The Armour Archive

Galleron wrote:Actually, targeting the visor with a thrust was a common tactic:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... isors.html

It's an easier target to stick on because it's pre-perforated for your convenience.

Yes, I read that when it first came out--its very well done. But I still think the visor would be harder to hit when you're charging in at a run, which is my take on the pushes, just as the visor is a more challenging target when jousting on horseback. I can easily see your point about doing so in a normal halfsword fight where you weren't trying to actually kill each other for the reasons you specify (and even though you point out the dangers, we still have to note how few real injuries there were), I'm just saying it would be harder to do in a push when you're running in.

Before I read that essay I wouldn't have thought of stabbing up under the visor in a lethal fight in order to wedge it up; that technique I can *definitely* see as having value in a lethal bout (more proof that the Fechtbücher don't tell us everything). Again, it's not something you'd do while charging in, however.

Anyone who can perform an exchange of thrusts from horseback should have absolutely zero difficulty nailing a visor.

Russ Mitchell wrote:Anyone who can perform an exchange of thrusts from horseback should have absolutely zero difficulty nailing a visor.

I have never tried, so I can't speak from my own experience. I'm only going by the fact that in jousts the face was accorded a higher score because it was harder to hit well.

SyrRhys wrote:We know that at least one "Fechtbuch" source--the English poem Hal brought up--says that edge blows were struck against plate on purpose by trained combatants (contrary to Greg's comment that all the Fechtbücher said to hit at gaps rather than at the plates).

Correction, you know that one translation says to fall on his harness, whatever that means. As I said, there are at least three or four different takes on this passage - two by scholars of medieval English, one of whom also works at the Royal Armouries - and *they* don't agree.

It may be a data point, it may not. Let's not conflate this as a known fact.

Greg Mele wrote:

SyrRhys wrote:We know that at least one "Fechtbuch" source--the English poem Hal brought up--says that edge blows were struck against plate on purpose by trained combatants (contrary to Greg's comment that all the Fechtbücher said to hit at gaps rather than at the plates).

Correction, you know that one translation says to fall on his harness, whatever that means. As I said, there are at least three or four different takes on this passage - two by scholars of medieval English, one of whom also works at the Royal Armouries - and *they* don't agree.

It may be a data point, it may not. Let's not conflate this as a known fact.

Fair enough, I stand corrected: It is a data point, not proof, as you say. I should not have been so definite about something so ambiguous. I should have said that Hal's point was likely but not proven.

Fortunately, that doesn't change anything.

SyrRhys wrote:*Then* I argued that the way the SCA does these blows is a pretty good simulation of how they were probably done in period, and that method was different from the quicker, lighter blows seen in most of the Fechtbücher. Other than Ken saying I was wrong, no one has actually addressed this issue, although as it is based upon supposition (however well reasoned and experientially based) it is certainly open to debate.

Your argument went further than this Hugh - it went on to thereby assume that there is a specialized form of combat - striking blows against harness *with swords*, that all of the sources are essentially silent upon, but which clearly existed - based on iconography and the reading of Vannes, as occurred in earlier periods. You also asserted *definitively* that the texts do not "deal with friendly deeds of arms" (other than Le Jeu), which is not universally true by any stretch.

I've made clear why I find your position very unlikely, but so that I will quite being misquoted here it is in bullet points, one last time:

1. the sources distinguish between lethal wrestling and sport wrestling, submission techniques vs breaks, and jousting vs real lance play,

2. we can directly accord techniques in the manuscripts for fighting in harness or on horseback with accounts in deeds of arms.

3. There are specific times and places that we attack the harness - strikes to the gauntlet, thrusts to the visor - setting the point and bowling someone over - and these are always clearly spelled out.

4. Therefore, the idea that there is a hidden subset of technique does not accord with how the actual technical sources tell us their arts work.

5. Even if I *did* want to just whack someone in harness to have a good bash, I don't need a new way to do it - I just pick my techniques: With the Italian material there are fewer specialized techniques - I just stick with thrusts and full blows. In the German material I am not going to use a scheitelhau or handetruken, but a Zornhau, Zwerchau, Krumphau to the gauntlets or to the blade would work just fine.

In short, I don't need to learn anything special, I need to use common sense.

Will,

Galleron wrote:Read the account. They are not deliberately placing their point someplace harmless, and trying to shove the other backwards. They are coming in at a good pace and hitting any place they see fit, including the thinnest parts of the harness, and hitting hard enough to pierce armor and break swords.

Or this:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... pe-de.html

What I think distinguishes a "push" from other thrusts is that it's expected to include a lot of momentum transfer, and to knock the target back or down if everything goes right. As distinguished from a pool-cue pop.

I think it is also important to remember that "push" and 'thrust' are synonymous in different languages at different times. In Italian, for example there is no word for "thrust". We say that it is "punta", but that means point. The way you make a thrust is usually some conjugation of the verb "fare" (to make) plus "punta": you literally "make a point". The other construction that appears in the 17th c is to "push a point". This is also one of the constructions in French and in *English* in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries many fencing sources talk about pushing the point or even pushing a thrust, by which they simply mean what we today would call a *thrust*.

For technical Italian sources, by the later 16th c, with polearms you have a simple "punta" - a thrust of whatever sort, a "punta portata" (a "carried" or "couched thrust", in some cases possibly meaning something like a bayonet thrust) and a "punta slanciata" - a "flung thrust", aka the slide thrust popular in SCA spear fights. All are used in armoured combat, btw, but the portata is specifically meant to be used against harness - driving into the armour and then baring the person back.

Sources: Manciolino, Marozzo, di Grassi and Pistofilo. It may appear in some of the newly-discovered Italian texts, but I cannot speak to them from the top of my head.

This is what Fiore is talking about how to counter - instead of the point sliding off, it lodge in your harness.

My point about spear pushes is that even if this was a game, it is just a game based on the real fighting skill of a couched thrust, and Fiore's counter shows that they were quite aware of these actions and the action themselves were just a part of the larger art - not some specialized action for deeds only. Which is what my general point has been from the start.

