The Armour Archive

Hello all,

I do not know the origin of the notion that blows in blossfechten are lighter than those in the armoured context.

I know of only a handful of comments in the entire corpus of the Lichtenauer that indicate how hard a blow should be:

1) Fence with all your strength
2) Do not avoid light strikes
3) Ignore light strikes done to you

From this we gather a few things.
1st: We should be hitting forcefully/powerfully with our regular strikes. Now we could debate all day on how best to achieve that while following the other advice, but no part of that debate would nullify the fact that we are told to hit with strength.

2nd: There is a second class of light hits. And they are light enough that we should be able to ignore them. Which indicates a significant difference between the two.

In Talhoffer we see pictures of men decapitated with sword blows. This requires a forceful strike.

Striking with a rounded stick does not have the same requirements as striking with a sword. A friend of mine who has been doing SCA for ~20 years recently tried test cutting for the first time. He barely left a mark on the mat - which means his edge alignment was terrible. In twenty years of wielding a stick he never actually learned edge alignment. But a knight swinging a sword, even in a friendly deed would find that edge alignment made for more efficient blows. So there is a limit to whatever overlap that exists between SCA and edge blows in friendly deeds.

* * *
The sturzhau, despite it's name, is a thrusting technique. Not a wrap shot. Meyer does depict a wrap in the dussack section i.e. a sporting weapon only.

Cheers,
Steven

Galleron wrote: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.

True enough. But I have two things in support of my argument: First, my analysis of the use of language in the text, and second, my knowledge of what the Fechtbücher normally say to do--stab for gaps. So I am not relying upon an analysis of the way the armor is drawn for my point.

To me, you are arguing for something we can't really document well--intentionally aiming for the closed visor with a thrust--and relying upon questinable art to do so.

To bring it back to the edge blows picture analysis, if I had no text sources that supported hitting plate with sword edges, then I would have a lot more cause to doubt the iconographical sources that showed it being done.

Hell, we *know* the art in the Fechtbücher is sometimes mistaken when it comes to armor: Look at the fixed-neck helmets in Talhoffer 1443 where the artist has them turning their heads in a way the helmet won't permit. Weren't you there when Mac was pointing that out to me?

And we know the artists don't always draw what you're supposed to be seeing: Look at the text of Peter Falkner's dagger plays--he specifically *says* they're armored plays, and yet the artist drew all the figures in street clothing. Or look at the halfsword pictures in Talhoffer 1459: They start with both figures in full harness, then gradually as the plates continue first one, then the other is "transformed" into street clothing, and yet we know from the text this is the same armored fight that started the section.

SyrRhys wrote:And we know the artists don't always draw what you're supposed to be seeing: Look at the text of Peter Falkner's dagger plays--he specifically *says* they're armored plays, and yet the artist drew all the figures in street clothing. Or look at the halfsword pictures in Talhoffer 1459: They start with both figures in full harness, then gradually as the plates continue first one, then the other is "transformed" into street clothing, and yet we know from the text this is the same armored fight that started the section.

Is it possible there is a message here? 'The techniques are the same whether you're in armor or street clothing'?

Steven H wrote:I do not know the origin of the notion that blows in blossfechten are lighter than those in the armoured context.

I know of only a handful of comments in the entire corpus of the Lichtenauer that indicate how hard a blow should be:

1) Fence with all your strength
2) Do not avoid light strikes
3) Ignore light strikes done to you

From this we gather a few things.
1st: We should be hitting forcefully/powerfully with our regular strikes. Now we could debate all day on how best to achieve that while following the other advice, but no part of that debate would nullify the fact that we are told to hit with strength.

2nd: There is a second class of light hits. And they are light enough that we should be able to ignore them. Which indicates a significant difference between the two.

In Talhoffer we see pictures of men decapitated with sword blows. This requires a forceful strike.

Striking with a rounded stick does not have the same requirements as striking with a sword. A friend of mine who has been doing SCA for ~20 years recently tried test cutting for the first time. He barely left a mark on the mat - which means his edge alignment was terrible. In twenty years of wielding a stick he never actually learned edge alignment. But a knight swinging a sword, even in a friendly deed would find that edge alignment made for more efficient blows. So there is a limit to whatever overlap that exists between SCA and edge blows in friendly deeds.

Yes, you're supposed to hit hard--as hard as the specialized limits of the way the techniques are thrown permits. The push-pull motion of the hands called for in medieval cuts does not generate as much force as you would want for a really stunning blow against plate. As for the cutting off of the head in Talhoffer, as Michael Edelson of the NYFA has said, that's an example of an extreme finishing cut--one you'd use after the enemy was helpless. Other sources are adamant against that kind of wide, sweeping cut (e.g., 3227a's strict injunction not to do it--see 13v-14v where he argues for a straight cut and eschews wide, sweeping ones) in regular combat.

As for the old test cutting chestnut, test cutting is not a valid test. The SCAdian is worried about developing force into the target, not about perfect edge alignment. Still, decent edge alignment is vitally important in SCA fighting because the mechanics of the shot mean that a properly drive blow must be as edge on as possible for maximum force. Good enough to kill is far different from good enough for cutting mats cleanly--that's why real swordsmen in both Europe and Japan did *not* practice test cutting as a way to test how well a man could cut (although the Japanese did use specialists to test how well *swords* could cut)--because it wasn't a valid test of a decent cut. In order to do test cutting and to get the kind of clean, smooth cuts test cutters think are important, test cutters use techniques contrary to what we know from the Fechtbücher--see 3227a where he talks about ending cuts with your point on line if you miss (see fol. 24r), not well out past him as test cutters do to get the necessary follow through.

The sturzhau, despite it's name, is a thrusting technique. Not a wrap shot. Meyer does depict a wrap in the dussack section i.e. a sporting weapon only.

Sorry, but that's not true. Talhoffer shows it as a cut in folio 2v. We know this because the same posture he here calls a Sturzhau is elsewhere referred to as a Zornort when he's actually thrusting (fol. 3r). And Lignitzer shows it as a cut in his plays of the buckler. We know this because he says to do the cut first, then, if that's displaced, to try to thrust over your opponent's sword from the bind (Ringeck fol. 55v).

jester wrote:Is it possible there is a message here? 'The techniques are the same whether you're in armor or street clothing'?

Not really. The armored dagger techniques are often quite complex--difficult grappling, etc.--that only make sense when you are in armor and your dagger isn't all that effective. When you're out of armor, simpler techniques, such as displacing with the edge of your dagger against your opponent's wrist or a simple grab and stab with the dagger are far more effective.

