Cut and Thrust question (SCA/WMA)

[Galleron]

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.
.

Again, if someone on this list is arguing that edge blows didn't happen, let them speak now or hold their peace.
SFX:: Crickets chirping
Thought so.

And I've been limiting myself to to the 15th c., because once you get into the 16th c. consensual deeds change a lot, what with fighting at the barriers, and prohibited thrusts, and cuts are all you have left, and then some killjoy decides the swords edges need to be rebated. And yet the real soldiers like Brantome can still tell the difference between the posers who are just flailing away and the men who can put a blow exactly where your helmet padding/suspension system does its absolute least to keep your brain leaking out through your ears.

[Galleron]

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.

As opposed, of course, to the other Anonymous, who so eloquently argued the opposite position.

[mackenzie]

...

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.

Just for completion, Fabris 1606 also speaks of using cuts against armour: "...In the case of armored or multiple opponents, it is better to use both the thrust and the cut, because the cut can create more turmoil and with one blow you can parry against many swords." (trans: Leoni 2005), but when he describes the mechanics of how to cut it does not appear to me to be what I remember of SCA heavy combat.

[Leo Medii]

Just have to say in defense of Rhys, that if he went to SCA practices and used only historical techniques from his studies I am not surprised if he lost many times. I am a far above average SCA fighter, and when I discard proven SCA technique and switch to the stuff used in the historical studies I am immediate put at a far disadvantage.

If he was not using the historical study disregard this post.

[Galleron]

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.

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.

i did not say that. For my own sample of 15th c. deeds of arms with sword on foot, I recorded one cut or thrust, six thrust only, and four unspecified. That is not a vast majority for the unspecified category.

I suspect the proportion would change more towards edge blows if I had meaningful quantitative data on battlefield use. Halfsword thrusting works better when you only have one opponent to worry about.

[Greg Mele]

Raito,

It's not just me arguing this is basic kinesthetics - it is the Japanese, too. Obata sensei has a nice discussion of hand then foot, hand and foot as one, and foot then hand. Now, to be clear, if we step and plant then strike, no it will not be as hard, as the body is no longer in motion. Any of the others, though, do bring the bodyweight in with the blow. (And Kaydian is a big boy!)

OTOH, a long time since we met in an SCA list, but I recall you give pretty stout blows yourself, so I think you would agree with me that the idea of following the texts advice and let the foot follow the hand does *not* produce a weak blow?

Leo,

Just have to say in defense of Rhys, that if he went to SCA practices and used only historical techniques from his studies I am not surprised if he lost many times. I am a far above average SCA fighter, and when I discard proven SCA technique and switch to the stuff used in the historical studies I am immediate put at a far disadvantage.

Right, and for a logical reason - SCA technique is perfectly designed for SCA rules. I explain to my SCA students that the principles are universal, and some things will work well in an SCA list and others may actually be a detriment - they need to experiment. I see that the same way you would fight in a BJJ competition differently than you would an MMA one, or in street defense, but your base martial art is the same.

[Leo Medii]

Right, and for a logical reason - SCA technique is perfectly designed for SCA rules. I explain to my SCA students that the principles are universal, and some things will work well in an SCA list and others may actually be a detriment - they need to experiment. I see that the same way you would fight in a BJJ competition differently than you would an MMA one, or in street defense, but your base martial art is the same.

/agreed. The deeper I get into the books and techniques, the better they work and make sense. I made my squire a deal I'd try to forego SCA ego and try to use historical techniques at all times. Sometimes I slip when I start losing contests because a technique or play that I could use against someone leaves me getting tagged because I simply "can't" use it under the SCA rules. I find the study of the historical teachers to be totally fascinating and if I could use them in the SCA I have a feeling that no one would be bellying up to the bar to wrap shot me after a while....

[puck_curtis]

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.

