The Armour Archive

Jon Barber wrote:But asynchrous electronic discussion like this is just about the worst possible way to explain technique. Russ and Matt will agree that I can show you more of what I mean in 5 minutes than I can ever get across in a week-long discussion on some BB. This sort of thing is nice for getting different perspectives but it's no substitute for face time.

Jon

Man, that is so true! It may take several pargraphs and links to half a dozen references to make a single point in a forum like this. In person, swords in hand, I can show someone what I mean in about five seconds. I agree with Vitus, these discussions can be very tedious and rarely have the desired effect, unfortunately my obsession with the subject matter makes it hard for me to resist

These threads DO have the desired effect. They make everyone in SCA, WMA and Reenactment realize that all three approaches are part of the same puzzle. It is a puzzle we simply cannot put together, so we get confused by the pieces.
We can't tourney on horses with *real* steel swords (or joust with sharp lances) in a situation where we can throw, smash, twist and bash each other around.
You can do reenactment and not fight competitively- you would trash your stuff.
You can study WMA techniques that you can never test or use because they are designed to kill folks.
Blah, blah, blah- there are limitations. It's like we are all looking at a big, square salt lick. Each bunch licks their one side and talks about how great and salty it tastes. It's all the same block of salt.
What we all want is a way to take that big salt lick, turn it into a jolly rancher and pop it in our mouths. It ain't gonna happen....people and horses and expensive gear would get trashed.
So everyone needs to shut the hell up, offer what they know, and realize it's ALL part of understanding the warriors of the past. Every side has proven the validity of what they do over and over again.
Those who deny the validity of the SCA combat experience are being total idiots- the same for those who deny the validity of WMA or reenactment or any other side of the big salt lick.
Get licking and stop yapping.
Unless it's something neat that we all wanna know.

M S Anderson wrote: I agree with Vitus, these discussions can be very tedious and rarely have the desired effect, unfortunately my obsession with the subject matter makes it hard for me to resist

Oh lord, yes. I know I have better things I could be doing with my time.

Though they are useful for getting some additional perspective on your interpretations sometimes - I've seen threads on SFI that were thought-provoking and really useful. Same with the ARMA forum. But for trying to clearly lay out what you're doing? Not always so great.

Vitus von Atzinger wrote: So everyone needs to shut the hell up, offer what they know, and realize it's ALL part of understanding the warriors of the past. Every side has proven the validity of what they do over and over again.

*g* I'm pretty sure I've said that more than once.

Vitus von Atzinger wrote: Get licking and stop yapping.
Unless it's something neat that we all wanna know.

Well, like I say above there are times when this serves a purpose. Maybe not so much for you, but for those of us who A: like Jester want to break this stuff down and intellectualize it and B: are trying to recreate specifics from less-than-comprehensive sources and want outside perspectives. I do try to keep from letting threads here devolve into the 'winden is this, from here you do that' discussions like this one did for a while because there are other forums better suited to it, but a little of it isn't so bad sometimes.

Jon

Great insights coming down here.

Jehan de Pelham wrote:Jon, which methods do you practice?

You mean WMA methods, I assume (unless you want to hear about my EMA background but I doubt it).

I dabble with I.33 - we did a section on it where we worked through Steve Hand's book and some of Sean Hayes' interpretations, but that's purely a study group type thing, I wouldn't say I understand it much. I'm comfortable with Fiore's wrestling, getting there with the dagger. I can work through the plays with the longsword but the system hasn't clicked for me. I really need to look at the other sections and read through all 3 manuscripts again sometime soon here.

I know Marozzo pretty well (I've spent enough time on it) including the dagger and 2-handed sword. Same with dall’Agocchie. I work with Silver's sword and buckler stuff. I know Capo Ferro pretty well and I've worked some with Fabris and Gigante. I'm fairly familiar with Hope's and Angelo's smallsword. I've done enough work with McBane, Lonnergan and Roworth to be competent at with backsword - there's just so many manuals for backsword out there I just don't have the time. I'm probably competent if not stellar at the Vigny la canne stuff too.

So, I guess I know a little bit about a lot of things without as much depth in any of them as I'd like. Part of the problem is that running a practice mean I need to keep the students engaged and after about 12 weeks most of them tend to want to do something different, so we cycle through 3 or 4 things a year instead of spending the 6 months minimum I would like on basics in a single system and then the next 6 focusing on specific areas within that system. I do a lot of work on my own or with the other instructors outside of class, but my schedule that last 18 months or so has curtailed that sharply enough that I don't feel like I do jack anymore.

