Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 19:17:04 GMT
Regarding the armaments of warriors during the late 13th through 14th centuries:
"The Mace is named and pictured in evidences of this century. Many knights and men-at-arms were seriously injured with Maces in the tournaments, which led to this weapon being forbidden for use in such encounters.
The Halberd consisted of an axe-blade balanced by a pick, and having a pike-head at the end of the shaft. Should the axe-stroke fail, the soldier will retry a thrust with the piked head.
The 14th Century is the century of the English longbow, which proved its superiority against the crossbow used by the Continental armies. The archers were fighting mostly on foot. The bows were of two kinds: painted and plain (white). In the same period, the Medieval Warfare was revolutionized by the introduction of gunnery, represented by the mighty bombard, at this stage used mainly for siege purposes.
For the pursuit of a defeated foe, the lance retained its ancient efficacy, and it was still the most honored weapon in the tournaments. The length of the lance was about 14th feet. The material was usually ash. The head kept the leaf-form or lozenge-form. For infantry use, the same lance was cut down to a length of about five feet. It was not an efficient weapon against a foe using the mace or the axe, and consequently, the axe advanced in favor.
Throughout the century, knights and men-at-arms are found fighting with the battle-axe. The axes of this time were of two kinds: the short handled, and the pole-axe. The battle-axe and the pole-axe may be considered as being the same weapon, the difference between the two consisting in the length of the shaft. While one hand was sufficient to handle the battle-axe, the use of the pole-axe necessitated both hands. Both consisted of an axe-blade upon one side balanced by a spike upon the other. In this century, and also in the following, the axe became one of the most important weapons of war. We learn that during this period, the French men-at-arms were equipped each with a five feet spear and a battle- axe. "
Food for thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 19:31:07 GMT
Where is the first passage from (12th century one)? It sounds like someone who had interpreted some effigies as being maille which were not (according the the current historical community) The lower legs are exposed, yes, but rarely the thigh, on the outside or inside. The forearms can be exposed, depending on the time, as well as the face (often covered by a ventail). I am not sure there are many examples of non-integrated coifs, from the time of the Conquest onwards, leaving the hauberks alone to fall out of favor. I have never seen any indication of hauberks split along the sides, as that would make no sense from a practical standpoint. The other problem of looking at contemporary sources is that very few people build the skirt properly, expanding it along its length. To not do so leads to the A-frame opening, which does leave the legs vulnerable. yet in most illuminations, there is no such gap shown.
The development of plate armour had more to do with the ability to raise and form better blooms of steel, leading to the ability to produce larger solid "blanks" of metal. Trying to craft a breastplate from a 1'x2' piece of steel is kind of hard. The natural armour/sword progression has one side or the other having the advantage, until the other side sought a way to nullify it. From bronze to iron, maille to plate, arrows to guns, etc. That is a basic premise of evolutionary anthropology.
Mostly I agree with your assessment of the sword progression, but that still doesn't answer the question of what the people did when maille was the dominant contemporary armour, and the swords of the era were the type X through Xii, roughly. There had to be another way that they were used. At this point, it seems like we essentially agree on most of the facts, simply differing in our interpretation of what happened. Which is completely fine. I didn't start this thread to convince anyone to my way of thinking, simply to present "the other side of the arguement", as it seems it has gotten overlooked.
So correct me if any of the below is wrong. Quick summary (Era and time being defined as 1050-1200):
1. Maille had several protective features, and was the dominant armour of the era. 2. Most swords of the time were not designed around the thrust. 3. The contemporary sword was used against opponents in the armour of the time. 4. There were some gaps in the armour of the time that could be exploited.
My assumptions (based off the above): 1. Swords were used percussively against mailled opponents, leading to bruises neccesitating periods of long rest between melees (period documentation supports the waiting). 2. The shield was the basic solid defense of the era, regulating the maille to a last-ditch saving effort comparatively. 3. Grappling was not very advantageous, for the above reasons.
Your assumptions: 1. Opponents would have seeked to get around the maille, targeting the face/forearms/legs. 2. Shieldwork did not change drastically from then to the dueling shields of Talhoffer (maybe that wasn't you, someone else?)