I haven't seen anything yet that would convince me that the Destreza system described was anything but an unarmored system. I have seen discussion in Pacheco about working against a buckler or the round shield (rodela). He advises that various authors advise shieldmen to strike the legs. His counters to the shields largely consist of getting the shield out of line so you open up the target and he will occasionally use the left hand to pull the shield out of line.

Here is one interesting example that pertains to some of the earlier points about restricting target area to exclude the legs. This counter can be used when the shield-bearing adversary uses a forehand cut to the legs at "narrow" measure:

...since he will find his sword above, he lowers the arm, applies strength to the natural [NOTE: downward] movement, destroys the natural [NOTE: downward] and aligning movement with which he would have been struck, and being a little before it reaches the right leg, by making the enemy's sword (by means of a mixed movement) reach the ground, and with great quickness he places the foot on top cutting it along it's length without it being suspected that he cannot remove it: and finishing the actions at the same time he raises his sword, and with the left hand he lowers the round shield, or buckler, so much that he uncovers the head (for whose parry they generally apply it [NOTE: referring to the shield]) in which he will be able to strike freely,...

~Pacheco's counter to the buckler from New Science ~1632 (translation courtesy Mary Curtis)

Restated: when you are at close measure and he swings (Italian:mandritto) at your legs, use your own sword to drive his into the ground, step onto his blade and grab his shield with your left hand to yank it down and then strike him in the head.

The Montante stuff (Diogo Gomes de Figueyredo rule 8 - 1651) consists of multiple strikes which we believe is intended to get the shield out of line. Because it is a rule (like a kata) it doesn't describe the actions of the adversary so we can't be conclusive about what is intended there.

I can't tell that it adds much to the conversation. I'll dig a bit more and see if we have anything that mentions armor specifically.

~P.

[brewer]

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.

Not sufficiently. Insufficient evidence, for one thing. Overly-intricate, circular reasoning and leaps of logic in your explanations. You haven't sold me. That doesn't mean either one of us is wrong, per se. It means you've not made your case sufficiently for this judge to be convinced.

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.

I apologize for those words. They were spoken in anger and were not worthy. I disagree that it has no relevance, however, for it is inspired by your history of speaking ex cathedra on a variety of topics, pompously dismissing any who disagree or ask for more evidence. In your mind, you're right, everyone who challenges your authority is wrong (and usually gets sniped at), and the message gets lost in the noise of clashing personalities.

That's the tragic part - the message gets lost in the noise.

Again, my apology.

Bob

[LordRoderick]

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.

Glad to see that being an internet tough guy is timeless and never goes out of style. Doesn't matter if it is Ford versus Chevy, Glock versus Sig, ATI versus Nvidia, Ducati versus Aprilia, Charmin versus Angel Soft.... I have seen it all over the past 16 years or so on the 100+ forums I have been a member of or moderated. Nothing new.

I have been to that practice, and I have known Rhys for... has to be damned near 20 years now... I watched him win Crown, so its been at least that long. Remind the group when you last sat on the throne? Not the one in your bathroom, the SCA Kingdom throne type.

Rhys is very opinionated, and very blunt, and it rubs many people the wrong way. Take issue with his tactic or delivery if you want, but over the two decades I have known him, he is *usually* right. Confidence is very often mistaken for arrogance. Ok, maybe there is a little arrogance, but we love him anyway.

Point is, calling into question his fighting skills, when my perusal of this thread has not shown you to properly credential your own, is silly. If you want to sit here and argue about how you interpret 600 year old sketches to determine how you THINK someone may have fought centuries before you were born, have at it. It is all a matter of opinion. Read all the books and look at all of the illustrations that you want, at the end of the day you were not there, neither was Rhys and neither was I. It's all a matter of opinion and personal interpretation based on ancient and oftentimes sketchy and incomplete data.

Making it personal and going on the attack, makes you look childish. The old, "If you can't beat them, beat them up" kind of playground antics, should be beneath you. I don't know if you have a White Belt or have ever won a Crown, but Rhys does and has. Your lashing out makes it seem like you don't, as I would hope that someone of such stature would have more integrity than what you have shown. And if not, your attitude is probably indicative of why you have not achieved those things, and perchance are resentful of those that have.

