Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2008 20:27:17 GMT
I agree completely. It would be almost impossible to use that techniques in a formation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2008 20:40:05 GMT
XVa's could be considered long swords.
They were certainly used on the battle field. Once plate armour had reached it's pinnacle, the shield was all but abandoned by knights. At this point, it was possible to wield a two-handed weapon, because the armour protected you enough to sacrifice the defense provided by a shield. Also, one handed swords lost their effectiveness against armour, so two handed swords and impact weapons were used.
Footmen in a formation would not be using long swords in battle, but a dismounted knight certainly would. Therefore, the fightbook techniques could still apply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2008 21:08:25 GMT
Type XIIIa, XIIa or XX is more along the lines of what I would expect to see on a battle field. These are sword that can be used one-handed from a horse or with a shield. Type XVa does not have enough blade mass for a one-handed cut in my opinion. A thin blade like that will not stop a polearm and will likely bend or break. Anyway, I think this discussion has gotten beyond the point were my opinion or anyone else's opinions will help. If people want to contribute, they must provide, historical data along the lines of "this" sword was used at "this" battle in "that" manor. Or "this" army exclusively used "this" sword at "this" time in "this" way. Which is what I did with the Greeks, Romans, English, and Swiss in my prior post. Further note: the shield was not abandoned all together. In fact they began using larger shields called "pavise". In many cases they had to wheel them into battle. They used them primarily to protect against arrows. When they got close enough, they dropped them and fought with polearms in the late 15th century. This is depicted in some paintings, however, sword & shield was still used. Not all men could afford armor. Here is an image of a pavise protecting a man with a hand-canon during the Hussite War: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 7, 2008 3:57:49 GMT
We have.
As for the second part of this, tsafa, you know very little (I'd hesitate to say nothing at all) about the use of lnogsword in battle. SCA fighting means nothing in this respect.
Brilliant. Would it help you to know that the pavise was used as early as the 13th c. and probably even earlier? Did you know they were used almost exclusively by crossbowmen to protec tthem as they reloaded? Same holds true for hussites who fought with cannon, crossbow, and wheat threshing flails.
For practical purposes, the shield was essentially removed from european combat later on, although it existed in smaller, lighter forms like the buckler and remained in used in scotland - the targe.
And you draw this enlightened conclusion...where?
Luka, you can't make such sweeping claims as that. "Longsword are back up weapons" is far too broad. The fact is, some people used them as such, but just as many used them as their primary weapons. It's a preference thing, and evidence clearly shows use that they were very effective. A lonsword's strength in in it's versatility.
There are many answers to that, but the most likely is that they passed for the same reasons that all other medieval weapons have passed - they weren't needed anymore. Why halfsword when armour wasn't common? Longswords were moderately effective at anti-armour combat and wold lose much of their strong suits when armour was on the decline.
But lnogsword fencing remained. However it was a much more stylized and sport like combat art than it's 14th and 15th c. predecesors.
Tsafa, your entire argument here is based on 'Well, gee, they don't work in the SCA" which is a comment worthy of heavy speculation on our parts as to your knowledge of western combat. I'll repeat, as adam has done constantly, that drawing conclusions from the SCA is counter productive as best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 4:27:06 GMT
Last I read the 'sword' that the romans used in formation was the gladius, and it was used with highly specialized tactics. If there is a form of Sword /shield combat that SCA does resemble, it's most definitely not Roman tactics. really? Cuz i thought Type XV's were thrusting weapons. Seems they would suck pretty hardcore would they were so weak as to break trying to deflect a polearm thrust. Fiore fought in several battles using the techniques that he included in his manual. Quote: "Fiore Furlan dei Liberi da Premariacco, or Fiore dei Liberi,...In 1383, Fiore appears to have fought in Udine on the side of the town during the civil war there. In 1395, he was in Padua for a duel and four years later in 1399 he was in Pavia. Then in 1400 he was apparently appointed master swordsman to the court of Niccolo III díEste, Marquise of Ferrara, and later acquired a commission as a master swordsman. Master Fioreís teachings reflect a significant example of what knightly fighting arts were being practiced within this region of Europe during the later 14 and early 15 centuries."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 4:29:34 GMT