Did I miss much? If so, please correct me. Sometimes I find it helpful to put small summaries together, so I can make sure both sides didn't miss anything. So much more fun to discuss when everyone is on the same page.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 19:41:49 GMT
Spears were the primary weapon of the vikings. Axes played a huge role as well. That's the answer, spears and axes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 19:45:39 GMT
The Talhoffer dueling shields thing wasn't me. As far as I can tell those dueling shields were specialized for the duel only. Also note that I also assume that there were other weapons involved on the battlefield, but I'm following this discussion based on the given that it was common that a man with just a sword would have come up against a man in mail. Your assumptions are correct as far as I can tell. What I disagree with is the assumption that it was the primary intent to use swords percussively against mail. I'm sure it happened a lot - the chaos of fighting being what it is. If I have a choice to not bruise you or to bruise you I'll at least go for the bruise. But at the same time if I have the option of bruising your shoulder or cutting your thigh, I'll cut your thigh. What I posted about the 12th century armor used primarily the Bayeux Tapestry as a source. I got if online awhile ago and saved the text, but can't find the website now. Here is an accompanying picture to the text: ![](http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/3571/hauberkkx2.gif)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 19:51:39 GMT
That looks to be a highly contorted figure. Not denying your information, but more the practicality of such a design. BTW, found the reference I was talking about. References 12/13th century melees, recovery times, etc. Mentions LOTS of bruises under the maille. www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=12342&highlight=recovery+meleeAdam, just wanted to make sure. As I said, we each have our own ways of getting to our assumptions. Darkintruder, can you please show me a "Viking" (Hint, there aren't any)? That being said, can you show me Axes in the timeperiod I talked about being used more than swords?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 20:14:51 GMT
Well, viking is an adjective, but you know what I mean. The Norse traders and seafarers who pillaged up and down the coasts of Northern Europe (and elsewhere). I never said axes were used more then swords, I said they were widely used. Surely you won't disagree that spears were the primary weapons of that period (That period meaning the period in which type X's and XI's were most widely used). www.regia.org/spear.htmwww.regia.org/axe.htmwww.regia.org/sword.htmThese people had a tendancy to use weapons that could also double as tools. Axes were certainly among them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 20:26:42 GMT
I certainly agree that spears were used. Again, that is percussive force through the maille (in this case, thrusts). For some reason, the axe seems to fall out of favor post-Conquest, though it may be the area I am looking at. Didn't mean to put words in your mouth about more vs. used. Swords seem to have more of an importance placed on them, and seem to have been regarded as a more "noble" weapon. Partly it might be that in tournaments, melees, holding for ransom, etc, it is far easier to hit lightly with a sword than an axe. For those times when all out death was not the goal, axes might have been too hard to control. Mass in the head, momentum and all that.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 11, 2008 20:28:58 GMT
Actually oswyn, the axe seems to have a boost in the later middle ages/renaissaince period. Many 16th c. axes of elaborate structure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 20:32:54 GMT
Are you referring to one-handed or two-handed variety, Ramm? Possibly coming back into vogue as the blunt force trauma is better distributed (for deeds of peace), or if aimed at articulations, possibly jamming them? I assume you are referring to things like the Bec de Corbin, and others of that relative style, as opposed to a typical Dane Axe?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 11, 2008 20:37:21 GMT
Don't quote me on it, but I believe they were prinicipally one handed, horseman weapons.
Obviously not the large two handed type.
However, the more I think about it, the more I can think of some large axe like weapons - the bardiche or bill, for examples? I tend to think that the axe morphed in several ways. Although there are still accounts of average soldiers in the hundred years war using larger axes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 20:39:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 20:51:07 GMT
Yeah, I noticed this forum has a tendency to drift...
Just slightly...
Hey Look, A cloud...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 21:00:16 GMT
I still say the SCA is more like a Medieval foot tourney meele then actual combat. All nobles, all armoured, blunted weapons, and you're not trying to actually kill each other. (Or using techniques that would do so.)
If they did that instead of saying it was an approximation of actual medieval warfare, I would be fine with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 21:35:33 GMT
Oh...pretty clouds...that one looks like a sheep.