I have been to that practice a few times, I don't recall seeing anyone "hand him his ass in a sling". Not that people don't beat him, but someone just spanking him around the field as you described would have stood out in my mind. I consider myself a competent fighter, and at that time in question was spending most of my practices in Princeton with my Knight(Duke Ronald), Sir Gabriel, Duke Timothy, Duke Kelson, Sir Jan, etc... So I think my skills were pretty good at that point, and I wasn't able to "hand Rhys his ass" by any means. He beat me more than I beat him, and I had to work for the wins that I did get.

If you want to be period, issue him a challenge. Meet up one afternoon at Pennsic, and have a best out of 3 match. Prove your point on the field of battle, and honor, rather than try to berate someone 3,000 miles away from you behind the safety of your keyboard. Man up, I say.

Regardless of the outcome, Rhys is the kind of man that will smile and buy you a beer afterwards, so what do you have to lose?

And for the record, Angel Soft beats Charmin any day of the week. Just sayin...

[Leo Medii]

There are days I am firmly reminded how SCA-centric this forum is.......

[Greg Mele]

Puck,

I haven't seen anything yet that would convince me that the Destreza system described was anything but an unarmored system. I have seen discussion in Pacheco about working against a buckler or the round shield (rodela). He advises that various authors advise shieldmen to strike the legs. His counters to the shields largely consist of getting the shield out of line so you open up the target and he will occasionally use the left hand to pull the shield out of line.

Thanks! I always assumed that Destreza was unarmoured and on foot, and that the Esgrima Comune was more like the Bolognese system: for use in all contexts. Being a Destreza ignorant, however, when Pacheco shows how to counter these weapons, are we to assume that the the buckler/shield men are using the vulgar system and not Destreza itself? I recall that one of the later authors has an illustration of all the different weapons (Mendoza?) on a broadsheet of the rules of the art, but I got the impression that instruction was always sword alone or sword and dagger.

Also, I think it is pretty clear that the spadone and montante don't much care if you are in harness or not, but when we are talking about swords in the 5' - 6' range, they are sword and polearm all at once....

[GenericUnique]

There are days I am firmly reminded how SCA-centric this forum is.......

I think I'll start bringing a stopwatch to interesting discussion threads, and seeing how long it takes until someone starts to wave their fake crown/coronet/belt/archbishop's mantle/mickey mouse watch around demanding capitulation.

Occasionally I get surprised when someone posts something useful, civil, and wise and I notice they have a title next to their name.

[Greg Mele]

/agreed. The deeper I get into the books and techniques, the better they work and make sense. I made my squire a deal I'd try to forego SCA ego and try to use historical techniques at all times. Sometimes I slip when I start losing contests because a technique or play that I could use against someone leaves me getting tagged because I simply "can't" use it under the SCA rules. I find the study of the historical teachers to be totally fascinating and if I could use them in the SCA I have a feeling that no one would be bellying up to the bar to wrap shot me after a while....

OTOH, you have other avenues to play in, now, so the SCA can be accepted on its own terms, since it isn't like 10 or 20 years ago where there was nowhere else to go. It is like being a student of both kenjutsu and kendo. One is much more artificial, but does give you a chance to engage a lot of highly competitive opponents who focus on power and speed and the desire to win. That is good training, too, just for different attributes. I think the tricky part is that we all hit different areas in the study of a martial art where different attributes are more important than others. From person example, I was at a point where the attributes I was getting from the SCA were distracting me from what I wanted to focus on, but at the same time, I think it was the combination of instruction I got from Einar and the years spent fighting in the lists, combined with my Asian martial arts, that gave me the skills set to interpret the WMA stuff successfully.

[Peikko]

There are days I am firmly reminded how SCA-centric this forum is.......