I also recall in several manuals there being sayings and teachings for when one is not merely fighting a single adversary. If the art were meant solely for dueling or sport, surely they would not have included such clear references to multiple man combat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 4:34:55 GMT
Tsafa, your entire argument here is based on 'Well, gee, they don't work in the SCA" which is a comment worthy of heavy speculation on our parts as to your knowledge of western combat. I'll repeat, as adam has done constantly, that drawing conclusions from the SCA is counter productive as best. When did I ever say Longsword does not work in the SCA. In fact many competitions are restricted to Greatsword vs Greatsword only and the fightbook methods work just fine. Why do you think I study WMA if not to apply that knowledge in the SCA in Greatsword tournaments. The reason they work is because those are one on one duels rather then battles. The longsword methods fail in battles, against polearms or against shieldmen. Where? I'm still waiting to hear specificaly in what battle longswords were exclusively used in a manor as shown in the fightbooks. I also recall in several manuals there being sayings and teachings for when one is not merely fighting a single adversary. If the art were meant solely for dueling or sport, surely they would not have included such clear references to multiple man combat. We'll need some specific references such as the text and the line number so we can consider the context. In all the Fiore, Ringeck, Talhofer illustrations, I have never seen multiple opponents. Any text to the contrary would have to be very direct. Defending against three bandits does not constitute a battle either. The key word there is "appears". I presume this is based on the prologue to the Flower of Battle, because it is very similar. The prologue is not specific in what capacity he served in the Battle of Udine. The entire quote has been paraphrased. According to one report Fiore was in charge of the ballista crews at Udine. I see no mention of cutting through the enemy with a longsword. www.chicagoswordplayguild.com/c/theTradition/theMasters.asp
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 5:23:20 GMT
SCA does a reasonable approximation of representing what its "core value" is. Two guys in "very up to date" armour of the 11-12th century. Anyone who has taken a rebated sword, and swung it against a guy wearing an aketon and maille (as listed in the Assise of Arms of 1187) at the level at which the SCA swings, understands that there would be perhaps a 5-10 blow limit before their opponent was in severe pain or injury. Why would someone grapple if that means giving up their entire solid defense? This is getting onto a new topic, which if people want, I can put either here, or in the WMA forum (as it is more fighting than swords).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 6:02:46 GMT
You might as well just but it here Oswyn. We have been off-topic for the last 3 pages already, so it can't hurt much. You brought up a good point, about how vulnerable a person makes themselves when they attempt to grapple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 13:21:08 GMT
Quote:Longswords were primarily back up weapons, but quite popular among the knights on the battlefield to. Luka, you can't make such sweeping claims as that. "Longsword are back up weapons" is far too broad. The fact is, some people used them as such, but just as many used them as their primary weapons. It's a preference thing, and evidence clearly shows use that they were very effective. A lonsword's strength in in it's versatility.
I agree it's very versatile weapon, and I can't really prove it, but it's logical to me that a knights in a knight vs knight battle would first charge with lances, than in a melee where there is not much place maces, warhammers and axes would probably be the most common weapons, and after that, when more free space would open up, swords would have been drawn, or earlier if a knight would lose his mace or hammer... In a battle against a mix of lightly armored opponents and some better armored ones, swords versatility would make it the best choice. It's a fact that the crushing weapons were much more effective and popular in heavy armored battle situations... I don't have a single source, but that is a quite common view of a situation through most of the 15th century when use of armor was at its peak...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 19:23:35 GMT
I just want to point out that 'grappling' doesn't mean 'rolling around on the ground with your adversary'. It means to grapple. That's all.
There are plenty of martial arts that specifically train in standing grappling. From the standing grapple you remain mobile with good passive defense, while retaining the option of breaking joints or dropping your opponent painfully to the ground where you can finish him - sometimes doing both at the same time.
Another thing I disagree with is the SCA's portrayal that in order to win you must be 200lbs +, Uber-Muscled, and capable of hitting harder than your opponent. I wonder why all these myths and stereotypes about the crude, aggressive, strength based combat of medieval europe are still around. Maybe it's because that's exactly what I see in the SCA. Two guys, as armored as they can get, run at each other and smack each other hoping to hit the other guy more and harder than you get hit in order to make him give up.