What were we fighting about again? ;D
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 11, 2008 22:13:49 GMT
Interesting idea, I'll think of that. As it is, karma for you -I'd not thought of it like that. still, I'd think that there'd be much better foot movements and agility on average than is portrayed in the SCA.
|
|
Razor
Member
Review Points: 55
Today is tomorrow but not yet yesterday
Posts: 501
|
Post by Razor on Feb 11, 2008 23:21:32 GMT
Razor...the tip of the sword is only a credible threat is 1) you are unarmored and 2) if your sword actually had a sharp tip. While many swords after the 1300 hundreds did have a tip, many before did not. Since the SCA is focused on before, what you think they should do with a sword just does not apply. Take a type X swords and try to do a tip cut and see if that is something somebody in chain would consider a threat or something to be ignored. I do agree that the "boxer" or "chicken" stance favored in the east does leave your arms more open then needed. You can't take a manual or style from a sword used hundreds of years before or after a period and expect to be able to apply that directly. Yes some fundamentals are the same, but at some point thing just stop working. Try to do fiore with a khopesh and tell me how well that goes. Or try to do victorian rapier combat using a 15th centuray longsword. You MUST keep era in mind instead of well my WMA uses this style with this type of sword so it must work on ALL swords in ALL time periods. That's just foolish. When I said lead with the point I didn't mean a tip cut. It is best to strike around the sweet spot of the sword. Today people say it best to hold a Viking sword in a hand shake gripe. When holding a Viking sword in the hand shake gripe and when the sword is swung the sword point automatically leads the cut. between 700 to the Early to mid. 1300 the sword didn't chance much, it had two edges and a round tip, some sword had one edge and a pointier tip. I'm not talking about a rapier or a khopesh. I'm talking about a single handed sword with two edges and a tip, It doesn't matter what time period the sword is you can use the same technique. Cutting that way you can still hit hard. Oswyn...swords before and after SCA time period cut. So are you telling use that swords in the SCA time period didn't cut. I have never herd, read, or seen a documentaries say a sword in your time period wasn't used for cutting. Could you show me some evidence on that? swords with a round tip can still be use to thrust with. A mater of fact a broad bladed round tip sword can make a bigger wound then a thinner sword with a narrow tip. I saw a show on the History channel a couple of years ago,it was called "Weapons That Made Britain" it was about the sword and at the end they did some test cutting on different swords on I think a clay target. They had a Viking sword(broad blade round tip), a late medieval(thinner blade narrow tip), a long sword, and a falchion. The viking and medieval swords did about the same on both cut and thrust. Here is a good article on sword performance and the correct use of the blade. www.hammaborg.de/en/archiv/cuts_and_thrusts.php
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 23:42:44 GMT
That video is very interesting. I'm going to ignore the sword work because I found most of that to be uncommitted. Most of the strikes were nothing more then flicking the sword and would not harm someone even unarmored. I will give them the benefit that they did not want to harm each other because they were out of armor. The shield work is very interesting. You will notice that the main strategy is to move their body around the shield rather then move the shield. That is very sound for a shield that size. In fact, that is how you are suppose to handle a long 40"+ rapier. I don't because of my strength advantage, but that is besides the point. My question is this style historical??? I do not believe that the manuals say anywhere "move your body rather then the shield". I believe that this method was discovered through trial and error rather then instruction from a historical manual. They are fighting the way they found it works better. That is very SCA like. Most of the fighting in the SCA is discovery based on trial and error. Tsafa video show it, he is using his rattan sword and his real sword like a baton, he is hacking, chopping with his swords he is not cutting with them. He is also leaving his hand and arm an open target. The correct way to cut with a sword is to lead with the point of the sword ( it threatens the opponent, he has to deal with the threat and it helps to keep your hand/arm less of a target.) and not to chop like an ax or slice like a knife but to do both. Regarding sword-arm vulnerability... against another right handed fighter the arm is out of range for the most part. It is possible to hit it, but you have to do something in order for that to happen. Either move yourself or get the other person to move. Against a left handed fighter, the arm and my whole sword side is vulnerable. I need to sift to shield over and also drop the arm so that the sword is in a more defensive position guarding my arm and my ribs for that matter. Mind you, in the video you see me go into 5 and 6 combinations. I did that so you can better see the sword hitting with the edge. When fighting, people usually only do 2 or 3 shot combinations and get back into a guard. When you are attacking, you are inherently more vulnerable. If someone is just sitting in a defensive guard using both the shield and sword to block, they are very hard to hit. Of course, if they are just on defense, they can't hit you either. Regarding, my use of the sword. I use all parts of the sword depending on my position and my opponents position. (tip, middle, forte, back edge). A tip cut generally needs a lot of speed to be effective. I strike with the forte really needs some muscle behind it. You are basically punching with the sword in a forte strike. As to the issue of hacking or not, the question is will a hack with a sword do damage. My experiments with my real swords on wood, suitcases and old furniture shows that these strikes are effective. I am sure there are other ways to use the sword too such as draw cuts and so forth, but that does not take away from the effectiveness of the strikes that I make. The important question to ask is: Am I defensible? Do I pose a threat? The question of: Is there a better way to do it, is altogether different and not the subject matter. Also, I would like to figure this out once and for all. What percentage of soldiers in an "average" 11th century battle wore maile? There is no way to tell. There are no statistics. We only know that mail was an option as was layers of linen and leather. We know that full-plate was not an option yet. We are fairly sure that most people did not go into battle unarmored. It is reasonable to assume that they wore as much armor as they could in an effort to stay alive.