There *are* certainly, some techniques--quite a number, actually--that overlap between the two forms. But that doesn't mean the two forms aren't quite different when we come to breaking them down.

Hello Hugh,

My point about test cutting was simply that 20 years in the SCA, including being knighted, never taught this man any edge alignment skills. He is well regarded enough that I assume you'd recognize the name but I won't mention it out of respect to him. This point has nothing to do with whether or not test cutting is valid in any other way except to illustrate that stick fighting never taught him actual edge alignment. Now since you agree that edge alignment matters our conundrum is how does stick fighting teach edge alignment?

What evidence is there that different mechanics were used for force generation in different contexts? I see no reason to use the wide, sweeping blows that Hs. 3227a discourages in an armoured fight. They would create the same disadvantage in either context. So I assume that this advice is general to all fighting. Which leads me to conclude that hitting hard enough "for a really stunning blow against plate" must be possible within those confines.

Certainly, I've generated enough power to produce that effect without wide, sweeping blows. A careful study of power generation allows me to produce tremendous power without my hands or sword leaving center. This is achieved by what I consider to be, "fencing with all my strength", that is coordinating my lower body, core and upper body into one action.

What evidence is there that the decapitation in Talhoffer is meant as a finishing blow? Also, if I can throw a blow with decapitating strength without wide, sweeping action, then shouldn't I use that strength in combat?

Cheers,
Steven

SyrRhys wrote:Not really. The armored dagger techniques are often quite complex--difficult grappling, etc.--that only make sense when you are in armor and your dagger isn't all that effective.

When I was in Japan we fought with daggers, armour as worn, often ending up on the ground with grappling. And a friend was concerned about the safety of that, and another friend said, "This is as safe...and disturbing...as watching two virgins make love in Sumo suits."

Exhaustion is a serious decider of a dagger fight between two 15th century armoured combatants IMO. Within a minute or maybe two, one combatant will end up not having the strength to continue. While the dagger was effective, I think the threat of it's use was important. If the person I'm dagger-wrestling with on the ground has hit the wall and is just a lump in a steel shell, I don't have to kill them. They are now a prisoner and worth much more alive than dead. But if it came down to kill or be killed, I'd kill them (in real life).

-Aaron

Steven H wrote:My point about test cutting was simply that 20 years in the SCA, including being knighted, never taught this man any edge alignment skills. He is well regarded enough that I assume you'd recognize the name but I won't mention it out of respect to him. This point has nothing to do with whether or not test cutting is valid in any other way except to illustrate that stick fighting never taught him actual edge alignment. Now since you agree that edge alignment matters our conundrum is how does stick fighting teach edge alignment?

Lots of people spend 20 years in the SCA and never learn to throw blows the best possible way; some of them even do well, if thay're strong enough to get away with it. That still doesn't mean they're doing it the best way. The SCA is not a single kind of fighting--there are too many different people in it, and it's never been studied with a widespread and disciplined approach.

You teach edge alignment in two ways: By watching how their blows hit (I've been yelled at a number of times for this when I was coming up) and by judging their force: We strike hardest when the strike is in line with the natural line of the wrist and forearm--where the real edge of a sword would be, in other words. So blows not delivered that way often feel softer or mushier than usual. Using feedback among training partners will usually show this. That's certainly how I learned it, anyway (in the SCA--I had trained in this earlier). Can really, really strong guys get away with ignoring this? Absolutely; I never said the SCA was perfect. On the other hand, I'll bet lots of guys in the middle ages got away with doing things incorrectly, too.

What evidence is there that different mechanics were used for force generation in different contexts? I see no reason to use the wide, sweeping blows that Hs. 3227a discourages in an armoured fight. They would create the same disadvantage in either context. So I assume that this advice is general to all fighting. Which leads me to conclude that hitting hard enough "for a really stunning blow against plate" must be possible within those confines.

I never said to use wide, swinging blows; in fact, I said good SCAdians don't. But you do use controlled swinging blows of the arms in the SCA, whereas most Fechtbuch instructions teach us to use a push-pull motion of the hands to cut--that's the only way to get that "string tied from your edge to the target" cut Döbringer talks about (yes, I know it wasn't Döbringer). Likewise, when following the blow you have to cut first, then step. This is not as powerful (I've tested it!) as stepping first, then swinging with your hips leading. Finally, when you cut correctly in unarmored combat you should cut by making your point go first because that means your cut threatens your opponent at the earliest part of the movement (another part of following the blow). SCAdians, however, use a Bellatrix Snap which involves leading with the hand, then letting the sword whip around into the target in order to generate more force. This does not clear the path to the target the same way since your arm often enters your opponent's range before your edge actually threatens him. In armored combat you can get away with this because your shield can be used to clear that same path and because, even with a longsword, your arm armor means that only a pretty powerful blow, not a light snappy one, can do you any harm, and that powerful blow usually takes longer to deliver than the lighter blow you use in unarmored combat. That makes it a matter of skilled timing as to delivering your snapping cut (and sometimes it doesn't work--we've all seen successful arm cuts in that situation).

I had a long-time SCA fighter as a student, and I had a very difficult time breaking him of this. He would always lead cuts with his hands instead of with the tip of his sword, and I demonstrated to him several times that I could cut his arms before his cut actually threatened me.

What evidence is there that the decapitation in Talhoffer is meant as a finishing blow? Also, if I can throw a blow with decapitating strength without wide, sweeping action, then shouldn't I use that strength in combat?

Mike and I had a good debate on this. He was using it to justify the kind of test cutting he did, and while he agreed (obviously) that this was contrary to what we know about most cutting, yet still, there it was in that one, single, solitary, lone (getting my point?) plate in Talhoffer. His only conclusion was that it didn't matter how you cut when your opponent was helpless but not yet dead. It's the only explanation that can possibly tell us why that one, single, exceptional, unusual, lone plate shows up in Talhoffer. (In other words, the plate your using as evidence is far too unusual to be used for a test of normal cutting).

And yes, if you can throw a blow hard without overcutting then you should probably do so (unless it makes you tense up too much, or something like that--I'm not saying it would, I'm trying to cover bases here). And yes, that's what high-end SCAdians are good at: Developing tremendous power and speed without overcutting to the point of leaving themselves vulnerable after the cut. But, as I hope I showed above, they do it by cutting differently from how the Fechtbücher tell us to cut in Bloßfechten.

(Edited because my spelling got all wonky.)

Aaron wrote:

SyrRhys wrote:Not really. The armored dagger techniques are often quite complex--difficult grappling, etc.--that only make sense when you are in armor and your dagger isn't all that effective.