One final point on "two-handed thrusts in armour". Again, we don't need to look outside the sources. Fiore includes these, both in his discussion of posta breve, in the general sword section (I play better in harness than without), and porta di ferro mezzana in the sword in armour section. The corresponded to the German Pflug and Alber.

We also have a two-handed grip used in the German Gladiatoria Manuscript, and in several of the uncaptioned manuscripts from the late 15th c. So, while half-swording predominates, it is not all that is depicted.

Hugh,

SyrRhys wrote:As for his supposed invitation, I do not believe it was serious. My friend Mike has been pestering him to invite me to present a paper, but I'm reasonably sure all he intended to do was to extend a false invitation and then somehow my submission would never be good enough, or wouldn't qualify for some technical reason. I have had dealings with this person before.

Just to be clear, you are then calling me a liar, since I told you *directly* that before this thread ever started Ken had called me on the phone to pitch the roundtable idea, and that he was inviting you to present. Ken made his intent very clear - he wasn't asking my approval, he wasn't making it provisional. I also explained to you that he doesn't even see the paper until the day of the event - you give a topic and title. For professional scholars violent disagreement is part of the job description.

You don't have to go, you don't have to feel it worth your time - but that is not the same as being given a false invitation. Likewise, we may not like each other, but while you are talking about people being rude, would you like to recant that implied accusation about myself and the direct one made to Ken?

Greg

Greg Mele wrote:Just to be clear, you are then calling me a liar, since I told you *directly* that before this thread ever started Ken had called me on the phone to pitch the roundtable idea, and that he was inviting you to present. Ken made his intent very clear - he wasn't asking my approval, he wasn't making it provisional. I also explained to you that he doesn't even see the paper until the day of the event - you give a topic and title. For professional scholars violent disagreement is part of the job description.

You don't have to go, you don't have to feel it worth your time - but that is not the same as being given a false invitation. Likewise, we may not like each other, but while you are talking about people being rude, would you like to recant that implied accusation about myself and the direct one made to Ken?

I recant any implied accusation about you lying: I never implied you were lying, I was referring *only* to my opinion about Ken. You never said you'd had this kind of conversation, only that you and Ken had discussed me presenting a paper. Therefore, saying I thought Ken was not serious--regardless of what he said to you--was not calling you a liar. I am *very* careful about my accusations, Greg. You are 100% wrong on the subject of this discussion, and use cheap and dirty tactics of obfuscation to avoid having to admit it, but I have never had any reason to call you a liar. If you felt I was calling you a liar I apologize sincerely.

I do not take back anything about Ken. No one said anything to me about any kind of roundtable, and I was told I had to submit any paper for review in advance. Perhaps he honestly did intend to invite me to a roundtable discussion. That isn't the point. We were talking about his statement that he was going to invite me to present a paper--his exact words from his first post to me.

Greg Mele wrote:Your argument went further than this Hugh - it went on to thereby assume that there is a specialized form of combat - striking blows against harness *with swords*, that all of the sources are essentially silent upon, but which clearly existed - based on iconography and the reading of Vannes, as occurred in earlier periods. You also asserted *definitively* that the texts do not "deal with friendly deeds of arms" (other than Le Jeu), which is not universally true by any stretch.

I've made clear why I find your position very unlikely, but so that I will quite being misquoted here it is in bullet points, one last time:

I guess your bowing out was too good to be true.

1. the sources distinguish between lethal wrestling and sport wrestling, submission techniques vs breaks, and jousting vs real lance play,

Wrestling vs. sport wrestling has nothing to do with swords. The real distinction is unarmored, probably, anyway; none of the sport wrestling books ever show armored combatants, and none of the sections in which they talk about grappling in armor ever mention anything about sport. I kept saying "with swords" to prevent anyone from trying to catch me with clever little word games, but I see I either missed a few or you ignored them.

As for jousting, I don't honestly know of where you see sport jousting in the Fechtbücher, but that may be ignorance on my part. One or two plates in Talhoffer 1459 show figures doing what is probably sport jousting, but there is no text associated with the plates, so we can't honestly say it's being taught. Likewise, Mair shows a few scenes of sport jousting, but doesn't actually teach it--he just mentions some famous jousts. And I looked carefully at all the other German material, or so I thought, without seeing any: All of the sources teach how to avoid, deflect or counter lance thrusts, none of which were allowed in sport jousting. Did I miss someone? I will admit that I haven't studied Fiore's mounted plays as well as I have the rest of his book, however, and he may have said something in there I missed. So if you have actual documentation on this I would like to know about it.

Not that this changes anything: It has nothing to do with using swords in foot combat. Still, I want to know.

2. we can directly accord techniques in the manuscripts for fighting in harness or on horseback with accounts in deeds of arms.

Of course. Many lethal techniques were used in consensual deeds. I said that over and over, Greg. Here you're back to your tactic of trying to expand what I actually said so you can pretend to knock holes in it. I said they did halfswording and aimed at open spots in the armor in consensual deeds, too. This has nothing to do with my argument. My argument was that that wasn't all they did.

3. There are specific times and places that we attack the harness - strikes to the gauntlet, thrusts to the visor - setting the point and bowling someone over - and these are always clearly spelled out.

Strikes to the gauntlet yes: That was very considerate of you to prove my point. Thrusts to the visor--no; they're telling you to thrust at the gaps (e.g., the occularium). But where does anyone say anything about setting the point to bowl someone over in foot combat? It's not in Ringeck, von Danzig, Gladiatoria, Talhoffer, Wilhalm, Goliath, Fiore, Vadi. Each and every one of those sources talks *only* about thrusting into the gaps in the harness.

4. Therefore, the idea that there is a hidden subset of technique does not accord with how the actual technical sources tell us their arts work.

5. Even if I *did* want to just whack someone in harness to have a good bash, I don't need a new way to do it - I just pick my techniques: With the Italian material there are fewer specialized techniques - I just stick with thrusts and full blows. In the German material I am not going to use a scheitelhau or handetruken, but a Zornhau, Zwerchau, Krumphau to the gauntlets or to the blade would work just fine.