|
|
Razor
Member
Review Points: 55
Today is tomorrow but not yet yesterday
Posts: 501
|
Post by Razor on Feb 12, 2008 0:15:26 GMT
That video is very interesting. I'm going to ignore the sword work because I found most of that to be uncommitted. Most of the strikes were nothing more then flicking the sword and would not harm someone even unarmored. I will give them the benefit that they did not want to harm each other because they were out of armor. The shield work is very interesting. You will notice that the main strategy is to more their body around the shield rather then move the shield. That is very sound for a shield that size. In fact, that is how you are suppose to handle a long 40"+ rapier. I don't because of my strength advantage, but that is besides the point. My question is this style historical??? I do not believe that the manuals say anywhere "move your body rather then the shield". I believe that this method was discovered through trial and error rather then instruction from a historical manual. They are fighting the way they found it works better. That is very SCA like. Most of the fighting in the SCA is re-discovery based trial and error. I agree with the sword work Tsafa. When it comes with large shield work(not buckler) their is no fight book found (yet it would be cool if one is found.) that shows how to fight with a shield in the early medieval days. SCA and WMA both have to re-discover based on trial and error, their are just doing in deferent ways . WMA is using historical art work, carvings etc. form B.C. till Scottish targe in post renaissance, with the writing of the masters like Talhoffer, Agrippa, Di Grassi, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 0:30:38 GMT
You know Razor, one of the things that I was amazed to find out at my WMA practice is that the whole striking on the passing step that is basic to longsword fighting is not mentioned with any certainty in any of the manuals. It has been pieced together based on hints. "Move the sword first"... well how can that be done... hmmm... passing step works. How to advance without changing foot position...hmmm.... gathering step works. If you read Toblers first book "Secrets..." and his second book "Fighting..." Things change. He changes the position Vam Tag which is the most basic guard. He changes his interpretation of the Schielhau strike so that it is almost altogether different. There is a long time debate between Tobler and Clements over one should block with the flat or the edge. Minor details, but still not spelled out in manuals. A person must decide on his own what works best for him. Even among purists who follow the manual only, there is a lot that is unknown and is based on trial and error. This is not too different what what is done in the SCA. It gets more blurry because SCA fighters also look at 15 th century manuals for guidance. There is nothing on Sword and shield work, so that means we have to fill in more blanks in one vs the other. One thing is certainly clear in this image. Those guys have mail from head to toe. It is also worth mentioning that in some kindgoms, such as the East, only "positive pressure" is required on the faceplate to reflect that the face in completely unarmored. I do believe that longer kite shields were more common in the 10th and 11 th century. I don't think heaters that only go up until the knee became poplar until greaves were more common. I would not use a heater without solid greaves. I still say the SCA is more like a Medieval foot tourney meele then actual combat. All nobles, all armoured, blunted weapons, and you're not trying to actually kill each other. (Or using techniques that would do so.) If they did that instead of saying it was an approximation of actual medieval warfare, I would be fine with it. Well yeah, I do think the singles combat is representative of medieval tournaments and the melees of actual combat. But even in medieval times the tournament were meant as a test of skills that would be used in real combat. The nature of tournaments changed between the 10th century and the 15th century. Early on, tournaments were over open fields. They were more war like then sport like. They used sharp weapons, participants often died. The goal was to take prisoners and ransom them. That was the prize. They were often beaten unconscience towards that end. Great destruction was often done to peasant land. Nobles often hid in fields and the fastest was to get them out was with fires. For this reason tournaments were outlawed in England. It was not until the intervention of the church and the chivalric movement that tournaments became more of a sport by the 15th century. Damn... it took me two hours to read all your posts and respond. No more posting today. Going to gym.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 1:01:18 GMT
|
|