When I was in Japan we fought with daggers, armour as worn, often ending up on the ground with grappling. And a friend was concerned about the safety of that, and another friend said, "This is as safe...and disturbing...as watching two virgins make love in Sumo suits."

Exhaustion is a serious decider of a dagger fight between two 15th century armoured combatants IMO. Within a minute or maybe two, one combatant will end up not having the strength to continue. While the dagger was effective, I think the threat of it's use was important. If the person I'm dagger-wrestling with on the ground has hit the wall and is just a lump in a steel shell, I don't have to kill them. They are now a prisoner and worth much more alive than dead. But if it came down to kill or be killed, I'd kill them (in real life).

-Aaron

Not surprising; von Danzig tells us that most armored combat comes, at last, to grappling with daggers, and there's a reason so many sources (except Fiore) tell us how to do it on the ground. In a real dagger fight without armor, that rarely happens the same way--daggers are far too dangerous; any attempt at a complex grappling movement out of armor usually ends up with the person trying to grapple getting cut. In armor they're great at finishing the engagement, but you have to usually immobilize your opponent first so you can get to the gaps in his harness. That's why so many armored dagger plays use complex grappling actions: It's safer to do so than in unarmored encounters, and they're necessary to allow you to get at the small gaps in his harness.

SyrRhys wrote:

jester wrote:Is it possible there is a message here? 'The techniques are the same whether you're in armor or street clothing'?

Not really. The armored dagger techniques are often quite complex--difficult grappling, etc.--that only make sense when you are in armor and your dagger isn't all that effective. When you're out of armor, simpler techniques, such as displacing with the edge of your dagger against your opponent's wrist or a simple grab and stab with the dagger are far more effective.

There *are* certainly, some techniques--quite a number, actually--that overlap between the two forms. But that doesn't mean the two forms aren't quite different when we come to breaking them down.

I'm not sure I understand your response. Are you saying the fechtbucher/manuals contain a mix of undifferentiated dagger technique? Some for use in armor and some for use out of armor?

Hugh,

So we have hit the point where the ever changing data stream becomes hard to keep straight, and you have to go straight to dismissal? OK. We can do that, too. (Sorry, Symon, I tried.)

I note that you basically ignored what I wrote in my last post. That is because, as the thread developed, we basically came back to your nearly 20 year old argument now that armoured combat in the lists is unique and distinct and only really known by SCA fighters of the "higher consciousness through harder contact" philosophy. The problem Hugh, is that as I pointed out in my last post - which is why you went straight to dismissal -is that many of the actions and techniques you just said don't work, doget used in SCA lists at the highest level of combat. Some are because people are adapting them to the sport, others have been in use since the 1980s. One of them, the Zwerchau, is used in the Middle Kingdom by at least one Master-at-Arms (Einar Haakonson, the man who taught me to fight in the SCA), several knights and two dukes (Edmund and Bardolph). There are more than enough people on the Archive who know all of the gentlemen to state that they hardly deliver love taps, nor are they anything other than pragmatists - they train and use what works.

They are also radically different body types with different views on WMA. Of those two dukes, one of them - Edmund - could give a fig about WMA stuff, while Bardolph studies the material because he could see the connections and it worked. Before he won his first Crown, Dolph managed to take a longsword to the quaterfinals. How do I know? He is a close friend, I was once his squire and *I* taught him the longsword material he used in that Crown. (He has since gone on to study WMA stuff all on his own - I don't get credit for that.)

Why? Because something that Leo Medii posted here sometime ago is still true: good martial arts is good martial arts, and when you learn what makes them work, you adapt to the tool at hand. (Leo, that was a paraphrase, but I think I got the gist.)

So this idea that "it doesn't work" or "you need a different way to strike" is an argument of experience - yours - and is not universal. Don't speak ex cathedra.

While we are on speaking ex cathedra, if we could cut out the use of fallacies in place of facts, I'd appreciate it. Because that is what your last post to me was: one slew of fallacies.

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

Hugh - you have yet to present a single piece of evidence, which is why you are using your usual rant of becoming snide and authoritarian. It is how you have argued your positions on any and all topics since we met online in the 90s - a combination of bullying and creative use of a host of logical fallacies.

Now the central one is the Appeal to Authority: yours, combined with a misappropriation of Burden of Proof: your position, despite being the outlier *in a worldwide community* is the one that requires being dis-proven.

Here is how this discussion has gone with you:

1.) make a sweeping assertion;

2.) present evidence that may be taken out of context, but fits your argument: as you did, despite multiple people pointing out the *context* of the images you posted in relationship to their texts This is the fallacy of the Biased Sample;

3.) When confronted, modify your position so that "this was not my point" - as you did with the Bertrand de Born reference, or the assertion that SCA combat was reflective of earlier combat (without supportive evidence): "Oh but I don't mean the rules, I mean swinging blows. Oh but I don't mean any kind of blow, just power generation." This is because, having been caught in the fallacy of the Hasty Generalization.

4.)Try to bolster your position by constantly returning to one or two data points, aka Misleading Vividness. Here you are using the account at Vannes by Froissart, and what you see it as meaning, as a smoking gun that pulls all of your other data together and affirms it. The problem is, the vividness of the account is a) based on someone who likely was not there and b) in this thread is actually based on how you are explaining the account by someone who was not there.

3.)Continually discount contrary evidence that doesn't fit your assumptions: as you have done not just with the information I presented regarding what real fencing Masters, not 21st century hobbyists, actually sayabout the context of their art and about fighting in harness; as you have consistently done with my pointing out that martial sports are treated by the masters and there is not even a remote suggestion that swinging blows in armour in a deed of arms with swords is some special thing that needs attention; as you did with Will regarding the image in Gladiatoria. This is a return to the Biased Sample: only you get to decide what is legitimate data.

4.) Respond to third parties on the thread while taking snipes at the first party (as you have done with Ken and I) and continuing to assert that the matter is settled fact. The sniping is not a fallacy, just rude, but the other part is: a return to the Appeal to Authority: yours.

5.) When pushed on these issues you then again decry that you are being attacked, and therefore are only replying in kind. This is the double-whammy of the Appeal to Sympathy and Two-wrongs Make a Right. You then continue to lob Ad Hominem's while asking for sympathy from the readership.

6.) When external parties, well-known and liked, enter the argument, you accept *portions* of their data while being quite polite, yet not changing your position one iota. This is an obfuscation by Appeal to Flattery. You did this with Will regarding jousting, even though I had already pointed out to you that historical masters at arms discuss both jousting and serious combat in the same texts, in which I had already given you examples *by name*: Duarte, Monte, dall'Aggochie. I could have added at least half a dozen more.