I think I'll start bringing a stopwatch to interesting discussion threads, and seeing how long it takes until someone starts to wave their fake crown/coronet/belt/archbishop's mantle/mickey mouse watch around demanding capitulation.

Occasionally I get surprised when someone posts something useful, civil, and wise and I notice they have a title next to their name.

Careful, with that attitude you'll never get knighted.

[Galleron]

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.

You do realize you're undercuttting your argument about edge blows against armor just being for consensual deeds in the 15th century?

Also, it's not explicit whether that Froissart sword combat is fought on foot.

[Alex Putnam-Spreier]

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.

This point, I believe, has gotten lost in the noise.

Hugh, despite whether you believe yourself to be correct or not, Greg has a point here - when you are the minority voice, you must provide the evidence of proof. When Copernicus first proposed his heliocentric view of the solar system, he was the minority voice. Even though we now know he was correct, at the time the onus was on him (and his successors) to provide evidence. If you truly believe you are correct, so me some compelling evidence - nothing you've shown yet convinces me.

A question about some of that evidence, you've used chronicles and accounts as support for your position, and someone earlier in this thread (can't remember who) brought up the issue of translation - specifically how the original languages will often use an ambiguous verb for striking that can either be translated as "cut" or "thrust (much like the the English verb "to strike" come to think of it). Did you read the chronicles in their original languages or via translations? If you read the originals, why did you choose to translate the "striking" verbs the way you did? If you read translations, do you know why the author translated the verbs the way they did? Have you tried alternate translations (i.e. reading "cut" instead of "thrust")?

I do no ask these questions to be "snarky" - I ask them because I feel they need to be asked. Again, even though time may prove you to be correct, at this point you are the minority voice. The burden of proof is laid solely upon your shoulders.

[SyrRhys]

You do realize you're undercuttting your argument about edge blows against armor just being for consensual deeds in the 15th century?

Well, in truth, I wasn't trying to imply they were just used in consensual deeds--I gave that limitation because I didn't think I'd find any references to them being used in war in that period. Actually, the more I think about the Tirant quote the more I doubt its validity since by this time the armor was so good I just don't see much value in cutting against plate.

Also, it's not explicit whether that Froissart sword combat is fought on foot.

It doesn't say it explicitly, but it talks about a course of lances on horseback then a fight with axes, swords and daggers. From the way it was worded it seems to be putting swords in with the axes etc.

[Therion]

Also, it's not explicit whether that Froissart sword combat is fought on foot.

It doesn't say it explicitly, but it talks about a course of lances on horseback then a fight with axes, swords and daggers. From the way it was worded it seems to be putting swords in with the axes etc.

Interestingly enough, Froissart shows 4'-5' axes being used on horseback -

[Christian H. Tobler]

Hey folks,

On a purely nit-picky note: I don't believe Peter Falkner's 'introduction' to his dagger section indicates that the illustrated techniques that follow are intended for armour, though a number of them would work in that context.

Rather, I think it gives some quick advice specific to armour. There are several reasons to think this:

1. The preamble here lacks the "this is the text that follows" that heralds the staff, poleaxe, and dueling shield sections. So it's not 'setting the stage' in quite the same way.
2. Unlike Talhoffer, where we seemingly see armoured half-sword, drawn for ease in civvies, the dagger here doesn't begin with an exemplar plate showing the armour, nor a transitional series, such as the Thott Codex Talhoffer has where it's two guys in harness, then one in kit/the other in doublet, then a bunch of plates with both in civilian clothing. In that example, the message seems clear: "I, the artist, have no intention of rendering 30 more plates of guys in Gothic armour." Falkner isn't set up that way.
3. Some of the "fireman's carry" type throws, along with a Full Nelson, while not impossible in harness, would not be the first choice for ease of execution.
4. One technique has you turn the guy's own dagger against his body - not terribly effective against a cuirass.

Given the above, I think it more likely (though not provable) that this is an unarmoured dagger treatise.