That's all outside the SCA, of course, though that's changing now that I'm in charge of the Historic Combat Studies program here in Atenveldt. This should open up a lot more opportunities for me to both teach and attend classes. I do heavy combat (though not any time recently - I *really* gotta get my new kit finished up) and some rapier fighting when I have free time. 60+ hour work weeks and grad school don't leave much of that.

God, that rambled - hope I answered your question in there somewhere.

Jon

Thanks, Jon, that pretty well answered it.

The reason I am asking is because I am trying to get a read on who the "interdisciplinarians" are in the western half of the United States.

Every time there is a discussion about how the different elements of what we do come together, I think about the 1300-1500 high fidelity event that is coming up in 2007. It's not that far away, and I have to find a way to manage a 12-16 hour workday AND push this thing along AND do it in a way that doesn't make my wife jealous that I spend time here.

Chances are, the event will be held in a location within striking distance from you. Is 1300-1500 an era that you're interested in? Your repertoire of techiniques seems to indicate interest in a later era.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

M S Anderson wrote:Well yes, I'm very familiar with those techniques. The muterien certainly flows from winding, but the duplieren is really just coming off a strong bind to cut behind his sword to the right side of his head after rolling the sword over, no winding involved really. But I get your point (no pun intended) about working around your opponent's sword. Is that what is meant by a "wrap" shot in the SCA?

When and where I started in the SCA, the term used was "Wrist leading blow" - as distinguished from a forehand wherein the knuckles lead. Subsequently the term "wrap" became popular, describing the way the blow wraps around any defense.

Wraps are false edge cuts delivered with the palm down. They can be used at extremely close range to strike an opponent in the back/rear. They can be used at long range, although the long range wraps (aka snap-wraps) are, imo, quite hard on the shoulder. They are least useful (again, imo) at medium range.

Gavin

Jehan de Pelham wrote: The reason I am asking is because I am trying to get a read on who the "interdisciplinarians" are in the western half of the United States.

There's a bunch of us here and there. Hugh Knight out in CA, Tattershall, Schola St. George, RMHCG, Academia Della Spada, Academie Duello - we all cross over a lot *g*. There's other WMA groups out here w/o much of an SCA presence too.

Jehan de Pelham wrote:Every time there is a discussion about how the different elements of what we do come together, I think about the 1300-1500 high fidelity event that is coming up in 2007. It's not that far away, and I have to find a way to manage a 12-16 hour workday AND push this thing along AND do it in a way that doesn't make my wife jealous that I spend time here.

Good luck with that. Having too long a workday every day, graduate school and a wife working on a Ph.D I feel your pain. I can barely make events other people organize.

Jehan de Pelham wrote:Chances are, the event will be held in a location within striking distance from you. Is 1300-1500 an era that you're interested in? Your repertoire of techiniques seems to indicate interest in a later era.

I'd study *everything* if I had the time. The earlier manuals simply require an investment in time and energy I don't have to spare. I've done plenty of reading into earlier periods and find them very interesting, but working from primary source documents, secondary works and iconography is very intensive and a shift in focus from recreating the systems from the extant manuals. Love to (I'm a librarian, I love doing this stuff) but "It's astounding, time is fleeting" and all that. I'd like to make the event and my wife is actually interested as well, so...

Jon

I think it is important to keep in mind that we have no extant manuals on armored shield and sword or shield and mace combat, however there is extant art showing plenty of examples of people using this combination.

The deep false edge blow (aka a deep wrap) would not be particularly useful in long sword or sword and buckler combat. Maces in particular lend themselves to this type of shot. The wrap thrown at a distance would be useful for getting around that shield defense, and can even be thrown such that as it hits, the point can be used as a thrust to neck or face (effectively a "tippy" shot with a push at the end). My husband was using this fairly effectively for awhile, but tends not to use thrusting swords very often in the SCA.