7. ) When you still haven't been able to ram your way through the argument you then fall back - every time - to a triumvirate:

The fallacy of Appeal to Reasonableness - "we all know that", "it is obvious that"

The fallacy of the Appeal to Ridicule - as you did in the quote above.

The return yet again to the Appeal to Authority - yours, as you again did in the above quote. You use them again here:

The difference here is something we know existed from text sources--edge blows against plate

"We all know that" - Appeal to Reasonableness. (Also an obfuscation - that was not the debate in total. The debate was that there is any need for special instructions on how to hit plate armour. You want there to be, but not a single thing suggest that there is - other than your interpretation of an SCA blow vs how blows are made in historical combat.)

--vs. something we don't know existed, a specific style of funky armor.

Appeal to Reasonableness: "we all know it is funky"; and Authority: pay no attention that someone else pointed out that the armour isn't that funky, or that it is from a period in which we have almost zero surviving pieces, and there are similar artistic depictions, *I* told you it doesn't count.

I'm sorry you're not able to see that difference.

Appeal to Ridicule - I am clearly too dumb to get it.

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.

Appeal to Sympathy, an Appeal to Ridicule and an Ad Hominem: one for each sentence! Huzzah!

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.

If the argument had been 'edge blows were sometimes used against armour', you would be correct. It was not. It was that the historical material "does not relate to deeds of arms" and that it cannot and does not teach one how to strike in against harness (as you acknowledged, I showed otherwise), which therefore means that there is another form of combat that is undocumented.

So you are making a False Accusation. What I have done is accused you of using Biased Sampling to create a Hasty Generalization, all built around the Fallacy of Belief. In that case, the fallacy is one you have held since we ever first discussed the subject matter: that there must be a specific way of swinging blows against plate armour, which is what the SCA does (even though it doesn't, nor does it claim to do so), and this is what was done in deeds of arms. Therefore, you data sample and discount data that runs contrary to that belief. But in the end, it is the latest incarnation of the "well, we don't know that they didn't do xyz".

The problem is, that is a meaningless argument. By that reasoning, I can say something innocuous like "I don't know that they didn't wear some sort of mouth guard in their helmet, either, like a boxer or football player." But I can also use it to argue, "I don't know that they didn't hold hands in a prayer circle and chant in tongues before Vannes" or a pure absurdist argument like, "I don't know that they didn't bathe in bull's blood before dressing for battle." After all, I can think of some iconography that shows it...

While your argument is obviously not an absurdist one, it is still based on the Fallacy of Belief, and then using non-technical works and your own belief on how the material is reconstructed (an Appeal to Authority that we *all* use) to prove something for which there is no evidence. That something: there is a specific way of striking blows in against harness, that is not documented in any technical source, and is clearly distinct from it, but is at the root of deeds of arms.

This is reinforced when you wrote:

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.

Let's keep this simple. I can't prove the non-existence of something undocumented and invisible. Here is what I *can* do and have done:

1. I have asserted my position not only by refuting your points, but with specific Master's discussions on fighting in and against armour from Italy, Iberia and Germany from the late 14th to the 17th century.

2. I have pointed out the context of those arts *as they claim them* and *as they appear in conjunction with known combat sports of the period*.

3. I have related how different parts of the art are clearly described in different deeds of arms.

4. I have made a direct comparison to how the core actions can be used against someone in light/partial harness.

5. Finally, I have explained how the basic blows can be and are used in the SCA, (which was the center of your argument with Ken) without any need of special, undocumented knowledge.

So, I will repeat the following points, with the addition of the question "why"? Because everyone else is wrong but you, so be it, but that is your job to prove:

1. Not a single text has a Master supporting what you say, and yet we know that a number of them trained students to fight in the lists in deeds of arms. Why?;

2. Not a single text has instruction for specialized ways to generate or power cuts 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. Why?;

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. Why?;

4. 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. Why? [/quote]

Until you do that, your argument is one of belief, and the quest to prove a pre-conceived belief, not of research.

Greg

jester wrote:I'm not sure I understand your response. Are you saying the fechtbucher/manuals contain a mix of undifferentiated dagger technique? Some for use in armor and some for use out of armor?

Some, like Talhoffer 1467, certainly do. Look at the simple "grab and stab" shown by the figures on the left of the page on folio 87v: This is a very simple unarmored technique, but not as useful in armor because just making a thrust "free" into a gap in the harness may be problematic without first immobilizing your opponent in some way. And some techniques are simply good for both kinds of fighting: The two-handed twist out shown by the figures on the left in the preceding plate (fol. 87r) is a good example since it takes away your opponent's dagger with a quick, simple movement that would work with or without armor. And some techniques simply don't make sense in an unarmored encounter: Look at both sets of figures on folio 93r, where a fairly complex arm lock is used to counter an upper shield. Once you've pushed your arm over his dagger, why not just stab him? The only reason not to do so is because his armor must be making it hard to do.

This is not always a perfectly simple set of decisions; some techniques are "gray" areas: For example, I like the straight arm bar shown on folio 91r both in and out of armor, but it's certainly questionable which category it should really belong to. Some techniques, on the other hand, are *perfectly* clear: For example, the arm slices in Paulus Kal can *only* be unarmored techniques (see Kal ff. 75v-76r) because cutting someone's forearm with a dagger simply makes no sense in armored combat.

And we can't make anything out of the fact that these guys are all drawn in their street clothing: After all, the artist did the same thing in the armored halfsword fight in Talhoffer 1459 (which could *not* be the case!), and the artist in Falkner drew all the dagger figures in street clothing , even though the text specifically says that the techniques are for armored combat.

Greg Mele wrote:Until you do that, your argument is one of belief, and the quest to prove a pre-conceived belief, not of research.

:::yawn::: As I've already shown, that's not true.

Greg Mele wrote:6.) When external parties, well-known and liked, enter the argument, you accept *portions* of their data while being quite polite, yet not changing your position one iota. This is an obfuscation by Appeal to Flattery. You did this with Will regarding jousting, even though I had already pointed out to you that historical masters at arms discuss both jousting and serious combat in the same texts, in which I had already given you examples *by name*: Duarte, Monte, dall'Aggochie. I could have added at least half a dozen more.

I wasn't going to respond to this ridiculous pile of error, but I changed my mind with regard to this one point: I am friendly with Galleron because I like him and he *is* my friend. I'm polite to him because he is *always* polite with me in spite of often thinking I'm nuts, or worse. I do not behave that way because I am trying to flatter him to curry favor; in fact, I often disagree strongly with him, and we've had significant arguments (albeit without heat). But it's not because he's someone important, I am polite to *everyone* who is polite to me; look at my exchange with Steven H just above. I don't even know who he is (and he may be "somone" for all I know), and I disagree with him, but because he has been polite to me, I am polite to him.