On a more general note:

I think Greg's point about how material is organized, and the holistic nature of these arts, is important. Liechtenauer's original advice (what we have in the verse) is quite brief about armoured judicial combat on foot. The later commentaries make it seem otherwise, but we need to be mindful that the entire body of the half-sword techniques from the four guards is a huge expansion on a handful of couplets.

The couplets for the (unarmoured) longsword are more numerous than those for the mounted and armoured foot combats combined. Why? Because *that* is the core of the art. The other sections - the Rossfechten and Harnischfechten - are specialty items you need to adapt for special circumstances. In the latter case, Master Peter von Danzig's own introductory words are telling:

Note, this is how you should position yourself in knightly fashion with matched weapons so that you will neither give nor overlook any advantage.

In other words, this is how you fight guys matched to you in full kit in a duel. How do you fight other guys, such as in partial harness, etc? By using everything else you know.

Cheers,

Christian

[LordRoderick]

There are days I am firmly reminded how SCA-centric this forum is.......

In all honesty, I am on a lot of forums and this is universal. Computer games, PC's, guns, motorcycles, the list goes on....

There is nothing here that is any different than any other forum or crowd. Here you argue about the proper way to swing a sword, there they argue about polygonal versus button rifling in your barrel. Or why a Factory Pro Dynamometer with 4-gas analyzer is supposed to be superior to a Dyno Jet unit, even though the damned horsepower results are identical. It is the same the world over, and it never changes regardless of the participants.

[Peikko]

There are days I am firmly reminded how SCA-centric this forum is.......

In all honesty, I am on a lot of forums and this is universal. Computer games, PC's, guns, motorcycles, the list goes on....

There is nothing here that is any different than any other forum or crowd. Here you argue about the proper way to swing a sword, there they argue about polygonal versus button rifling in your barrel. Or why a Factory Pro Dynamometer with 4-gas analyzer is supposed to be superior to a Dyno Jet unit, even though the damned horsepower results are identical. It is the same the world over, and it never changes regardless of the participants.

Yes, very true...but you missed the point.

[Galleron]

Another point. There are techniques that are only effective against an unarmored man. There are techniques that are only needed against armor. And then there are techniques that can be used for both.

Examples: a two handed sword cut to the hands, a thrust to the face made with both hands on the hilt (certainly if the visor is open, possibly if it is closed).

Now, you have only a few places to put them. You can put them in both, at the cost of repeating yourself. Or you can put them in the section you cover first.

Now the techniques I mentioned aren't in Ringeck's armored combat, although they are described by other masters, and they are effective.

So I propose that Ringeck's armored combat isn't everything that's effective against armor. It's the specialized sword techniques that are *only* needed against armor.

[LordRoderick]

There are days I am firmly reminded how SCA-centric this forum is.......

In all honesty, I am on a lot of forums and this is universal. Computer games, PC's, guns, motorcycles, the list goes on....

There is nothing here that is any different than any other forum or crowd. Here you argue about the proper way to swing a sword, there they argue about polygonal versus button rifling in your barrel. Or why a Factory Pro Dynamometer with 4-gas analyzer is supposed to be superior to a Dyno Jet unit, even though the damned horsepower results are identical. It is the same the world over, and it never changes regardless of the participants.

Yes, very true...but you missed the point.

Not really. Here you just take the usual ego and testosterone and add in a splash of the Nerd-Factor, that's all...

[Christian H. Tobler]

Addendum:

Master Andres Lignitzer says much the same thing as Von Danzig. This, from the same compendium:

Here begins the Art of Master Andres, called the Lignitzer, God have mercy on him, of the half-sword in armour against equal knightly weaponry.

Again, clearly matched opponents.

Yours,

Christian

[Peikko]

Yes, very true...but you missed the point.

Not really. Here you just take the usual ego and testosterone and add in a splash of the Nerd-Factor, that's all...

Yes...but the AA does not equal the SCA and the SCA does not equal all medieval hopology.

