Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 1:19:24 GMT
Yes, Kortso, I know there are pictures in Talhoffer the shows the use of dueling shields but their is no instruction. My question in the video was specific to the way they were being used... "moving the body around the shield".
Tallhoffer offers no instruction in any of his illustrations. It is speculated by WMA students that Tallhoffer did not issue his publications for the same reason the Lichener, Ringeck and Fiore did. These three masters actually issued the publications as a means to pass on knowledge. It is speculated that Tallhoffer posted his templets as an advertisement to bring people to his school so he can make money.
|
|
Razor
Member
Review Points: 55
Today is tomorrow but not yet yesterday
Posts: 501
|
Post by Razor on Feb 12, 2008 1:24:04 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. I agree and under stand what you are saying. Interpretation will all ways change and people will disagree,until there is a time machine and we learn straight from the masters. But if we work together we can come up with a better understanding how they fought. I hope you don't think that I was attacking you in your video Tsafa? It was a good video showing SCA strikes. When I say leading the cut with the point I don't mean tip cut or draw cutting or slicing. I mean don't lead the sword by the hilt or the pommel. if you lead the sword with the hilt you will hit harder but it isn't as safe as leading with the point. Something like this. I agree that a sword at least can be used as a blunt weapon but to only to use it that way looses all its potential. That is why there is all these sword forums and(I don't know)no ax, mace, or spear forums. In my opinion a sword is more then a ax, mace, knife/dagger, or spear but kind of like them all in its own way.
|
|
Razor
Member
Review Points: 55
Today is tomorrow but not yet yesterday
Posts: 501
|
Post by Razor on Feb 12, 2008 1:33:54 GMT
[quote The important question to ask is: Am I defensible? Do I pose a threat? If your hand/wrist is not a target? Then yes. Again if your hand/wrist is not a target? Then yes.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 12, 2008 1:48:23 GMT
Or lower legs.
I think tsafa would pose a threat to the untrained peasant soldier, drafted from his home with little military training. But not the nobles he's representing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 2:33:16 GMT
You guys keep citing the lower legs as being a vunerable point, but when you are fighting with sword and shield or axe and shield or any other combination with a shield your lower legs are only at risk against a long sword and in the era you are talking about they were really not that common.
My area of expertise is 800 - 1300 and situated around the city of Byzantium. The scandinavian warriors in the employ of Byzantium had great two handed axes that were an intimidation to the enemies of Byzantium, they also wore llamelar armour and maille. The scandinavian warriors were so strong that they could use their massive axes one handed and also huge shields. They were warriors without rival amongst the Byzantines and their enemies.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 12, 2008 2:40:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 12, 2008 2:57:47 GMT
Also talhoffrer:
plates...
261
267 (mounted combat)
282 (polearms, but enlightening nonetheless)
262, 263 (shows the importance of hands)
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 12, 2008 3:12:00 GMT
www.thearma.org/essays/LegWounds.htmOr this.... www.thearma.org/essays/fullleg.htm"It is incredible how people can think they are sparring realistically when they don't know how to defend their lower legs or deliver effective attacks there. Practitioners who ignore the lower legs are deluding themselves. No matter how much they tell themselves that their legs aren't vulnerable, no matter how hard they try to believe they couldn't be hit there, the reality is otherwise. All they have to do is fight with full-leg targets against someone practiced at it and they will quickly see the cold truth."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 3:26:08 GMT
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? Did you really read what I had posted, or simply skim it? What I was referring to was the fact that the swords could not cut, because of the maille everyone is assumed to be wearing . Now if you would like to point out how it is able to cut through maille, please do. Sorry, just peeved at how people tend to read parts of the posts, without bothering to figure out what I am trying to say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 3:27:55 GMT
Ramm, you mean the first part on the "Leg Wounds" link, where the lower leg is blocked, but the guy is about to get hit in the head? We have a phrase for that. It is called "Bad Trade". So opening up lower leg strikes is only problematic if you are able to attack it safely.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 12, 2008 3:30:32 GMT
Take a look at all of the things I posted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 3:35:34 GMT
Ramm: I'm sorry mate but I have done combat where the legs are a target and with the right footwork and shield work it is very hard, near impossible to get at the legs without opening yourself to a killing stroke. If it is sword against sword without shield it is more doable but fighting with a shield gives you great defensive abilities, and the ability to take your legs out of the equation against any but the very best. Shorter people have an advantage in keeping their legs from becoming a target. Long weapons are the only really viable option for taking the leg as a target, anything else opens you up too much.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 12, 2008 4:10:56 GMT
BW, I'm sorry but these guys have FAR more experience than you do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 6:15:29 GMT
Ohh...I see what you mean razor. Humm I suppose that it is a bit safer doing it that way...and you could get enough force out of that. But why aren't you letting your shield protect you so your sword can be more offensive? I mean leading with the tip isn't just about less force...it's also more telegraphed and easier to block with a shield. The big advantange of going hilt first is that if they move their shield, you can move your sword to some degree (I can go from a flat snap to the head to an off side or low off side easily just about anytime...if early enough I can change to a low snap). With the tip leading, your pretty much commited to that attack...unless you brute force change it...but your not gonna last long in a fight doing that. If I didn't have the benefit of a shield, I would definately attack leading with the tip like you mentioned...I just don't see the need to reduce my offense so much when I do have a shield however.
