|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 9, 2017 0:49:45 GMT
This is why it's critical to look at your source. They are NOT WEARING GAUNTLETS in Gladiatoria. It may be that this was part of the duel's restrictions. Who knows. In any case the source is all about how to close measure without getting crosswise with the other guy's spear. The other plates show various combinations of spear throwing and counters. In this context the option of tossing an alternate object and keeping your best weapon--the spear--is appealing.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jun 9, 2017 1:01:31 GMT
I was thinking on this technique and i feel it may have a practical purpose. Most swords in this tine period are peened yes? Thus it is likely that your opponent wouldn't even know that your pommel detaches. So just prior to the duel, you unscrew your pommel most of the way so that it is barely hanging on. The duel starts and you just give it a quick twist amd it comes off. You then lob it at your opponent and he goes wtf? Don't underestimate the advantage of even momentary surprise or the flinch response to something flying at your head. So with your opponent surprised, you rush in and do your thing to him. I wouldnt worry about the sword falling apart. The guard and grip may be fixed on independently from the pommel, and even if it does fall apart, you're gonna use it to halfsword anyway and all you really need is the blade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 2:10:28 GMT
Stick your arm in front of your face when he throws his pommel so you don't get your bell rung.
I have outwitted the learned masters.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jun 9, 2017 2:48:25 GMT
Stick your arm in front of your face when he throws his pommel so you don't get your bell rung. I have outwitted the learned masters. Actually that may well be the entire point. I don't think its expected that the thrown pommel would do anything meaningful to an armoured opponent. I believe it's thrown to act as a distraction. Get the opponent to react to it in some way so that you have an opening to rush in and launch more conventional techniques.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 3:26:32 GMT
If he's close enough to do that, why not just stab him when he starts to throw? If he's too far away for that, then you'll have recovered well before he closes. That's what I mean when I say this doesn't make any sense.
It could conceivably work in an ambush, to catch their mind and close in before they realize what's happening. I've got something like that in my JSA studies, but it's not really meant for a context where everybody knows they are about to duel and is all armored up with weapons in their hands ready to go and so forth. If it was something like you were walking down the street or leaving someone's house after dinner or something, then I could see it maybe having some utility, but that's not the context. We keep hearing about judicial duel, you don't just stumble into one as you round the corner.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jun 9, 2017 3:34:51 GMT
If he's close enough to do that, why not just stab him when he starts to throw? If he's too far away for that, then you'll have recovered well before he closes. That's what I mean when I say this doesn't make any sense. It could conceivably work in an ambush, to catch their mind and close in before they realize what's happening. I've got something like that in my JSA studies, but it's not really meant for a context where everybody knows they are about to duel and is all armored up with weapons in their hands ready to go and so forth. If it was something like you were walking down the street or leaving someone's house after dinner or something, then I could see it maybe having some utility, but that's not the context. We keep hearing about judicial duel, you don't just stumble into one as you round the corner. He probably would not expect a detachable pommel and therefore the throw would likely be a surprise. Regarding range, if i had to do this technique, (i wouldn't) i would execute the pommel throw at a range where i can close the distance in one passing step. I would therefore have time to close the distance for striking when he reacts to the throw. Theres a proper name for that range but i can't remember. (Wide measure?)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 4:11:13 GMT
Just leaving a slight openning is an invitation, preparing to throw is giving him that opening. If you are a passing step from him, he is a passing step from you. Why isn't he striking you? This has to assume he's staring baffled, if he's that poor an opponent why bother with throwing anyway. He's just going to watch you with a slow confused expression then why not just hit him with the sword, instead of literally screwing around with it?