[puck_curtis]

Thanks! I always assumed that Destreza was unarmoured and on foot, and that the Esgrima Comune was more like the Bolognese system: for use in all contexts. Being a Destreza ignorant, however, when Pacheco shows how to counter these weapons, are we to assume that the the buckler/shield men are using the vulgar system and not Destreza itself? I recall that one of the later authors has an illustration of all the different weapons (Mendoza?) on a broadsheet of the rules of the art, but I got the impression that instruction was always sword alone or sword and dagger.

Also, I think it is pretty clear that the spadone and montante don't much care if you are in harness or not, but when we are talking about swords in the 5' - 6' range, they are sword and polearm all at once....

Pacheco is addressing everybody so "vulgar" covers esgrima comun, the Italians, Germans, and everyone else he has heard about. I haven't seen evidence yet of Pacheco describing anything but unarmored single sword with regards to advocated technique. (More research needs to be done here.) On the other hand, the science of Destreza is applied to everything including his system as well as the systems of others and the notation is used in some measure by the Montante authors.

Talking about armor with regards to the Spanish in this time period can be a bit of a red-herring. After the Great Captain, Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, the Spanish established pike and shot formations supported by cavalry on the flanks. He and his disciples were great innovators in the use of concentrated gunfire and the Spanish army was a dominant military force in Europe for an extended period using these tactics. The Great Captain had been dead for about 50 years or so when Carranza wrote his book in 1569. By then, his tactics were well ingrained in the Spanish military command structure. That new context of warfare also changes our understanding of the Destreza texts with regards to armor. Armor persisted, but it was harder to train cavalry than it was to teach a soldier to shoot. Even with a slow rate of fire, large formations of pikes and guns could produce enough gunfire to decimate a heavy cavalry unit.

As to the Montante (Iberian Greatsword), I agree and one of the things we noticed was that there was very little penalty for choosing a "bad triangle" and striking legs when faced with normal swords. Likewise, the weapon has so much energy when you get it moving that some of the normal aphorisms of swordplay have to be reconsidered.

~P.

[Greg Mele]

So I propose that Ringeck's armored combat isn't everything that's effective against armor. It's the specialized sword techniques that are *only* needed against armor.

Bingo. And as Christian quoted from von Danzig, are based on that idea that we are both in full harness. Afterall, if I'm the armoured man and you are not, to hell with half-swording!

[LordRoderick]

Yes, very true...but you missed the point.

Not really. Here you just take the usual ego and testosterone and add in a splash of the Nerd-Factor, that's all...

Yes...but the AA does not equal the SCA and the SCA does not equal all medieval hopology.

I understand that, all I am saying is that go to any forum, on any hobby or topic and you will see the exact same thing. It's the nature of the interwebs.

Head over to a NASCAR forum and see the antics there. I bet you could find a forum on Amish Quilting and see the same clash of egos and people getting all tough with each other.

I don't know enough about this stuff to say whether Hugh is right or wrong. I wasn't there in the Middle Ages. I do know what kind of person he is though, and despite his concise and abrupt nature, I know that he is a good, passionate person that does spend a lot of time and effort researching his hobbies and pursuits. I also know that he is a good fighter, and that he actually has a hell of a sense of humor, despite his outward appearance of being a tight-ass.

How else could I explain him not breaking my neck when I turned his beautiful period kit into a life sized Medieval Mickey Mouse and put it on display in camp at Pennsic, or filled his entire tent with balloons a day later? Although he did get irate when I painted smiley faces on his war shield with permanent marker and it wasn't coming off like I had thought it would...

[Peikko]

And I am reminded just how SCA-centric this forum is

[Maeryk]

Not really. Here you just take the usual ego and testosterone and add in a splash of the Nerd-Factor, that's all...

Rod.. his point is that even though it's not a forum specific for SCA, we make up, or take up, the majority of the space on it.. and that there are plenty of other groups also represented here, for whom someones belt, baldric, or base trefoiled wharblegail from the Associated Kingdoms of Kerblafistan mean nothing.