Honestly, I really don't much care about how "important" or popular someone is for currying favor. I'm harsh to anyone who deserves it. If they're correct, they'll win the argument. If they're polite, I'll be polite. I never curry favor with anyone.

I am not polite to you, Greg, nor am I nice. Well, I was polite at first, but you blew that; you reap what you sow. I'm not polite because you are not, and I'm not nice to you because I don't like you and you don't deserve it.

So please, Greg, learn to see the difference.

:::yawn::: As I've already shown, that's not true.

No, Hugh, you haven't. You've shown nothing. Nothing but your own assumptions and leaps of logic, accompanied by some fascinating twists and turns in the debate (I had no idea you were that limber). That's what I was trying to tell you before. Apparently the intent was lost when I tried to be nice.

I've been following this from the beginning, and I have to agree Greg is dead on. You should really stop now. I'll grant you know more than a little about this subject, but in this case, I have to say you're just wrong, both on your initial observation and the debate as it went on from there. Will has shown great patience with you, and I tried, but now I'm done.

[edited to remove inflammatory stuff, for which I apologize.]

Sincerely,

Bob

brewer wrote:No, Hugh, you haven't. You've shown nothing. Nothing but your own assumptions and leaps of logic, accompanied by some fascinating twists and turns in the debate (I had no idea you were that limber). That's what I was trying to tell you before. Apparently the intent was lost when I tried to be nice.

I've been following this from the beginning, and I have to agree Greg is dead on. You should really stop now. I'll grant you know more than a little about this subject, but in this case, I have to say you're just wrong, both on your initial observation and the debate as it went on from there. Will has shown great patience with you, and I tried, but now I'm done.

Sorry, but you're wrong. I've shown evidence for blows of a type not taught by the Fechtbücher in both the chronicles and the iconography, and shown why *some* of the iconography should be taken as valid. I've also explained the differences in what you need to do in both kinds of fighting.

I remember when you were in Easton. I remember you coming to the Eisental fight practices - once in a while. "Once in a while" because we used to beat the crap out of you, and you couldn't really hide behind your SCA "honors" when some kids who've been swinging sticks for only a few months were handing you your ass in a sling. You were pompous then; I can see little if anything has changed.

That's a lie, but I'm not really interested in getting into a dick beating contest, and even if it were true, it has no relevence to this discussion.

Eisental fight practices

Aaron wrote:

Eisental fight practices

That's the shire I used to live in.

SyrRhys wrote:I wasn't going to respond to this ridiculous pile of error, but I changed my mind with regard to this one point: I am friendly with Galleron because I like him and he *is* my friend. I'm polite to him because he is *always* polite with mein spite of often thinking I'm nuts, or worse.

You missed the point, Hugh. The Appeal to Flattery does not in any way require Will to be flattered. It is used to show how reasonable you are as an appeal to third parties. It allows you to admit to things that I brought up, so long a they were restated by someone else.

I am not polite to you, Greg, nor am I nice. Well, I was polite at first, but you blew that; you reap what you sow.

Again, that is the Two Wrongs Make a Right fallacy.

I'm not polite because you are not, and I'm not nice to you because I don't like you and you don't deserve it.

You forgot the other reason - much like Jimminy Cricket, I keep pointing out that you're wrong.

And while I can be harsh with people, Hugh, few really get this tone from me. I can think of maybe four. One of them I'm in a lawsuit with, one of them is someone who routinely tries to bully and intimidate women online, one of them seemingly exists only as an apologist for one of the few people in the WMA community who draws more fire than you.

Neither of us likes the other, but I want to make something very clear: I'm not blunt with you because I don't like you, Hugh. (Don't worry, I *don't* like you.) I'm blunt because you are a hypocrite, both as a scholar, and as someone who relies on the short memory of the internet ; because you are a bully who, when he can't win an argument fairly tries to steamroll over people to do so and loses his cool when he is given the same treatment he bestows on others; and because you are a coward who plays both martyr and expert on forums and on a blog, but never puts himself in a position to have to back-up his research, interpretations or skills in person. The rest of us do that - even those of us who don't agree or even like each other. That is what students of period music, clothing or anything else that needs be *reconstructed* do, often with more blood spilled between them. You can, too.

That is why I am not nice to you, Hugh - because you are a bully. But you are not going to bully me, and while I will give -and have given - you credit in posts where you are right, I will not let you speak ex cathedra when it is clearly not "from the chair" you are speaking, but rather from the part of you that sits on it.

any chance this can get back on track of factual data, rather than arguing?

"I remember when you were in Easton. I remember you coming to the Eisental fight practices - once in a while. "Once in a while" because we used to beat the crap out of you, and you couldn't really hide behind your SCA "honors" when some kids who've been swinging sticks for only a few months were handing you your ass in a sling. You were pompous then; I can see little if anything has changed."
So "Bob" you must be some major bad-ass, you beat up on Rhys, REALLY!!!!!!!!!! I would love to see this as I could beat Rhys but never "Hand him his ass" so you name the place and I will see if you can put your money where your mouth is, until then SHUT UP!

Ronald

BTW: I will be at East Kingdom War Camp in your backyard if you are, it would be a chance to show me that your more than some sad little dick behind a keyboard but I doubt it.

SyrRhys wrote:

brewer wrote:No, Hugh, you haven't. You've shown nothing. Nothing but your own assumptions and leaps of logic, accompanied by some fascinating twists and turns in the debate (I had no idea you were that limber). That's what I was trying to tell you before. Apparently the intent was lost when I tried to be nice.

I've been following this from the beginning, and I have to agree Greg is dead on. You should really stop now. I'll grant you know more than a little about this subject, but in this case, I have to say you're just wrong, both on your initial observation and the debate as it went on from there. Will has shown great patience with you, and I tried, but now I'm done.

Sorry, but you're wrong. I've shown evidence for blows of a type not taught by the Fechtbücher in both the chronicles and the iconography, and shown why *some* of the iconography should be taken as valid.

Name three, from the chronicles.

Galleron wrote:Name three, from the chronicles.

1.) Continge vs. de Bars, 2.) Vannes (I know you and I disagree about this, but I still feel strongly about it), and 3.) The combat of the 30 (which has several accounts of sword blows).