"Standard" tourney shields or war sized shields pose a different problem than long sword. The angles of the blows needed to defeat that defense are quite different. When armored in the melee, it has been my experience that being on the ground is not a good thing, so IMHO, one would avoid that if possible, where it might be a different story altogether in an unarmored street fight. I have no doubt that grappling and using the shield as a weapon was a major component of medieval combat, but grabbing with your hands when you have a shield would mean dropping your weapon -- also not a good idea when in the melee. One also needs to account for the affect of fighting sword and shield on horseback, yet another variant causing differing defenses and attacks and possibly using blows and other defense techniques not mentioned in the manuals.

I occasionally fight rebated steel. We do not follow through and lighten up the power we use in rattan. Even so, a solid smack in the head with a real sword or mace certainly can feel much stouter than a blow using rattan thrown thrown with much more power. The occasional overpowed blow with a sword does "phase" you, which supports Vitus's description of tournaments and also is reflected in various accounts, that someone could be pummeled into submission.

Juliana

Jehan de Pelham wrote:The reason I am asking is because I am trying to get a read on who the "interdisciplinarians" are in the western half of the United States.

Jehan, will you be coming to 4W? I'm hardly objective, but it seems like a pretty reasonable cross-section of WMA study, and it's certainly western. A lot of the classes are within a couple folks of filling up, but I don't think that anything has actually closed yet.

That said, let me weigh in on the original "power vs. technique" debate. My primary experience is with unarmored steel combat--rapier, English backsword, and long sword--but it seems to me that the following is not unreasonable:

• At the risk of stating the obvious, technique is not limited to throwing blows. When I say "technique", I mean an internalized understanding of time, measure, place, etc, which applies not only to placing blows but also to movement of the body and feet as well.
• Power is only effective if you can hit your target. If you can do so then well and good. But an opponent with superior technique will, by controlling time and measure, deny you the opportunity to hit him.
• It is a basic tennet of many martial arts that one should use his opponent's force against him, usually through redirection. Fiore uses this principle in a number of instances. Thus, good technique leads to defenses that either are unaffected or strengthened when made against a powerful blow.
• The historical record doesn't seem to support the notion that armor weight was a major handicapping factor, so it is not logical to conclude that armor prevents a swordsman from utilizing the same general principles as an unarmored man.
• A sword seems ill-suited to attacking a man in armor, anyway. Vadi and Talhoffer both seem more keen on polearms or the good old "close, wrestle 'em down, and shiv 'em with your dagger as you take their purse" defense. So I wonder about the value of prioritizing sword power in armored combat.

In conclusion, it is helpful to be able to generate power when you want to, but the ability to control the fight through application of good technique is key to surviving the encounter.

-William

welder wrote:A sword seems ill-suited to attacking a man in armor, anyway. Vadi and Talhoffer both seem more keen on polearms or the good old "close, wrestle 'em down, and shiv 'em with your dagger as you take their purse" defense. So I wonder about the value of prioritizing sword power in armored combat.

I agreed with all your other points, but I do want to discuss this one.

It's essential to keep in mind that in an sca context (the context of most people in this discussion), "armor" doesn't mean what the guys in Vadi and Talhoffer, etc meant as armor: our judgment armor is maille, not what has been called plate. It's tempting to get that wrong, because so many people love the 14th and 15th centuries.

Another reason to prioritize power? Besides the fact that it is possible to injure a man through his maille with enough power (and repetition), but not at all with light strokes, there's what *they* prioritized. Did the writers of the day praise timing, or stout strokes? Did they praise footwork, or being able to withstand many powerful blows and yet continue?

The problem with discounting power, and routinely fighting at low-power levels is that because competition reinforces what works in competition, it leads to people developing and practicing technique which is effective in our game, but useless in actual combat.

FrauHirsch wrote:I think it is important to keep in mind that we have no extant manuals on armored shield and sword or shield and mace combat, however there is extant art showing plenty of examples of people using this combination.
(SNIP)
Juliana

Ah, but, we are getting wiser all the time.