It's not about egos.. it's about how many of us there are, and how much we tend to dominate things and think like it's all SCA all the time, when it's not.

[LordRoderick]

Not really. Here you just take the usual ego and testosterone and add in a splash of the Nerd-Factor, that's all...

Rod.. his point is that even though it's not a forum specific for SCA, we make up, or take up, the majority of the space on it.. and that there are plenty of other groups also represented here, for whom someones belt, baldric, or base trefoiled wharblegail from the Associated Kingdoms of Kerblafistan mean nothing.

It's not about egos.. it's about how many of us there are, and how much we tend to dominate things and think like it's all SCA all the time, when it's not.

Ah, I see.

My comments to Bob originally, asking him when he won his Crown and all that, was just my desire to see his credentials. He went from a scholarly discussion about fighting, and not only made it personal, he made it specifically about someone's fighting skill within a specific SCA practice. So if you are going away from a debate on history to something physical and that specific, then I think that belts, and Crowns and things are fair game and the question should be asked of the person throwing the shots.

If the person is just a bookworm and reads about fighting and doesn't really go out and do it, and has not accomplished anything with that knowledge, than the criticism on Hugh's fighting is completely baseless. I respect someone who actually goes out and fights, and wins and gets recognition for it, not someone who just reads about it in a book.

If someone wants to criticize my riding ability and I know that they have never raced or spent time on a race track and don't actually ride very much, I put very little credence in what they have to say. If however they were a pro racer and have won races and instructed at track schools, then you can bet that I will listen to what they have to say.

So my bringing up belts and Crowns was to establish if this person has any credibility on criticizing someone's SCA fighting ability, or just another wannabe who reads about fighting but doesn't really have much to show for it. It was a fair question in the context that it was given.

My regard for him dropped more when he apologized. He meant what he said the first time. He gave his honest opinion on how he feels about Hugh and his fighting. His anger didn't prompt him to think it, he already thought it. It simply eroded his inhibition to actually have the balls to say it. Trying to pass it off as if you just spoke in anger is cowardly. He obviously feels a certain way, so don't try to back-peddle when you realize that you came off like a jerk. He was too specific and personal to have it be "just words spoken in anger"... So man up and stand by them, Bob.

If you feel his fighting is so bad, prove it. It's easy to talk big on the internet. It takes a man to stand by his words, Chivalry or not.

[Rsiggs]

So, I found this picture in the "late 20th century historical iconography", but I can't find anything in the contemporary martial arts books about how to fight a dragon- obviously the material was hidden or secret. We know it happened, but the 'fechtmeisters' of the time didn't write it down for some reason. There's thousands of pictures like this, so we know it happened, I don't know why we haven't found this stuff yet...

Roger

I found this one from an earlier manuscript, but I'm not sure about the spear...



Roger

[Sigifrith Hauknefr]

Too bad William the Marshall never wrote a book on how to hit people with a sword. (or if he did, it's lost to the ravages of time)

[mackenzie]

Too bad William the Marshall never wrote a book on how to hit people with a sword. (or if he did, it's lost to the ravages of time)

Master Fiore, in his prologue says:

... Galeazzo used to say that without books, nobody can truly be a Master of student in his art. I, Fiore, agree with this: there is so much to this art then even the man with the keenest memory in the world will be unable to learn more then a fourth of it without books. And a fourth of this art is not enough to make someone a Master.
I Fiore, know how to read, write and draw, and have books on our subject, ...

(trans Leoni 2009)

So there were books before Fiore, and because his art doe not look too much like I.33 I expect he is referring to books that we do not yet have. Maybe we will get lucky find something mis-cataloged, I believe that happened a couple of years ago with the Florius document. Or perhaps we can learn something about fighting sword and shield from the new work being done on Persian martial arts http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showth ... ran-Persia.

Personally I think Hugh has picked a very hard nut to crack.
mackenzie