As for lower leg attacks...well...if both are using larger shields (like in the east), it's really less of an issue then you think. When you use smaller shields like here in the west...it becomes something fairly obvious and very viable targets (which is why we started using punch blocking techniques so we don't have to care where the attack is going, we just negate it at the source...something that looks like it's happening in the I33 pics). The downside is that it doesn fatigue your shield arm something fierce. Even with small bucklers. So yes I can see i:33 with sword and buckler attacking the lower leg.
Considering that I use a small 9 inch shield in my SCA combat and I never met a type XIV i didn't like, I maybe be partial to I33 hehe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 7:18:37 GMT
[quote The important question to ask is: Am I defensible? Do I pose a threat? If your hand/wrist is not a target? Then yes. Again if your hand/wrist is not a target? Then yes. The forearm is a target one inch above the wrist. I rarely get hit there but it does happen though. In fighting there is always a risk of getting hit somewhere. Another issue with hitting people on the forearm is that it is lighter and gives. So with forearm braces many times when I do get hit there but the impact is not hard enough because the arm gives. If it was a sharp sword it would likely not penetrate the leather braces or break my arm. Forearms are hard to get. Ram, you have been told repeatedly by different people that SCA people at times "unofficially" put on leg greaves and allow for low leg hits. It is not an easy target. It is also an issue of geometry. If a person is aiming for my low legs, I don't have to actually bring my shield down to my ankles to block the shot. If I punch out a little, I can stuff the shot higher up. That is if I don't sword block the low leg shot. Against a polearm or a greatsword, I would have to close in with shield up and sword down until I close the range if I was using a heater. If low legshot were allowed in the SCA, I would trade my heater for a long kite. The kite is more narrow and comes down half way between the knee and ankle. The kite is more narrow to maintain the same weight so now I have to do more side to side blocking. In my WMA class we normally don't target the legs either. It is a target of opportunity, but not one you go out of your way for because you usually get hit in the head if you do. As for lower leg attacks...well...if both are using larger shields (like in the east), it's really less of an issue then you think. When you use smaller shields like here in the west...it becomes something fairly obvious and very viable targets (which is why we started using punch blocking techniques so we don't have to care where the attack is going, we just negate it at the source...something that looks like it's happening in the I33 pics). The downside is that it doesn fatigue your shield arm something fierce. Even with small bucklers. So yes I can see i:33 with sword and buckler attacking the lower leg. Working with a buckler is a perfect example of the geometry I was talking about. You don't have to lower the buckler to your legs to block them. By punching out you can meet the sword on its way down and intercept it. In all cases sword strikes are coming from the shoulder. You can stop it there with a small shield. It is more efficient to use the buckler that way because you are moving it less.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 8:24:10 GMT
tsafa, yes you know us westies love our punch blocking. The downside like I mentioned is that your shield arm does tire out pretty fierce. I'm sure somebody who trains for a living doing this would last longer, but still...some of these people that do SCA aren't exactly weaklings either. It also means that your defense will wear down faster then your offense since your shield arm will tire way before your sword arm which does leave some nice opening for lower leg shots in many fights I noticed (usually by keeping your shield low, attack high so their shield gets in the way of the high shot and your shield block the low shot, step in towards their shield and the lower legs is nice and open...this only works when the shield works start to get a bit sluggish though...or they are new and unskilled ![:)](//storage.forums.net/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) ).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 11:17:37 GMT
Leg shots are not that hard to block for goodness sake! They are very hard to do properly against an opponent for all the reasons that Tsafa said. You can also fudge a leg shot with your blade or your shield and then whilst fudging the cut "kill" your opponent. All you guys saying that leg shots are viable sound like bloody armchair combatants. That's ok though because even armchair combatants can have opinions to. Why not pick up a sword and shield or simulator and try it out against someone who can actually use a sword and shield.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 16:22:11 GMT
Lower leg shots, yeah. I can reliably hit most guys in the lower thigh, though. Part of it has to do with lots and lots of practice. And the fact I am making them blind themsleves with their shield by faking for the head.
Tsafa, Coldnapalm to get the speed neccesary for this, all you do is throw the shot while leaving the hand directly on the ball of your hip joint. Use your legs and hips to power the shot, and your torso should be fairly locked. I use it as a recovery shot, after going for something else and my hand ends up down there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 18:05:16 GMT
Ramm, I am not saying that it is impossible to hit someone there. None of us are. We are simply stating that removing that target does not impact the overall fighting to an overwhelming degree. We are saying it is difficult to hit someone there, without them being able to reciprocate towards a higher threat target (head, chest, etc). There is a distinctive safety risk when swinging as hard as we are, to a relatively thin bone which has very little room to give (as all of our weight is on it).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 19:02:21 GMT
While i agree that the lower leg or thigh isn't the most tactically sound maneuver possible, and voiding it isn't the most difficult thing to do in fencing; nonetheless by removing it completely is still removing an aspect of combat. It's still one less thing to worry about from a defensive position, and one less target from an offensive position - especially when people start getting tired and sloppy.
It is for those reasons that they should be included - not because they are primary targets, but because they are still targets.
|
|