Firstly, Matt Galas has been doing some extensive linguist analysis of French primary source material and has come up with a ream of technical terminology on sword and shield. This will be enlightening, and as usual will validate somethings groups like the SCA have surmised, and others not. He presented this stuff at WMAW this last fall, its going to be published somewhere soon that will be generally available. Similar work is underway with Esgrima Antigua for Spain, more sword and dagger or cloak, and we've just lucked onto a MS copy of a MS which explicates those plays (but its not S&S, except one buckler play)

Secondly, there is significant material on shield use, not translated yet. Monte, Tratado de las Armas, Marozzo, Anonymous Bolognese, most of this is unarmored or lightly armored ca 1490-1540 and includes buckler, large buckler, target, the imbracciatura (the 15th/16th c version of the kite shield), , adarga, and other shields,and the masters present the information as the "ancient manner" (meaning of previous generations). This will need to be translated and analyzed to determine if it is continuous with earlier use, for which we need to still use primary literary and iconographic sources. I have heard rumors about Marozzo being translated, Anonymous Bolognese has been published (in Italian) just recently, don't hold your breath for Monte, Tratado de las Armas or some of the others.

Steve (with a little plagarized from Greg's post on SFI)

Jost von Aichstadt wrote:It's essential to keep in mind that in an sca context (the context of most people in this discussion), "armor" doesn't mean what the guys in Vadi and Talhoffer, etc meant as armor: our judgment armor is maille, not what has been called plate. It's tempting to get that wrong, because so many people love the 14th and 15th centuries.

This is a good point. I was thinking mostly of plate armor when I said that the sword was ill-suited to armored combat. I'm still thinkin' that there are better instruments for either hacking through maille or bludgeoning the man underneath into submission than a sword (axe and mace spring to mind), but a sword seems much more reasonable in that role than against a plate-armored opponent. My bad.

Jost von Aichstadt wrote:Another reason to prioritize power? Besides the fact that it is possible to injure a man through his maille with enough power (and repetition), but not at all with light strokes, there's what *they* prioritized. Did the writers of the day praise timing, or stout strokes? Did they praise footwork, or being able to withstand many powerful blows and yet continue?

First, let me be clear that my notion of "technique" is only tangentially related to footwork. A strong understanding of time and distance is what creates good footwork, which in turn allows you to achieve true place from which you can strike without being stricken yourself. Thus, "technique" encompasses motor skills and the thorough understanding of the principles of fight.

I'll assume we're discussing medieval armored combatants (rather than Renaissance), but since none of the known treatises covers combat in the abovementioned style of armor we have only narrative accounts and iconography upon which to base our judgement. That, and backwards extrapolation. Both of these are dicey, but I have a little more faith in the latter, since we have more detailed material from which to work. My concern about iconography and narrative accounts is that good technique is hard to describe without putting a non-enthusiast to sleep. I'm not at all surprised to find that stout blows take pride of place in a narrative account since they are both more interesting and easier to describe than the careful judgement which may have led to their arrival.

Ideally I'd start with I.33 for an example of backwards extrapolation, since it is the oldest treatise we have, but I'm just familiar enough with the text yet. Flos Duellatorum is not a bad example, though, at 1410. Fiore illustrates the basic principles of his fight pretty clearly, and Vadi specifically talks about how different his recommended footwork is from what came before him, which tells us something about that older footwork as well...not least that it existed. Unless we're willing to stipulate that these folks invented the notions of technique and footwork from whole cloth, then it is reasonable to assume that they existed in earlier eras. Just how early, we will probably never know.

Jost von Aichstadt wrote:The problem with discounting power, and routinely fighting at low-power levels is that because competition reinforces what works in competition, it leads to people developing and practicing technique which is effective in our game, but useless in actual combat.

The irony here is that we began this post talking about the "SCA context", wherein a number of techniques which are demonstrably (and historically) effective in combat (grippes, throws, halfswording, strikes to the hand, shield blows, etc) are forbidden, while others of questionable utility (false-edge blows to the back of the head) are encouraged. These are understandable safety concerns, but they sound odd when paired with the exhortation to hit hard. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that none of us are actually doing combat, so "useless in actual combat" is a matter of degree and priority. The SCA prioritizes blow power while the folks I work with emphasize a wider range of skills (grippes, throws, etc). Neither approach is wrong, just different.

Okay, enough for now.

-William

welder wrote:
(SNIP)

Ideally I'd start with I.33 for an example of backwards extrapolation, since it is the oldest treatise we have, but I'm just familiar enough with the text yet. Flos Duellatorum is not a bad example, though, at 1410. Fiore illustrates the basic principles of his fight pretty clearly, and Vadi specifically talks about how different his recommended footwork is from what came before him, which tells us something about that older footwork as well...not least that it existed. Unless we're willing to stipulate that these folks invented the notions of technique and footwork from whole cloth, then it is reasonable to assume that they existed in earlier eras. Just how early, we will probably never know.