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jun 9, 2017 5:20:47 GMT
It doesn't really though. If you get to attack first, why risk missing with a goofy throw? If you get to make a first strike and the other guy has to grin and bear it, why not wind up and swing for the fences? The arguments against "baseball swing" style wide attacks is that they leave you open - if you get a free shot there is no disadvantage to it, and it's a lot more likely to have the desired effect than lobbing the pommel. If the opponent has to allow you to throw the first strike, then all the arguments about how open a given technique makes you go right out the window. If they just have to stand there while you do whatever, why not simply settle the point of the sword against the eye slit or any opening / joint in the armor and then drive it through? This really doesn't make any lick of sense. You're right. It doesn't make sense - because that wasn't what I said. What I said was "perhaps there was a rule in place where one of the duelists got the first strike." I said nothing about what the opponent was allowed to do. I highly doubt there was a rule that one person got to hit the other while they just stood there and took it. That's an execution, not a duel, and yes, it would be colossally stupid. What is more probable is that one person was allowed to take a swing at the other - and the other guy was allowed to block, counterattack, or evade as he chose. The act of the first striker making an attack would trigger the duel. Throwing rocks seems quite primitive to us, but the fact remains that in many cultures rock throwing was a accepted (though usually last ditch) form of combat. Gerald of Wales mentions the Irish as being quite deadly with thrown rocks, and there was a certain type of Greek soldier (I forget the exact term) that was equipped simply with a cloak wrapped around one arm and rocks to throw. I'm reminded of Japanese shuriken, which, by their very nature, were almost impossible to kill with. Their primary application was distraction. Obviously, a pommel is going to do no damage to someone in full plate. However, it very likely would stun or disorient them for at least a second, giving you a critical moment to attack them when they are off guard. Obviously, this is not an amazing technique which works in every situation, or works at all in most situations. However, I believe it could at least offer a slight (and temporary) advantage, which can mean the difference between life and death in this sort of situation. At any rate, unless new texts are discovered which shed light on this particular mystery, I doubt we'll ever know the truth.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Jun 9, 2017 5:23:39 GMT
Stick your arm in front of your face when he throws his pommel so you don't get your bell rung. I have outwitted the learned masters. Try that in full armor, with a visor obscuring you vision. I doubt it's as easy as you think. And if you do manage to deflect the pommel with your arm, then it has done exactly as it was intended to do: distract you and get you to focus on something other then your opponent's attack which is currently stabbing at your armor joints.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jun 9, 2017 6:01:47 GMT
Just leaving a slight openning is an invitation, preparing to throw is giving him that opening. If you are a passing step from him, he is a passing step from you. Why isn't he striking you? This has to assume he's staring baffled, if he's that poor an opponent why bother with throwing anyway. He's just going to watch you with a slow confused expression then why not just hit him with the sword, instead of literally screwing around with it? If you do sparring, it does occur that people stand in guard and wait for your attack, hoping to execute a counter. So it's not unbelievable that you could get an opportunity to throw the pommel. Of course, im not saying that the pommel throw is a good idea or some brilliant tactic, im just saying that perhaps it has some merit and may not be total nonsense
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jun 9, 2017 6:04:07 GMT
I was also thinking that perhaps the pommel throw is an abuse of the ruleset of the duel or competition. Perhaps succesful pommel hits are scored in your favour and throwing the pommel is a dirty way to score a point whilst technically being within the rules
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 9, 2017 7:35:04 GMT
It doesn't make sense because you won't read the source. It offers this as the response to a thrown pommel:
So every move has a counter. This is a theme running through every fight book. It does not render all moves null and void. In this case they are outside measure considering whether to throw something or try to close to fighting measure. That's where you'd throw a pommel in lieu of the spear. Makes a lot of sense. If you try to rush the guy as he's unscrewing the pommel, he has his spear in a defensive position and can counter with it or the longsword.
You presumably remove the pommel without him noticing and surprise him with it. Not sure why this is such an impossibility in your mind. In the illustration the sword is being held with the handle close to the chest, elbow toward the opponent wrapped around a defensive spear. A period thread might have only a few turns to release.
Is it a *good* idea? Who knows. We're a long way from judicial duels in armor. But it's presented as a suggestion and should be taken seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 11:55:15 GMT
Of course I've read it, lets not go that road.
If you truly want to believe it is not a dumb move and laughably implausible, be my guest.
Cosmoline, if a pommel were easily removed they'd have been falling off left and right. Maybe they just used garbage swords back then.
Look at all the contortions you guys have to go through to get this to even have a shot at working in your mind. That should tell you something.
Learn how to make a convincing feint, now you distracted him to create your opening and you didn't need to disassemble your weapon or use one that is either poorly balanced with the pommel on, or off.
Its useless fluff at best
But yes it certainly is a thing that was written down so it must work, be right back gonna go reread the lesser key of solomon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 12:32:32 GMT
Stick your arm in front of your face when he throws his pommel so you don't get your bell rung. I have outwitted the learned masters. Try that in full armor, with a visor obscuring you vision. I doubt it's as easy as you think. And if you do manage to deflect the pommel with your arm, then it has done exactly as it was intended to do: distract you and get you to focus on something other then your opponent's attack which is currently stabbing at your armor joints. If the visor is obscuring your vision that much how can you hope to hit a head sized target with a pommel? You can't have this both ways.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Jun 9, 2017 13:00:33 GMT
Simple you just take off the gauntlet first since the dope you are throwing your snap-off pommel is too busy chewing his cud to notice anyway. Wow, this made me howl with laughter...my wife had to ask me to quiet down... Bravo!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 13:40:57 GMT
Simple you just take off the gauntlet first since the dope you are throwing your snap-off pommel is too busy chewing his cud to notice anyway. Wow, this made me howl with laughter...my wife had to ask me to quiet down... Bravo! :)
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 9, 2017 16:31:11 GMT
Are you claiming pommels could NOT be threaded? And that he was not only inventing the move out of whole cloth, but inventing the very concept of a threaded pommel? Or maybe he invented threading! So now he's not only inventing new sword methods, he's inventing entirely new concepts in metal working! He's a genius on the level of Eli Whitney.