In short, I don't need to learn anything special, I need to use common sense.

Sorry, not so. The techniques as they are delivered in the Fechtbücher are quicker and lighter than they need to be for most targets covered in armor. Our instructions for cutting are quite specific: To do so as if a string went from your edge to the target in a straight line and in as short a path as possible. This tells us to use a push-pull motion of the hands that we see time and again in all the cuts--especially the Zwerch and Krump. Unfortunately, this is *not* a good way to generate the level of force my experience tells me you would need to really hurt (meaning multiple blows could stun or daze) someone through armor. Moreover, many of those techniques would be extrmely difficult in gauntlets--a fact that we can tell by their absence in free play videos on the web showing people trying to do them in gauntlets.

Even making the cut by cutting all the way through to the ground (as I believe Fiore sometimes shows? I understand this is a point of contention with some of his modern students?) doesn't answer this: We know from Le Jeu that we must learn to strike blows without overcutting (paragraph 22) so that we're not out of place when striking at armor. Good SCAdians know this, too, and have learned to generate force without doing cutting so far past the target that they expose themselves to an easy counterattack.

Learning how to hit hard without exposing yourself to counterattack is a very specialized skill. Many SCAdians never really get it. Most of the steel groups I've seen either don't try to do so (on purpose) or don't get it. It takes specialized practice and training to do it well.

It is different Greg. Anyone should be able to see that. When I see people trying to use Bloßfechten Fechtbuch techniques in armor in SCA fighting it frustrates me very much because it shows a real desire for authenticity but a lack of understanding of what's going on in the sources we have.

Greg Mele wrote:Will,

Galleron wrote:Read the account. They are not deliberately placing their point someplace harmless, and trying to shove the other backwards. They are coming in at a good pace and hitting any place they see fit, including the thinnest parts of the harness, and hitting hard enough to pierce armor and break swords.

Or this:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... pe-de.html

What I think distinguishes a "push" from other thrusts is that it's expected to include a lot of momentum transfer, and to knock the target back or down if everything goes right. As distinguished from a pool-cue pop.

I think it is also important to remember that "push" and 'thrust' are synonymous in different languages at different times. In Italian, for example there is no word for "thrust". We say that it is "punta", but that means point. The way you make a thrust is usually some conjugation of the verb "fare" (to make) plus "punta": you literally "make a point". The other construction that appears in the 17th c is to "push a point". This is also one of the constructions in French and in *English* in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries many fencing sources talk about pushing the point or even pushing a thrust, by which they simply mean what we today would call a *thrust*.

For technical Italian sources, by the later 16th c, with polearms you have a simple "punta" - a thrust of whatever sort, a "punta portata" (a "carried" or "couched thrust", in some cases possibly meaning something like a bayonet thrust) and a "punta slanciata" - a "flung thrust", aka the slide thrust popular in SCA spear fights. All are used in armoured combat, btw, but the portata is specifically meant to be used against harness - driving into the armour and then baring the person back.

Sources: Manciolino, Marozzo, di Grassi and Pistofilo. It may appear in some of the newly-discovered Italian texts, but I cannot speak to them from the top of my head.

This is what Fiore is talking about how to counter - instead of the point sliding off, it lodge in your harness.

My point about spear pushes is that even if this was a game, it is just a game based on the real fighting skill of a couched thrust, and Fiore's counter shows that they were quite aware of these actions and the action themselves were just a part of the larger art - not some specialized action for deeds only. Which is what my general point has been from the start.

Thanks for that information, Greg. I should have specified that i was referring to the push in accounts written in French. It would seem to be similar to the Italian punta portata.

Hugh:

Just to be clear, am I correct in thinking that you are using fechtbucher as a general term for medieval European fighting manuals, regardless of language?

Galleron wrote:Just to be clear, am I correct in thinking that you are using fechtbucher as a general term for medieval European fighting manuals, regardless of language?

Yes, that's correct. I dislike the term "manuals," and I guess I could just say "fight books" to make it more universal, but I suppose the term Fechtbuch is just ingrained at this point.

SyrRhys wrote:

Greg Mele wrote:Your argument went further than this Hugh - it went on to thereby assume that there is a specialized form of combat - striking blows against harness *with swords*, that all of the sources are essentially silent upon, but which clearly existed - based on iconography and the reading of Vannes, as occurred in earlier periods. You also asserted *definitively* that the texts do not "deal with friendly deeds of arms" (other than Le Jeu), which is not universally true by any stretch.

I've made clear why I find your position very unlikely, but so that I will quite being misquoted here it is in bullet points, one last time:

I guess your bowing out was too good to be true.

1. the sources distinguish between lethal wrestling and sport wrestling, submission techniques vs breaks, and jousting vs real lance play,

Wrestling vs. sport wrestling has nothing to do with swords. The real distinction is unarmored, probably, anyway; none of the sport wrestling books ever show armored combatants, and none of the sections in which they talk about grappling in armor ever mention anything about sport. I kept saying "with swords" to prevent anyone from trying to catch me with clever little word games, but I see I either missed a few or you ignored them.

As for jousting, I don't honestly know of where you see sport jousting in the Fechtbücher, but that may be ignorance on my part.

Lots of jousting manuals outside Germany. Anglo's Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe has a whole chapter, and some of them cover both sport jousting and mounted lance in war.

Galleron wrote:Lots of jousting manuals outside Germany. Anglo's Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe has a whole chapter, and some of them cover both sport jousting and mounted lance in war.

And are they like the Fechtbücher in that they teach displacements, etc.? Or do they *just* teach sport jousting? Because whenever I read about jousting outside of the Fechtbücher (and I'm using the term here to mean folks like von Danzig, Kal, Fiore, etc.) I only ever see things about sport jousting, where you aim for your opponent and he just rides along and takes it while trying to hit you the same way.

I suppose that either way these should be classed as Fechtbücher, too, but I confess I wasn't looking at them in the same category. Of course, Meyer teaches purely sport longsword (although there is lethal fighting in there, too, like with the rapier), and I still class his book as a Fechtbuch.