SyrRhys wrote:

Galleron wrote:Hugh, I don't find the iconographic evidence you posted persuasive. I don't know every manuscript, but I do recognize a lot of them as romances where the text dates to the 13th century. And those texts describe a lot of edge blows, so it's not surprising that the illustrations would as well. They can't be taken as firm evidence of martial technique at the time the illustration was done.

The Manessa Codex picture you posted also depicts a 13th century poet, and a lot of those illustrations are aimed more at making literary allusions rather than entirely realistic depictions of 14th c. life.

Hi G.,

I respect your scholarship a great deal, and I think you've made me admit error about fighting more than anyone else, but in this case I do not agree.

I read your blog post this morning, and while you're right that most of the accounts included thrusting only, some did not--some included edge blows, and nothing was said to suggest this was in any way remarkable. Moreover, the great majority of accounts only specify "strokes" or "blows," and may have been referring to either edges or points;

The thing about selection bias is that you don't have to be aware you're doing it.

The actual count in the post is only a single foot combat specified edge blows with the sword and six specified only the thrust. None mentioned unspecified strokes: the ones that did were all mounted.

If I widen the net further to take in all the accounts on my 15th c. deeds page, we get four fights that mention the potential use of the sword in a way that could refer to either.

Certainly not the great majority.

brewer wrote:

:::yawn::: As I've already shown, that's not true.

No, Hugh, you haven't. You've shown nothing. Nothing but your own assumptions and leaps of logic, accompanied by some fascinating twists and turns in the debate (I had no idea you were that limber). That's what I was trying to tell you before. Apparently the intent was lost when I tried to be nice.

I disagree with this statement on many levels. Asserting that something is true does provide evidence of fact if the assertion is made vociferously and without blinking.

I therefore assert that Fiore was actually Elvis Presley using a time machine and I don't need proof from any text to demonstrate this fact.

• Elvis shook his hips a lot in suggestive ways. Fiore moves his hips too. Therefore I assert that Elvis is/was Fiore. **not blinking**
• You cannot demonstrate that Elvis did not travel backwards in time to do this. Whatever evidence you have to the contrary is easily dismissed by anyone looking at the facts of the matter with any sort of common sense.
• We can, of course, disregard evidence that Fiore was an Italian master because he used an American cougar in his initial segno. It is obvious when you compare the image of the Celeritas to what some people, persistent in their ignorance, refer to as a "tiger" (which is laughable really). The cougar Celeritas doesn't have stripes. Tigers have stripes. Any thinking person can see must be an American cougar clutching an Melungeon native American arrow.
• Elvis was a descendant of the Melungeon native American tribe which provides additional proof.
• QED. By saying "QED", I have declared the discussion over.
• Time travelling Elvis is/was Fiore. My personal opinion is that it must have been young Elvis pre-Beatles invasion, but I agree with other reputable scholars that this minor point is still a matter of debate.
• Anyone would have to be childish to think otherwise and arguing with me only shows how wrong you actually are.
• If you disagree with me, you're also a bad person who is out to get me.
• Also, I am awesome.
• I submit the following image of Fiore demonstrating boar's tooth to finish my argument:

QED, again and also the principal of prima nocta ad nauseam provides us further evidence.

~P.

SyrRhys wrote:

Galleron wrote:Name three, from the chronicles.

1.) Continge vs. de Bars, 2.) Vannes (I know you and I disagree about this, but I still feel strongly about it), and 3.) The combat of the 30 (which has several accounts of sword blows).

Monte describes edge blows agains armor, so none of this is stuff unmentioned in the manuals.

Perhaps Greg can think of more.

Does the thirty a specify edge blows?

Galleron wrote:Name three, from the chronicles.

Will,

Not to hijack your request, but just to clarify the perception that only half-swording is shown or discussed:

1. Two-handed thrusts appear in Fiore, from at least two different guards: posta breve and porta di ferro mezzana. This is not extrapolating from other sections of the text, but is in Fiore's *direct* instructions. Several of his sword in armour techniques are also counters against a two-handed thrust.

2. We have the anonymous commentaries in "Ringeck" advising "if knowing little of the true art, he swings at you with out stretched arms". (Section on Nachreissen, p. 345 of Tobler edition.) So there is counter a cut, but no special mention of how to make the cut.

3. We have specific information on tactical use of blows against armour - striking the gauntlets (although only one source mentions swords, and it is sword that is more of a spadone than a longsword). thrusts into the visor, thrusts into the gaps, using the point while half-swording to destroy straps.

4. The area where edge blows with the sword most often occur - on horseback - don't treat the blows as any different - same lines of attack. Now yes, as I have said the mass of the horse is the big difference. My point here is that there is nothing to speaks of fundamentally different *core* mechanics for cutting in environment than the other.

And the addendum question is: if we are going to cite chronicles what demonstrates unambiguously that the blow being shown is a *cut*, not a thrust AND that the cut is something different than just a normal cut taught elsewhere? What is the textual source for this, rather than supposition based on personal experience? Because, again, when we look at Italian and German literature: be it chronicle or romance, the terminology is often just "blow", which can be cut or thrust, and when it is defined, sure enough it is "oberhau" or "mandritto", etc. As Steve Hick mentioned some time ago, the French use similar cognates, with an obvious technical vocabulary we can identify that is perhaps actually *earlier* than anywhere else; we just need to get Matt Galas to publish on this, or someone will have to reproduce his work.

Galleron wrote:The thing about selection bias is that you don't have to be aware you're doing it.

The actual count in the post is only a single foot combat specified edge blows with the sword and six specified only the thrust. None mentioned unspecified strokes: the ones that did were all mounted.

If I widen the net further to take in all the accounts on my 15th c. deeds page, we get for fights that mention the potential use of the sword in a way that could refer to either.

Certainly not the great majority.

Your point is valid, and I'm very conscious of the danger of this, especially as this debate goes on. None the less, I think we just have too much evidence to pretend edge blows didn't happen. For example, take this line decrying the safety of fighting at the barriers (remember, I have argued that most edge blows were used *because* they were safe in consensual Arms):
"some take more hurt at the cups than at the barrier with the cutting of the sword" Anglo, How to Win at Tournaments: The Technique of Chivalrous Combat, p. 252.

Or consider this line: "then with swords, which were so sharp that scarcely a helmet could resist their strokes"
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/froissart/trickery.htm
So this source doesn't actually *talk* about the use of the swords, just that they fought with them as part of the larger struggle. But why point out that they could hack into helmets (not visors, mind you, as they would with thrusts, but helmets!) if they mightn't have been used that way?

And then there's the line from Monte from Greg about swinging blows to the hands.