-William

Although it is likely Vadi is differentiating his footwork from that of dei Liberi.

I agree with your approach as outlined, but feel we need to validate I.33 against its milieu, and connect the dots with the 15th-16th century material. Use iconography from the 14th century - then try and go backwards, I.33 stands too alone. Maybe if we find del Seprente and the other referenced but missing 13th, 14th and 15th century Italian material to fill the gaps.

Steve

Jost von Aichstadt wrote:Another reason to prioritize power? Besides the fact that it is possible to injure a man through his maille with enough power (and repetition), but not at all with light strokes, there's what *they* prioritized. Did the writers of the day praise timing, or stout strokes? Did they praise footwork, or being able to withstand many powerful blows and yet continue?

The problem with discounting power, and routinely fighting at low-power levels is that because competition reinforces what works in competition, it leads to people developing and practicing technique which is effective in our game, but useless in actual combat.

If you use a power generation technique in which the hand leads the blade into distance then your opponent should just lift his sword into the path of your hand. It is important to strike with strength, but also to do so with good form.

I still think that some of what people characterize as 'low-power levels' is simply failure to recognize that factors other than impact play into many types of blows.

Jost von Aichstadt wrote:[Another reason to prioritize power? Besides the fact that it is possible to injure a man through his maille with enough power (and repetition), but not at all with light strokes, there's what *they* prioritized..

Interesting enough, in doing rebated steel combat, I was surprised at how effective maille is against even a fairly stout sword blow, perhaps as it hits deeper, more length of the blade hits the maille which slows it down and acts to distribute the force. However, maces, axes, poleaxes, spears and the like must be handled carefully as they really can hurt people through maille fairly easily, especially if they do not have some kind of rigid support under it all.

In both cases, stout blows to even a well padded helm can be somewhat reeling.

Re: armored vs unarmored, weight does make a difference, but when fighting the more difference is really about target area and the angles the blows need to take to get to those areas. They are different in the manuals, and the angles would have to be adjusted to get around a shield.

Re: footwork, measure and timing - yes, these are important concepts for SCA rattan fighting too. However, many of the key practitioners do know, practice and teach these concepts, but there are certainly many SCA fighters who are just hack-n-bash who never have/get formal training. Many can fight, sometimes relatively successfully (depending on natural athleticism and conditioning), with no formal techniques or analysis of how they move. There is plenty of ignorance about formal fighting technique out there, no argument here.

Juliana

Steve Hick wrote:Although it is likely Vadi is differentiating his footwork from that of dei Liberi.

Oh, I think that's almost a certainty. My point was that the simple fact Vadi felt it necessary to make the distinction at all shows that footwork was recognized as an important part of the fight at that point in history.

-William

So the last time I watched a bout under SCA rules, it occurred to me that the measure at which I was seeing wrap shots thrown was the distance at which I would be thinking strongly about coming to grippes. I'm thinking that the wrap shot may be so popular because it is one of the few SCA-legal options that make sense at such close range. Thus, I suggest, the wrap is an SCA-legal alternative to grappelling.

This hypothesis led me down the following train of thought.

1. I have observed that novice students, when they get confused in the midst of a bout, will instinctively close to wrestle.
2. When that happens, we hose them down and spank them with a rolled up newspaper because if we let them wrestle they will learn to count on that instead of continuing to refine their swordsmanship.
3. If we postulate that new SCA fighters have the same core human instincts, then they may react to the stress and novelty of combat in a similar way: by closing with their opponent and attempting wrap shots.
4. The difference is that the wrap has been embraced as a standard technique in SCA combat, while we view coming to grippes as an indicator that someone has probably done something wrong*.
5. Since there doesn't seem to be any real stigma associated with wrap shots, a fighter is free to gear his fight around attacks at extremely close measure. Indeed, he may come to view that as the "normal" measure from which one fights.

In what ways does this shifted sense of measure affect the rest of his art? Does it lead him to experiment less with other distances and the blows and thrusts that can be delivered from them? At this point my chain of speculation has grown pretty thin and I've mostly sobered up--which is a dire problem in itself--but I think there's some thought to be had here.

-William


*Don't get me wrong. Wrestling is not invalid. It does, though, beg the question "Why didn't you kill them with your &!@#-ing sword?"