But let's put it this way: None of the books I traditionally think of as Fechtbücher that show mounted spear combat show anything about how to do sport jousting. I'm talking here of von Danzig, Kal, Talhoffer, Goliath, Fiore, etc. Of course, the root technique--dropping your lance point onto a target--is the same, but really, none of them actually say much about that. They show deflections, blocks, avoidances, etc. to *counter* someone who's doing that. I know this because I spent a good amount of time working through all of the German sources, at least, to develop material for a book on Roßfechten that I've been working on in conjunction with a pretty well-known jouster.

My gut feeling (meaning uneducated) is that there's more to sport jousting than just learning how to place the lance point, but those other technique I *know* are not allowed. I remember at the jousts at St. Inglevert where the German jouster was so roundly chastised for moving his spear point in a sideways motion (a deflection, perhaps, as from the Fechtbücher?) when he was just supposed to sit there and take it. Maybe the only difference between the lance work in the "Fechtbücher" and the jousting books is that the counters, etc., in the Fechtbücher are *in addition* to the lance work you need to know for sport jousting. I'd welcome insights into this from folks who've actually studied the subject.

I really have a lot to learn about jousting, however, and so won't push any of these points very hard.

SyrRhys wrote:

Greg Mele wrote:Your argument went further than this Hugh - it went on to thereby assume that there is a specialized form of combat - striking blows against harness *with swords*, that all of the sources are essentially silent upon, but which clearly existed - based on iconography and the reading of Vannes, as occurred in earlier periods. You also asserted *definitively* that the texts do not "deal with friendly deeds of arms" (other than Le Jeu), which is not universally true by any stretch.

I've made clear why I find your position very unlikely, but so that I will quite being misquoted here it is in bullet points, one last time:

I guess your bowing out was too good to be true.

1. the sources distinguish between lethal wrestling and sport wrestling, submission techniques vs breaks, and jousting vs real lance play,

Wrestling vs. sport wrestling has nothing to do with swords. The real distinction is unarmored, probably, anyway; none of the sport wrestling books ever show armored combatants, and none of the sections in which they talk about grappling in armor ever mention anything about sport. I kept saying "with swords" to prevent anyone from trying to catch me with clever little word games, but I see I either missed a few or you ignored them.

As for jousting, I don't honestly know of where you see sport jousting in the Fechtbücher, but that may be ignorance on my part. One or two plates in Talhoffer 1459 show figures doing what is probably sport jousting, but there is no text associated with the plates, so we can't honestly say it's being taught. Likewise, Mair shows a few scenes of sport jousting, but doesn't actually teach it--he just mentions some famous jousts. And I looked carefully at all the other German material, or so I thought, without seeing any: All of the sources teach how to avoid, deflect or counter lance thrusts, none of which were allowed in sport jousting. Did I miss someone? I will admit that I haven't studied Fiore's mounted plays as well as I have the rest of his book, however, and he may have said something in there I missed. So if you have actual documentation on this I would like to know about it.

Not that this changes anything: It has nothing to do with using swords in foot combat. Still, I want to know.

2. we can directly accord techniques in the manuscripts for fighting in harness or on horseback with accounts in deeds of arms.

Of course. Many lethal techniques were used in consensual deeds. I said that over and over, Greg. Here you're back to your tactic of trying to expand what I actually said so you can pretend to knock holes in it. I said they did halfswording and aimed at open spots in the armor in consensual deeds, too. This has nothing to do with my argument. My argument was that that wasn't all they did.

3. There are specific times and places that we attack the harness - strikes to the gauntlet, thrusts to the visor - setting the point and bowling someone over - and these are always clearly spelled out.

Strikes to the gauntlet yes: That was very considerate of you to prove my point. Thrusts to the visor--no; they're telling you to thrust at the gaps (e.g., the occularium).

Liecthenauer has some terse advice about aiming for the eyes, but Ringeck is more general, saying to aim at the face. This isn't restricted to the eyes, since there are a number of effective attacks you can make to the visor even if you don't penetrate the eyeslot, which is a good thing because the eyeslot is such a difficult target. And some helmets, like the colander-faced great bascinet, don't even have one.

A thrust to the armpit is still an attack on armor: mail is harness too.

Galleron wrote:Liecthenauer has some terse advice about aiming for the eyes, but Ringeck is more general, saying to aim at the face. This isn't restricted to the eyes, since there are a number of effective attacks you can make to the visor even if you don't penetrate the eyeslot, which is a good thing because the eyeslot is such a difficult target. And some helmets, like the colander-faced great bascinet, don't even have one.

When Ringeck talks about aiming at the face he's not talking about attacking the visor, he means the face when the visor is left open, as the illustrated Fechtbücher show us was often the case:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_070.jpg

We know this because of the way he says so--all of his attacks are to the gaps or openings: Palms, the rear of the gauntlets (meaning inside the cuff), the back of the knee, the armpits, etc. (Ringeck fol. 89r). He really says the weak spots, and by that he means the openings or gaps. Liechtenauer is even more clear: He says "leather and gauntlets and the eyes." Not the visor, the eyes.

I will grant you that a good thrust with a solid weapon to the face can be a stunning blow on par with a strike to the head. You and I have discussed this, and I agree. But Ringeck isn't talking about stunning blows here, he doesn't even mention them except in the sections where he talks about that kind of strike. So I feel very confident that Ringeck is talking about the *face*, not the visor.

A thrust to the armpit is still an attack on armor: mail is harness too.

[/quote]

Granted, I meant plate. But while mail is armor, it is attacked differently from the way you attack plate. You never intentionally thrust into plate in a lethal fight, but you do thrust into mail.

SyrRhys wrote:

Galleron wrote:Liecthenauer has some terse advice about aiming for the eyes, but Ringeck is more general, saying to aim at the face. This isn't restricted to the eyes, since there are a number of effective attacks you can make to the visor even if you don't penetrate the eyeslot, which is a good thing because the eyeslot is such a difficult target. And some helmets, like the colander-faced great bascinet, don't even have one.