Too, we can look in fiction--consider Tirant lo Blanc and the cutting described in the novel. And yes, of course it's fiction, and of course there are ludicrous things going on that day, but it's one thing to say someone beat ten kings, and another to say he did it using a technique knights didn't use. Not proof, I know, but it builds toward a preponderance of belief.

More tellingly, none of the sources that mention sword blows make any fuss about them When strange or unusual things are done, some remark is often made, but not i the case of the sword blows. If they're not done, why is this?

And, as you pointed out, the vast majority of sources don't make any distinction; they don't say how the swords were used. To me, based on all this above (and more, if I have time to dig it up; I know I have a source that talks about blood on the edge of a sword, but many of my books are still packed up from my recent move), that means that both kinds of strokes were used an no one thought anything of this fact.

Galleron wrote:Monte describes edge blows agains armor, so none of this is stuff unmentioned in the manuals.

Perhaps Greg can think of more.

Viggiani and the Bolognese masters (but not all). Again, most advising to *not* strike the helmet, or giving targets where the armour is often absent - the face or side of the neck, or weak - the hands.

But the presence of edge blows is only a part of the discussion. The other is *what is one piece of textual evidence from a period source that suggests that the core way one strikes is different in one art than the other*? Not that one won't skip additional techniques - like slices - but that the fundamentals are somehow different? Because there, I can think of not one source, and indeed, the theory is counter to what the sources write.

Steven H wrote:Striking with a rounded stick does not have the same requirements as striking with a sword. A friend of mine who has been doing SCA for ~20 years recently tried test cutting for the first time. He barely left a mark on the mat - which means his edge alignment was terrible. In twenty years of wielding a stick he never actually learned edge alignment. But a knight swinging a sword, even in a friendly deed would find that edge alignment made for more efficient blows. So there is a limit to whatever overlap that exists between SCA and edge blows in friendly deeds.

Maybe your friend just needed a little warm up?

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

But your right, edge alignment is this magical thing that is difficult to learn, especially swinging what is essentially a sharpened wing.

Greg Mele wrote:But the presence of edge blows is only a part of the discussion. The other is *what is one piece of textual evidence from a period source that suggests that the core way one strikes is different in one art than the other*? Not that one won't skip additional techniques - like slices - but that the fundamentals are somehow different? Because there, I can think of not one source, and indeed, the theory is counter to what the sources write.

Now there you and I agree: I do not believe the sources talk about this, and this has not been brought up much in this debate (although I discussed it when replying to Steven H above).

Here we are on a *lot* shakier ground. I *believe* that what SCAdians do is the right way to deal with the problem, but here I have never claimed to be able to offer proof, for the exact reason you mention: because no one discusses it.

As for knowing the fundamentals to be different, that's easy, and it shouldn't be surprising. Armor changes everything. That's why Bloßfechten longsword in the manuals looks nothing like Harnischfechten longsword (well, almost nothing; there is, of course, unarmored halfswording, but I hope you understand what I mean). And what the armor doesn't change, a shield does.

Just as one example: You have no need to follow the blow when performing armored combat with sword and shield. Why? The entire point of following the blow is to clear a path between you and your target as you step in. In Bloßfechten you do it with your sword, but in armored sword and shield combat, you can do it with your shield, which allows you to step first, and then whip your sword around in faster, harder cut. Likewise, the use of the SCAdian snap cut is made possible, as I said above.

Nor is the idea about not following the blow necessarily at odds with later unarmored sword and shield combat. For example, writing about the footwork in Bolognese sword and rotella combat, Steven Reich wrote:
"The authors were not always clear about when the hands and feet move in relation to each other, so a certain amount of experimentation and consideration must be put into the analysis and practice of each technique. As the Bolognese system has few concrete rules about what moves first, you will have to figure this out for yourself. Note that I usually give the step before the strike or strikes that accompany it. That does not mean that the step is first; instead, it means that the two are conconcurrent. For example, if I say, ―Step forward with your left foot and make a Stoccata,‖ that means that the two are performed at the same time as a single action." From his The Actions for Sword and Rotella from the Bolognese School of Swordsmanship, privately published on the net, 2008, p. iv.

I make no claims at *all* that I can prove this is how it was done in period, nor have I ever done so. I merely point out that once we have established the *fact* of this kind of technique, we can then extrapolate what it has to do, and ways it could have been done.

Edited to Add: I went to all the trouble to copy this out, then I forgot to include it with the above. One indication we have that swords were used differently in unarmored sword and shield combat can be learned from DiGrassi:
"But if any man aske why this kind of blowe carrieth small force, and is but weake: I aunswer, true it is, the blowe is but weake, if it were delivered with an axe or a hatchet, which as they saie, have but short edges, and maketh but one kind of blowe, but if it be delivered with a good sword in the foresaide manner, because it beareth a long edge, it doth commodiously cut, as soone as the edge hath founde the enimies sword, and especially on those partes of the bodie which are fleshly and full of sinnowes." http://www.cs.unc.edu/~hudson/digrassi/falseBuckler.html

In other words, he's saying that the cut he's talking about is weak, but that's ok because he wants you to use a slicing component to the blow (not a slice, just a slicing movement to the blow). Obviously this kind of sroke would have no value whatsoever in armored combat. Or consider his "false" where you lift your short (back) edge to displace a cut, then chop straight down to cut. This would be quite hard to do in armor because you wouldn't have enough of a swing to generate enough force.

Sorry, but I did want to add that in to show how different unarmored and armored sword and shield are.

SyrRhys wrote:Nor is the idea about not following the blow necessarily at odds with later unarmored sword and shield combat. For example, writing about the footwork in Bolognese sword and rotella combat, Steven Reich wrote:
"The authors were not always clear about when the hands and feet move in relation to each other, so a certain amount of experimentation and consideration must be put into the analysis and practice of each technique. As the Bolognese system has few concrete rules about what moves first, you will have to figure this out for yourself. Note that I usually give the step before the strike or strikes that accompany it. That does not mean that the step is first; instead, it means that the two are conconcurrent. For example, if I say, ―Step forward with your left foot and make a Stoccata,‖ that means that the two are performed at the same time as a single action." From his The Actions for Sword and Rotella from the Bolognese School of Swordsmanship, privately published on the net, 2008, p. iv.
.

This is a slight misread of what Steve meant - and a fair one, based on how he wrote it. (I know this because we have discussed it.) The idea here is *concurrent* - sword and foot land in accord, as opposed to the SCA step then strike. Although the shield protects the hand, the lower leg is exposed, and this a dominant target in sword and shield combat. As di Grassi warns, no shield (by which he means the rotella, buckler and targa, presumably, as those are the three he teaches) protects below the knee.