I can fight nearly full speed(around 90%) and have never injured my training partner beyond a small bruise here or there. There is no need to hit as hard as the SCA does, and all the focus on getting stronger, smacking harder, and gaining the ability to take hard smacks so you last longer... why not just strip down to your pedestrian clothes and kick each other in the groin until one of you falls over? It would accomplish the same thing...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 19:25:02 GMT
"Young knight learn, to love God and revere women, so that your honour grows. Practice knighthood and learn the Art that dignifies you, and brings you honour in wars. Wield spear, sword and dagger manfully, whose use in others’ hands is wasted"
-Liechtenauer, emphasis added
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 19:46:35 GMT
Another thing I disagree with is the SCA's portrayal that in order to win you must be 200lbs +, Uber-Muscled, and capable of hitting harder than your opponent. I wonder why all these myths and stereotypes about the crude, aggressive, strength based combat of medieval europe are still around. Maybe it's because that's exactly what I see in the SCA. Two guys, as armored as they can get, run at each other and smack each other hoping to hit the other guy more and harder than you get hit in order to make him give up. There are plenty of girls that fight in the SCA that are well under 150 lbs. If you like I can show you pictures. They fight with men and most of time you can't tell who is who because of the armor. They learn to hit up to the same standard as men using their lower body to generate power. If you are strong enough, you can use just you upper body, which will give less of a telegraph. As long as the fighting is restricted to no grappling (weapons only) women have an equal chance of winning if they are skilled with their weapon. That is one of the reasons grappling is restricted. When you start grappling the bigger man has the advantage. This evident in melees where pushing and shoving is allowed. The women stay off the front lines and do their work from the second row with a spear. Once grappling is allowed the fighting quickly turns into a football line of scrimmage. That is probably very historical, but is not something that demonstrates or develops weapon skill. I will also warn you that, you fight the same way you train. If you train with light hits, it is an error to assume that you can deliver consistently hard hits if you have to. It takes months of training to learn to hit hard from various angles. Adam you have yet to post any video demonstrating your fighting. You can get a decent digital camera that takes video for $35.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 19:57:59 GMT
How much of SCA training have you seen? The reason I ask is that the only time "200lbs +, Uber-Muscled, and capable of hitting harder than your opponent" matters are in a melee, where it isnt the hitting harder, it is the sheer physics of a 300+lb. person charging at a 100lb. person, and going OVER them. As far as hitting calibration, my point stands. I am about 170lbs. yet can get just about anyone in the SCA to agree that my "calibration level" (aka. how hard I hit them) is up to their standard. It isnt about hitting each other as hard as possible, or even who hits harder. It is about hitting "hard enough", to a mutually agreed upon standard. I am not sure where you are seeing guys go out there and pound on each other, with as much armour as they can put on. Personally, I wear about the minimum SCA armour (knees, elbows, hands, kidneys, neck, head) and have a pair of mountain biking shorts and a decent gambeson. That is all I wear. Yet I am competitive, and fine with that. I usually walk away from a 3hr practice session with a couple of bruises and nothing else.
You can fight at nearly full speed (90%), but how hard are you hitting? Are you pulling your blows at the last second? The SCA has the hardest hitting, fastest contact available for the scale. I am discounting Eastern European groups with like no insurance in this, as we in the US cant do that. Try taking a better look at real SCA combat with an understanding of how the rules tend to work. We have a one shot kill/disable rule, so as to ensure that one person cant "bulk up" and simply shrug off all of the shots, due to him being able to "stand it".
I am moving this discussion over to the WMA section, so we can finally get somewhat On-topic. You are free to join me there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2008 10:18:19 GMT
You're right, and Impact = Force / Time. The reason I avoided the Velocity^2 deal is because Velocity^2 is another way of writing Acceleration which is what the law of Force is actually based on, and Acceleration deals with time which adds in a whole mess of other complications like duration of impact and so on and so forth. My point was made either way. Velocity squared is not equal to acceleration. You could be travelling at 100 mph and not accelerating at all but using you're logic your a=10000mph^2 (not mph/h as actual accel would be measured). Accelartion is the rate of change of velocity. Now momentum is m * v and kinetic energy is 1/2 mv^2 and force is the rate of change of momentum so =ma. Sorry for nitpicking but it is fairly important.
|
|