When Ringeck talks about aiming at the face he's not talking about attacking the visor, he means the face when the visor is left open, as the illustrated Fechtbücher show us was often the case:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:De_Fechtbuch_Talhoffer_070.jpg

And yet when the text of Gladiatoria talks about attacks against the face, he shows them executed against a closed visor (2v,7v,9r). And for that matter, one with a row of short vertical perforations rather than an ordinary eyeslot. Good luck reaching an eye through that.

In 9v we have a thrust from below specifically against a visor.

SyrRhys wrote:

Galleron wrote:Lots of jousting manuals outside Germany. Anglo's Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe has a whole chapter, and some of them cover both sport jousting and mounted lance in war.

And are they like the Fechtbücher in that they teach displacements, etc.? Or do they *just* teach sport jousting? Because whenever I read about jousting outside of the Fechtbücher (and I'm using the term here to mean folks like von Danzig, Kal, Fiore, etc.) I only ever see things about sport jousting, where you aim for your opponent and he just rides along and takes it while trying to hit you the same way.

I suppose that either way these should be classed as Fechtbücher, too, but I confess I wasn't looking at them in the same category. Of course, Meyer teaches purely sport longsword (although there is lethal fighting in there, too, like with the rapier), and I still class his book as a Fechtbuch.

But let's put it this way: None of the books I traditionally think of as Fechtbücher that show mounted spear combat show anything about how to do sport jousting. I'm talking here of von Danzig, Kal, Talhoffer, Goliath, Fiore, etc. Of course, the root technique--dropping your lance point onto a target--is the same, but really, none of them actually say much about that. They show deflections, blocks, avoidances, etc. to *counter* someone who's doing that. I know this because I spent a good amount of time working through all of the German sources, at least, to develop material for a book on Roßfechten that I've been working on in conjunction with a pretty well-known jouster.

.

I think that's an artifact of the particular interests of the authors you studied.

Duarte goes into detail on the techniques of lethal mounted combat, so his Bem Cavalgar is surely a fechtbuch by your definition. He also says a lot specific to sport jousting. Further, he goes in great detail into good technique in the abstract: how to drop your lance onto the target, how to remain firmly in the saddle: things that are important to know for peace and for war.

Kal and Talhoffer and Ringeck are much more about specific techniques for specific circumstances, not high level basic horsemanship.

SyrRhys wrote:

Galleron wrote:Lots of jousting manuals outside Germany. Anglo's Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe has a whole chapter, and some of them cover both sport jousting and mounted lance in war.

And are they like the Fechtbücher in that they teach displacements, etc.? Or do they *just* teach sport jousting? Because whenever I read about jousting outside of the Fechtbücher (and I'm using the term here to mean folks like von Danzig, Kal, Fiore, etc.) I only ever see things about sport jousting, where you aim for your opponent and he just rides along and takes it while trying to hit you the same way.

I suppose that either way these should be classed as Fechtbücher, too, but I confess I wasn't looking at them in the same category. Of course, Meyer teaches purely sport longsword (although there is lethal fighting in there, too, like with the rapier), and I still class his book as a Fechtbuch.

But let's put it this way: None of the books I traditionally think of as Fechtbücher that show mounted spear combat show anything about how to do sport jousting. I'm talking here of von Danzig, Kal, Talhoffer, Goliath, Fiore, etc. Of course, the root technique--dropping your lance point onto a target--is the same, but really, none of them actually say much about that.

To put it another way, they say nothing about how to ride, how to hit a target with a lance, where to aim to do the most damage, how to keep your seat, how to conquer the pucker factor, or what equipment is best, for war or peace.

With those off the table, all you have left of jousting is ride straight at your opponent and hit them with your lance.

Galleron wrote:And yet when the text of Gladiatoria talks about attacks against the face, he shows them executed against a closed visor (2v,7v,9r). And for that matter, one with a row of short vertical perforations rather than an ordinary eyeslot. Good luck reaching an eye through that.

In 9v we have a thrust from below specifically against a visor.

I have two answers for that. Actually three: The first is, "Hey, no fair using my own translation against me!"

On the serious side, my real first response is to use your own argument about the iconography against you. I do not believe that armor is real. It's too fanciful and too different from what we know about armor in that period. That being the case, we have to be careful using the artist's choice of visor design, and whether the visors are meant to be up or down. On the other hand, I think those big, wide-open slots the artist has drawn would be a *lot* easier to hit than most occularia.

The second answer is that you may be assigning to much precision to the language used; remember that medieval people didn't write with the same precision we expect today. Hell, you're one of the people that taught that to me. If you look at folio 2v, 7v, 8r, 9r, and more than 20 other locations in Gladiatoria (thank god for search tools!) you see that the text specifically talks about thrusts to the *face*, not visor. Conversely, he mentions thrusts to the visor only 5 times. I honestly think he was just using that as an alternative word for face.

If you look at the visor examples, we see that in the last one, he has to talk about the visor because he's telling you to lift it so you can stab the face, so that one shouldn't even count. And in 4 out of the 5 examples where he says visor, he talks about stabs to the visor with *daggers*; 9v is the only one where he uses the word visor in reference to a spear or halfsword thrust. Now I grant that a spear and maybe a halfsword visor thrust can be a stunning blow, but not a dagger thrust. For example, 44v says: "Note the twenty-seventh technique of the dagger: If he thrusts from above towards your visor..." [emphasis mine]. Thus, either he's talking about stabbing through the occularium or else he means to the face with the visor raised.

Galleron wrote:To put it another way, they say nothing about how to ride, how to hit a target with a lance, where to aim to do the most damage, how to keep your seat, how to conquer the pucker factor, or what equipment is best, for war or peace.

With those off the table, all you have left of jousting is ride straight at your opponent and hit them with your lance.

Yes, you're right. This debate has really shown me I need to re-examine my definition of the word "Fechtbuch" when it comes to jousting. And using that definition, I can no longer say no Fechtbücher other than Le Jeu address consensual deeds. I still argue there is a difference of kind there, but would find it difficult to precisely define, and acknowledge that this may simply be prejudice on my part.

