Anyone have thoughts on the Hurstwic system?
Dec 11, 2014 13:15:05 GMT
Post by MrTripleD on Dec 11, 2014 13:15:05 GMT
Draven wrote
I haven't seen the DVDs and I live too far away to view the system in person, but I've watched the website for quite a while. Given the lack of manuscripts, I think that combat based on descriptions in the Sagas is a great place to start. Even if they are not factual descriptions of what occurred in a specific fight, I find it unlikely that they were not based on the combat of the day.
Regarding jumping over a weapon rather than trapping it or retreating, situation dictates. You do what you have to do in a given situation to survive. It is worth noting that when someone attacks, they expect you to either move, parry or be injured - to find that your weapon has missed the mark (ie hit nothing at all) and your opponent was standing basically in the same spot they were before would probably be quite surprising.
Unrelated to Hurstwic but in the vein as reconstructed Viking combat, Roland Warzecha has also shown a theoretical recreation of Viking age combat that I think is particularly interesting:
... e=youtu.be
It features the shield as a dynamic primary weapon and the sword/axe being more of a secondary weapon of opportunity - openings are created with the shield and exploited with the edged weapon. This is based on later treatises and body-mechanics, and IMO poses a likely, effective way for Viking-age combat to work, at the very least with one-on-one combat. It also provides a very good reason as to why Viking age shields are not strapped to the arm, but allowed to rotate and move freely in the hand.
ThegnThrand uses it in this video also, and he cites Roland Warzecha specifically as influencing it:
Just my 0.02
I haven't seen the DVDs and I live too far away to view the system in person, but I've watched the website for quite a while. Given the lack of manuscripts, I think that combat based on descriptions in the Sagas is a great place to start. Even if they are not factual descriptions of what occurred in a specific fight, I find it unlikely that they were not based on the combat of the day.
Regarding jumping over a weapon rather than trapping it or retreating, situation dictates. You do what you have to do in a given situation to survive. It is worth noting that when someone attacks, they expect you to either move, parry or be injured - to find that your weapon has missed the mark (ie hit nothing at all) and your opponent was standing basically in the same spot they were before would probably be quite surprising.
Unrelated to Hurstwic but in the vein as reconstructed Viking combat, Roland Warzecha has also shown a theoretical recreation of Viking age combat that I think is particularly interesting:
... e=youtu.be
It features the shield as a dynamic primary weapon and the sword/axe being more of a secondary weapon of opportunity - openings are created with the shield and exploited with the edged weapon. This is based on later treatises and body-mechanics, and IMO poses a likely, effective way for Viking-age combat to work, at the very least with one-on-one combat. It also provides a very good reason as to why Viking age shields are not strapped to the arm, but allowed to rotate and move freely in the hand.
ThegnThrand uses it in this video also, and he cites Roland Warzecha specifically as influencing it:
Just my 0.02
I like the idea. Especially using body mechanics to keep use of energy and movement of the shield down. Shield can't help you if you're too tired to carry it!