Silver writes about all of those arms, and sword and buckler is his preferred weapon (and his style arguably the most like how most SCA fighters use the sword in one hand), and he is quite clear that any time the foot moves before the sword, no matter what weapon, the action is false. Again, this is a man who is writing his two works specifically because the old method is the one best for battle and self-defense, and he warns us how battle changes certain things (the shield becomes superior to the buckler, in mass combat, there are no sure wards, as you can be attacked from many sides at once, etc).

And this is part of where we disagree - we know that Bolognese sword and buckler was both an unarmoured and lightly armoured style, and we know that sword and rotella, sword and imbracciatura (a kite shield) and polearms fencing is meant to be done in anything from partial to full harness, and yet their basic rules *don't* change and accord with Silver, who accords with the first paragraph in "Ringeck," etc. For me, it is hubris to just say "armour changes everything" and then say that it changes the foundations of the art, especially since the other armoured styles: axe, spear, half-swording all use the same rules. We could just as easily say "armour changes everything - never cut".

The SCA does what it does because planting the foot first hits harder and there is no risk - in sword and shield the hand is covered, he can't shield punch you or cut your hand as it comes forward and past the shield, and the leg is off target. If you read how the Bolognese hold and use the round shield, it is quite clear that Belletrix intuited the basic principles of shield use very well in creating his open style. Where the style differed is a-historical but was logical based on the presumptions of combat within the sport.

This is my larger point, Hugh: that cutting is at best a minority part of armoured combat in full harness, but as there is less and less armour, the more and more you can do, and the more you add - like the schnitt. But the fundamentals of the art - the core ideas of footwork, timing, strikes, tempo don't change, and nothing in the sources suggests otherwise.

I don't disagree about di Grassi speaking in that section, but remember, a lot has changed between 1570 and the 1520s. Di Grassi mentions harness with the other weapons - such as when he tells us that the partizan can break mail and pierce the cuirass - but his swordsmanship is specifically aimed at fighting unarmoured. Also, his section on cutting is about the sword in general, of which the shield is an uncommon weapon, and even the buckler is fading from use. His focus is on the sword alone. That trend continues, and by Capoferro you have use of the rotella with the rapier, as almost a vestigial nod to the older art.

That is not true of Manciolino, Marozzo or the Anonymous, the first two of whom make it clear, for example, that any duel is a judicial duel and will be fought in some degree of armour.

EDIT: I just wanted to clarify, when using later sources I have tried to specifically stick to those in which armoured combat plays an important role, which Italy generally means prior to Agrippa (Viggiani is a contemporary, but in the old vein) for the sword, although we can go well into the 17th century with polearms, and in England goes as late as Silver. Puck could speak more authoritatively than I about Iberia.

Greg Mele wrote:The SCA does what it does because planting the foot first hits harder and there is no risk - in sword and shield the hand is covered, he can't shield punch you or cut your hand as it comes forward and past the shield, and the leg is off target.

I'll have to disagree with your point above, Greg. After we did stuff with Bob Charron, Kaydian started practicing landing the sword before the foot. He had to stop because it was hitting a lot harder than landing the foot first. He went back to foot first precisely because it was not harder.

(He actually drove me to my knees when he did it properly. Quite embarassing for me.)

Greg Mele wrote:The presence of edge blows is only a part of the discussion. What is one piece of textual evidence from a period source that suggests that the core way one strikes is different in one art than the other? Not that one won't skip additional techniques - like slices - but that the fundamentals are somehow different? Because there, I can think of not one source, and in my research, the theory that the fundamentals are somehow different is counter to what the sources write.

SyrRhys wrote:I agree with the belief that the sources do not talk about this. This has not been brought up much in this debate.

I believe that what SCAdians do is the right way to deal with the problem, but I can not currently offer proof, because I have not been involved in a discussion that has helped me research any such proof.

As for knowing the fundamentals to be different, armor changes everything. That's why, save for unarmored halfswording, Bloßfechten longsword in the manuals looks nothing like Harnischfechten longsword. Further, what the armor doesn't change, a shield does.

Example: I have no need to follow the blow when performing armored combat with sword and shield. Why? My point of following the blow is to clear a path between myself and my target as I step in. In Bloßfechten, I do it with my sword. In armored sword and shield combat, I can do it with my shield, which allows me to step first, and then whip my sword around in faster, harder cut. Likewise, I believe the use of the SCAdian snap cut is made possible.

I believe the idea about not following the blow is not necessarily at odds with later unarmored sword and shield combat. For example, writing about the footwork in Bolognese sword and rotella combat, Steven Reich wrote:
"The authors were not always clear about when the hands and feet move in relation to each other, so a certain amount of experimentation and consideration must be put into the analysis and practice of each technique. As the Bolognese system has few concrete rules about what moves first, you will have to figure this out for yourself. Note that I usually give the step before the strike or strikes that accompany it. That does not mean that the step is first; instead, it means that the two are conconcurrent. For example, if I say, ―Step forward with your left foot and make a Stoccata,‖ that means that the two are performed at the same time as a single action." From his The Actions for Sword and Rotella from the Bolognese School of Swordsmanship, privately published on the net, 2008, p. iv.

I can't currently prove this is how it was done in period. My point is that if this kind of technique can be established as having a basis of fact, it can then hopefully be extrapolated what it has to do, and ways it could have been done.

Edited to Add: I forgot to include this with the above. One indication we have that swords were used differently in unarmored sword and shield combat can be found in DiGrassi:
"But if any man aske why this kind of blowe carrieth small force, and is but weake: I aunswer, true it is, the blowe is but weake, if it were delivered with an axe or a hatchet, which as they saie, have but short edges, and maketh but one kind of blowe, but if it be delivered with a good sword in the foresaide manner, because it beareth a long edge, it doth commodiously cut, as soone as the edge hath founde the enimies sword, and especially on those partes of the bodie which are fleshly and full of sinnowes." http://www.cs.unc.edu/~hudson/digrassi/falseBuckler.html

In my interpretation, he's saying that the cut he's talking about is weak, but that's ok because he wants you to use a slicing component to the blow (not a slice, just a slicing movement to the blow). I believe this kind of stroke would have no value whatsoever in armored combat. Or consider his "false" where you lift your short (back) edge to displace a cut, then chop straight down to cut. In my interpretation, this would be quite hard to do in armor because you wouldn't have enough of a swing to generate enough force.

Sorry, but I did want to add that in to show how different unarmored and armored sword and shield are.

Fixed.

Hopefully to point a way to the olive tree and a low lying branch.