On the other hand, this has no effect on our current debate: When it comes to foot combat with swords, no Fechtbuch has anything to say about consensual Arms (which covers Le Jeu since it doesn't teach the use of swords).

SyrRhys wrote:

Galleron wrote:And yet when the text of Gladiatoria talks about attacks against the face, he shows them executed against a closed visor (2v,7v,9r). And for that matter, one with a row of short vertical perforations rather than an ordinary eyeslot. Good luck reaching an eye through that.

In 9v we have a thrust from below specifically against a visor.

I have two answers for that. Actually three: The first is, "Hey, no fair using my own translation against me!"

On the serious side, my real first response is to use your own argument about the iconography against you. I do not believe that armor is real. It's too fanciful and too different from what we know about armor in that period. That being the case, we have to be careful using the artist's choice of visor design, and whether the visors are meant to be up or down. On the other hand, I think those big, wide-open slots the artist has drawn would be a *lot* easier to hit than most occularia.

The second answer is that you may be assigning to much precision to the language used; remember that medieval people didn't write with the same precision we expect today. Hell, you're one of the people that taught that to me. If you look at folio 2v, 7v, 8r, 9r, and more than 20 other locations in Gladiatoria (thank god for search tools!) you see that the text specifically talks about thrusts to the *face*, not visor. Conversely, he mentions thrusts to the visor only 5 times. I honestly think he was just using that as an alternative word for face.

If you look at the visor examples, we see that in the last one, he has to talk about the visor because he's telling you to lift it so you can stab the face, so that one shouldn't even count. And in 4 out of the 5 examples where he says visor, he talks about stabs to the visor with *daggers*; 9v is the only one where he uses the word visor in reference to a spear or halfsword thrust. Now I grant that a spear and maybe a halfsword visor thrust can be a stunning blow, but not a dagger thrust. For example, 44v says: "Note the twenty-seventh technique of the dagger: If he thrusts from above towards your visor..." [emphasis mine]. Thus, either he's talking about stabbing through the occularium or else he means to the face with the visor raised.

Point one, serious. The armor is unusual. But if we accept your argument that every fechtbuch is showing judicial combat unless we have specific evidence to the contrary, then we can expect unusual armor. We know that specialized armor was made for judicial duels, and little if any has survived because they were so rare.

How vulnerable the eyes were depends on what you think the pictures show, and they are not entirely consistent from page to page. If I was making a helmet based on the pictures, I would design the area over the eyes on the model of Churburg (16). That is a real, existing helmet. This would be considerably less vulnerable than a conventional eyeslot.

Point two. My reading of the text is that the thrust to the face refers to the part of the helmet that covers the face. This always agrees with what is illustrated in Gladiatoria.

This is not identical to a thrust to the visor, since the visor covers only part of the face in these pictures: what I'll call a bevor covers the rest, frequently pierced with breaths.

Finally, there is a third alternative motive for dagger thrusts to the visor. If the point of the dagger lodges in any of the numerous perforations shown it could be used to lever the visor open for a follow-up attack.

Galleron wrote:Point one, serious. The armor is unusual. But if we accept your argument that every fechtbuch is showing judicial combat unless we have specific evidence to the contrary, then we can expect unusual armor. We know that specialized armor was made for judicial duels, and little if any has survived because they were so rare.

But non-Gladiatoria sources don't show this "weird" armor, so we have no reason to believe what we're seeing here represents a special type for judicial combat. I think we have to use a preponderance of the evidence rule here. This stuff's weird because the artist drew whatever he wanted.

How vulnerable the eyes were depends on what you think the pictures show, and they are not entirely consistent from page to page. If I was making a helmet based on the pictures, I would design the area over the eyes on the model of Churburg (16). That is a real, existing helmet. This would be considerably less vulnerable than a conventional eyeslot.

I fear no convincing argument can be made here.

Point two. My reading of the text is that the thrust to the face refers to the part of the helmet that covers the face. This always agrees with what is illustrated in Gladiatoria.

This is not identical to a thrust to the visor, since the visor covers only part of the face in these pictures: what I'll call a bevor covers the rest, frequently pierced with breaths.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't follow. Look at picture 2v and picture 7v. Both refer to thrusts to the face, and yet in 2v the spear is coming up from below (the part a bevor would cover) while in 7v the thrust is coming down from above toward the eyes. So here we have two uses of the same word which, as far as we can tell, are both being thrust at different parts of the face. In 9v, the only picture that uses the word visor with a sword or spear thrust, the sword is aimed at the upper part of the face, as you say, but then why doesn't 7v say the thrust is to the visor also? Also, look at 59r: Here he talks about attacking the face with the dagger, but it's *very* clearly aimed at the upper part of the face, not the part that would be covered with the bevor. So why doesn't he say visor here?

Finally, there is a third alternative motive for dagger thrusts to the visor. If the point of the dagger lodges in any of the numerous perforations shown it could be used to lever the visor open for a follow-up attack.

I think that's really stretching things. First, such a tactic is never mentioned. And while that *might* be the case if the author just expected us to know that, then why did he use the left hand to do it in 57v? But I don't believe even this; *no* source mentions such a tactic in any book I've seen. Do you have an example of one that does? And yet Gladiatoria is pretty clearly in the same line as Ringeck et. al. (although perhaps from a slightly off branch); a vast number of his techniques are identical to ones from other Liechtenauer Association masters, and the core material is too similar to Liechtenauer to be a unique system, I think. If someone taught such a specialized and unusual technique, especially one that came up quite a few times, I think he would have said *something* about it.

I'm sorry, but I see nothing to support your notion that Gladiatoria is suggesting anything different from the other manuals: If you aim towards the face, do so to either hit the occularia or when his visor is raised. That's the simpler, cleaner answer.

SyrRhys wrote:

Galleron wrote:Point one, serious. The armor is unusual. But if we accept your argument that every fechtbuch is showing judicial combat unless we have specific evidence to the contrary, then we can expect unusual armor. We know that specialized armor was made for judicial duels, and little if any has survived because they were so rare.

