want to keep your opponent in the "time of the hand and the foot" (make him step) in order to give you time to make proper defense.

I can see this in tourney but in melee are we not constrained to deal with what is offered? I doubt that moving an entire line back so that I have -my- opponent in the time of the hand and the foot is very practical. is there evidence that real battles develop slowly as the opponents seek the timing advantage?

Delivering an SCA wrap is definitely something done in the time of the hand.

If Medievally you had entered the time of the hand, you had already gained the distance and place in which to strike your opponent with no danger of the same to you. That is scientific combat.

If you have done this your opponent will be lying spent because of a thrust that didn't land, or he will be in some other similar horrible state. In this situation there is no need for a wrap. You simply cut him with a simple true edge blow from high to low or from right to left, or cut him with a simple false edge blow from low to high or left to right.

It's a different science, with different premises. Within these premises the wrap is not needed, so there is no reason to give your opponent the center line during the delivery of your blow rather than pass through it during the blow to deny it to him.

In armour on foot your blows will not be a reliable method of neutralizing your opponent with a sword. You have to thrust, and you might have to wrestle. You should do so, and most of the time the strongest thrusting/wrestling combination can be done at "half-sword" (gripping your blade with the left hand).

Sure wraps can be hard. Sure the SCA uses wraps. I don't believe the Medievals needed them, and I think that's why you don't see them in the treatises. It's a different science and a different set of considerations.

[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



------------------
Captain Jamie-a marvellous valorous gentleman, that is certain
Failure is the price of knowledge
Changing the face of warfare one weapon at a time