But non-Gladiatoria sources don't show this "weird" armor, so we have no reason to believe what we're seeing here represents a special type for judicial combat. I think we have to use a preponderance of the evidence rule here. This stuff's weird because the artist drew whatever he wanted.
.

Talhoffer 1443 and 1446-1459 and the Kal pollaxe illustrations all show armor that's weird compared to anything that survives. And the 1446-59 Talhoffer is weird in a lot of the same ways Gladiatoria is.

Galleron wrote:Talhoffer 1443 and 1446-1459 and the Kal pollaxe illustrations all show armor that's weird compared to anything that survives. And the 1446-59 Talhoffer is weird in a lot of the same ways Gladiatoria is.

To me it looks different, but, again, I don't think this is something that can really be argued with any real precision. I think it's *just* as likely to be artistic license as any supposed judicial combat armor, because I don't see anything about it that seems better suited to judicial combat. Here we come back to a post I made quite a while ago about having to doubt the art when it doesn't support somthing we already know to look for. Still, I think neither of us can "prove" one side or the other of this issue.

That being the case, I revert to my analysis of the use of the word face vs. visor and the techniques demonstrated therewith, and rely upon Occam's razor to defeat spears, swords, and daggers to the face.

SyrRhys wrote:I guess your bowing out was too good to be true.

Not really, just quit mentioning my name and taking digs at me. I believe I still get to speak to Galleron when I want to, Hugh.

The point that you are ignoring, apparently, is that the masters themselves tell us this is *one art*, and when something different needs to be done, they tell us. "Armoured combat" is not it is own art in the 15th c - it is a subcomponent of armizare or the Kunst des Fechtens. That isn't Greg speaking that is the actual fencing Masters: Fiore, Vadi, Monte, the anonymous author of 3227a, Manciolino, Marozzo, Le Jeu make this explicit. The German compendia do as well, as long as we remember that they are multiple authors so it is not the same sort of narrative.

Re: jousting - Dall'Aggochie, Book Three is entirely on jousting, Monte writes extensively on the topic, there are many Iberian sources, which you can now look at in Noel Fallow's book - which make it clear that jousting is something distinct from real lance combat. The Germans have a sub-set of books - the tournier book - to glorify the joust, and there are indeed separate jousting treatises Note that there is no such thing to discuss p

So whether it is in armour or not, with swords or not, is irrelevant; the point is:

When martial sport specifically requires a different set of techniques and ideas from those of earnest combat, the Masters tell us so, and there are even separate books or chapters of the same book, for that discipline. No such thing exists in any shape or form, nor is it referenced, for armoured foot combat, and it contradicts what other masters tell us.

As to:

The techniques as they are delivered in the Fechtbücher are quicker and lighter than they need to be for most targets covered in armor.

I disagree. Some are, many are not. A trained fighter should easily recognize which is which.

Our instructions for cutting are quite specific: To do so as if a string went from your edge to the target in a straight line and in as short a path as possible. This tells us to use a push-pull motion of the hands that we see time and again in all the cuts--especially the Zwerch and Krump. Unfortunately, this is *not* a good way to generate the level of force my experience tells me you would need to really hurt (meaning multiple blows could stun or daze) someone through armor. Moreover, many of those techniques would be extrmely difficult in gauntlets--a fact that we can tell by their absence in free play videos on the web showing people trying to do them in gauntlets.

Seeing as I learned a "Zwerchau" from Master Einar Haakonson back in 1986 - he called it a "Two Count" - and he, myself and the students he taught it to, which include a number of royal peers, were able to use it in SCA crowns, I'm afraid your own argument shows otherwise, Hugh. There are also plenty of WMA people the world over fencing in gauntlets *good gauntlets* and using exactly those blows that you say can't be made.

Whether or not *you* can strike a blow like a Zornhau with sufficient force, do not put words in the Masters' mouth. It is simply a matter of using a wave motion to generate power, rather than the simple hip-twist to create large circular energy.

It is different Greg. Anyone should be able to see that. When I see people trying to use Bloßfechten Fechtbuch techniques in armor in SCA fighting it frustrates me very much because it shows a real desire for authenticity but a lack of understanding of what's going on in the sources we have.

[/quote]

Hugh, I will say this for the last time - what modern people do or don't do is not the issue - that is based on incomplete mastery of the source material. But many people do and can do just that - some of those actions *do* indeed exist in the SCA - but they are not any different than what is in the source.

But all of this is based on the idea that "anyone should see I am right", rather than looking at three very clear points:

1. Not a single text has a Master supporting what you say;

2. Not a single text has instruction for specialized ways to cut against armour, nor are there any such specialized texts, even though there are texts for all other martial sports - jousting, spear games, wrestling, friendly unarmoured fencing matches, etc.

3. Most men fighting in combat in the 15th c would not engage in a duel of any sort, let alone an unarmoured one. Nor would they fight a battle in nothing but street clothes. If your art only works in civies and in full harness, you have a problem. That means I need a way to fight for everything in between - which requires avoiding armour, but also understanding how and when to strike to against it. There are examples of that, and they do not support your idea of a separate sub-art.

For you to be correct, everyone else in the community not only has to be wrong (which is possible), but we must assume that the Masters themselves misspoke or exaggerated when they repeatedly tell us that it is a single, integrated art with sword, spear, dagger, wrestling and axe, in harness and without, on horse and on foot, based largely on your word and how you look at iconography.

I'm sorry Hugh, but Occam's Razor suggests otherwise. This is like trying to prove the existence of God: the evidence is based on personal experience of something ("revelation") and the reading of signs and symbols and an unshakable faith in what they must mean. And I say that as a Catholic speaking to an atheist - if this discussion were someone trying to argue the evidence of a Divine power behind the Big Bang - you would be openly mocking them.

Religion, however, is a topic best left to faith - martial arts reconstruction to data.

Galleron wrote:Thanks for that information, Greg. I should have specified that i was referring to the push in accounts written in French. It would seem to be similar to the Italian punta portata.

That would make sense, Will. Again, while the combative material is targeting the openings you still have to get through the armour, and they make it clear that is what the couched thrust - the push - is for. The later Italian material uses terms like "bear him back", and has you make passing steps forward - clearly your partizan, pike or lance has bit into his harness. Fiore is the one that addresses it having gotten lodged against the *breastplate* specifically, but it isn't surprising - when firing shots at someone in harness, things often glance into the cuirass and the stop ribs do their job.

My thought here is that the friendly combat we are seeing here is just an adaptation of this technique - we come at each other with set spears.

Oh, btw, Fiore mentions both lifting the visor and hitting the visor - but in different places. One thing he lacks somewhat from the German sources is just taking a moment to list the specific vulnerabilities of armour. He has it, but in several places.

Galleron wrote:
And yet when the text of Gladiatoria talks about attacks against the face, he shows them executed against a closed visor (2v,7v,9r). And for that matter, one with a row of short vertical perforations rather than an ordinary eyeslot. Good luck reaching an eye through that.

In 9v we have a thrust from below specifically against a visor.

Yes, we also have one in an early 16th c source that says to hit him in the face and then come again to his throat. It seems the idea here being to rock his head back and thus lift the wrapper to expose the throat. That's assumption as to why, but it is certainly what happens in practice. Now, that is harness dependent - it doesn't work with a sallet and bevor, for example. (Although the figures are wearing late armet type things.) Trying it we did find that the thrust tends to catch and often *lift* a sallet visor, however, exposing the face.

So that is experimentation with a fairly terse description. I can certainly say this, however - when steel swords or spears do catch in the occularia or the breaths, that thrust *seriously* jerks your head around and can unbalance you pretty dramatically.

Galleron wrote:Point one, serious. The armor is unusual. But if we accept your argument that every fechtbuch is showing judicial combat unless we have specific evidence to the contrary, then we can expect unusual armor. We know that specialized armor was made for judicial duels, and little if any has survived because they were so rare.

We also have to think about the date on Gladiatoria: 1420s - 1430s. There is all kinds of weird stuff going on in armour. Afterall, this is the time and place that gave us the Kastenbrust.

OTOH, consider some of what it may show: think about the proto armets in Fiore, that are a lot like the Churburg S-18. However, those early armets (there are what, three that survive?) show mounts for visors in at least two cases - none survive. The weird goggle visor may be the artist's rendering of just that -an idea that I got from speaking with Talbot about this Ms.

In the same vein this is one of the few sources where we see the famed Churburg segmented cuirass - only with faulds of various designs attached. Splinted and scale faulds appear in other artwork of the period from Southern Germany and Bohemia. So while a bit baroque, I am not so sure we can just dismiss the armour as fanciful, especially when German armour in the period is going through all sorts of experiments, and virtually nothing survives. That's giving ourselves too easy a pass, I think.

Finally, there is a third alternative motive for dagger thrusts to the visor. If the point of the dagger lodges in any of the numerous perforations shown it could be used to lever the visor open for a follow-up attack.

I cite a comparable action, above, with spears

SyrRhys wrote:
To me it looks different, but, again, I don't think this is something that can really be argued with any real precision. I think it's *just* as likely to be artistic license as any supposed judicial combat armor, because I don't see anything about it that seems better suited to judicial combat. Here we come back to a post I made quite a while ago about having to doubt the art when it doesn't support somthing we already know to look for. Still, I think neither of us can "prove" one side or the other of this issue.

And yet, you cite the artwork of blows against plate armour - regardless of the context of the text it relates to - as central to proof, despite not having any textual evidence of "something we know to look for", and extrapolate that to mean there is an entirely different way to throw cuts while in harness - largely for sport.

Go back up to your quote and replace fanciful armour with Will's discussion of the images of edge blows. BEcause while I agree with you wrote above, that is a seriously big disconnect to your central thesis of an entire undocumented mode of combat.

Greg Mele wrote:And yet, you cite the artwork of blows against plate armour - regardless of the context of the text it relates to - as central to proof, despite not having any textual evidence of "something we know to look for", and extrapolate that to mean there is an entirely different way to throw cuts while in harness - largely for sport.

Go back up to your quote and replace fanciful armour with Will's discussion of the images of edge blows. BEcause while I agree with you wrote above, that is a seriously big disconnect to your central thesis of an entire undocumented mode of combat.

Oh, give it up, Greg, it's been proven. For god's sake, man up and just admit you were wrong.

The difference here is something we know existed from text sources--edge blows against plate--vs. something we don't know existed, a specific style of funky armor. I'm sorry you're not able to see that difference. See, here you're again trying to prove my argument was broader than it was--in effect, you have me saying that if it's in the iconography it must be true--when, in fact, my argument was much more defined than that. You've tried this a dozen times now, and I'm pretty sure you aren't stupid enough not to see these differences. Greg, this is a childish way to try to twist a debate around. Please stick to reasoned arguments that actually reflect my arguments.

And if you'll recall, I said to G. that the issue of armor couldn't be debated successfully on either side, so you have fun arguing it by yourself. I don't much care, because it doesn't actually effect either of my arguments one way or the other.

SyrRhys wrote:

Greg Mele wrote:And yet, you cite the artwork of blows against plate armour - regardless of the context of the text it relates to - as central to proof, despite not having any textual evidence of "something we know to look for", and extrapolate that to mean there is an entirely different way to throw cuts while in harness - largely for sport.

Go back up to your quote and replace fanciful armour with Will's discussion of the images of edge blows. BEcause while I agree with you wrote above, that is a seriously big disconnect to your central thesis of an entire undocumented mode of combat.

Oh, give it up, Greg, it's been proven. For god's sake, man up and just admit you were wrong.

The difference here is something we know existed from text sources--edge blows against plate--vs. something we don't know existed, a specific style of funky armor.

There's another difference. In the case of Gladiatoria, you are using one arguably fantastic element, the armor, to argue that another element, a thrust to face described in the text, doesn't mean what it shows in the picture, a thrust to the face of a man with a closed visor.

Nothing to add here, just enjoying reading what is being written. Carry on and thank you!

Actually I do have something to add. Could you post drawing or photo or video documentation to augment the various arguements, please?

-Aaron