Every single sword fighting move must have certain conditions to succeed. Not having a blade or shield blocking your path for one. Not being killed in the mean time for another. In this case the idea is to throw the pommel hard at the opponent and immediately close measure to hopefully take advantage of an opening. Ideally the pommel would knock the helmet ajar or discombobulate the opponent. If not, then you deal with his spear instead. Nothing is guaranteed. Not ever.
I don't know if it's a good or even terribly viable plan. My theory is he saw or heard of it being done, and put it in his book as something to consider. If not something you would do, then something your OPPONENT MIGHT DO! So he includes advice on how to respond. Use your buckler and prepare your spear. To dismiss this because it sounds goofy is an arrogant and anachronistic reading of the source. People did indeed throw things at each other in period combat. This should not be shocking or give rise to guffaws of laughter.
I have to ask how much harness fighting you've done or squired for. Helmets do get knocked out of alignment. And with some designs this means your vision is instantly obscured. Helmets, along with gauntlets, are the most tricky pieces of harness in the kit.
As far as the ability to throw, the source shows NO GAUNTLETS BEING USED. And assuming this is artistic convention or that gloves were used, then you just flipping PRACTICE. You get a target and practice unscrewing and throwing over and over again until you can do it fast and accurately in harness. People did indeed practice. They did indeed have secret moves to surprise an opponent. And others did indeed write about these moves when they witnessed them.
And if you miss? Meh. This is harness fighting. If you're not going to invert your sword the pommel doesn't do much of anything. You will be half swording. Not to mention you still have a SPEAR handy. So you're sacrificing something you probably won't need in hopes of getting a moment's advantage to get to some sweet spot where you can actually hurt the guy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 16:49:44 GMT
Are you claiming pommels could NOT be threaded? And that he was not only inventing the move out of whole cloth, but inventing the very concept of a threaded pommel? Every single sword fighting move must have certain conditions to succeed. Not having a blade or shield blocking your path for one. Not being killed in the mean time for another. In this case the idea is to throw the pommel hard at the opponent and immediately close measure to hopefully take advantage of an opening. Ideally the pommel would knock the helmet ajar or discombobulate the opponent. If not, then you deal with his spear instead. Nothing is guaranteed. Not ever. I don't know if it's a good or even terribly viable plan. My theory is he saw or heard of it being done, and put it in his book as something to consider. If not something you would do, then something your OPPONENT MIGHT DO! So he includes advice on how to respond. Use your buckler and prepare your spear. To dismiss this because it sounds goofy is an arrogant and anachronistic reading of the source. People did indeed throw things at each other in period combat. This should not be shocking or give rise to guffaws of laughter. No, I'm claiming if they were threaded so the could easily be removed for throwing, then day to day jostling and use while shifting grips would make them unreliable. I wouldn't have thought I needed to spell this out, but I guess we're at the point in the thread where you start transparently gaslighting? If thinking this technique is dumb makes me arrogant and anachronistic, then fine. It's a dumb technique. When you have to torture conditions to make something almost sort of maybe possibly work, it's a garbage technique advocated by a hack.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 9, 2017 16:54:07 GMT
Let's boil this down. Are you claiming pommels were simply not threaded? Because you seem to be saying if they were the swords would be unusable (though I have quite a few swords that are secured by a wee nut and they work fine). If there were no threaded pommels, then he'd have to have invented the concept AND invented the idea of throwing one. Why would he do this? The text is serious, and focused on how to save your life when someone is dueling with you in harness.
So did this author invent the concept of a threaded pommel? And if so, why?
Remember that we know there were custom made harness fighting longswords. We have museum examples and examples in the treatises. There's no reason to think there couldn't be a custom harness blade with a screw-off pommel. It wouldn't be for day to day fighting. And it's also possible it was secured by a pin which could be removed pre-fight. That concept goes back as far as the dark ages when vikings did it with their spears sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 9, 2017 17:02:38 GMT
It's also interesting to contrast your idea for a counter:
With Gladiatoria's
The author was suggesting you take the impact of a pommel pretty seriously, and prepare. To try to use fairly thin armor on your fore arm or hand (which is shown bare in the text) is goofier than the idea of throwing a pommel. So yeah I'm sticking with the source on this whole thing. If a weighted piece of steel is flying at you, Plan A should not be to stick your arm in front of it. Plan A should be to deflect with the buckler and have the spear prepared for the follow-up, as the source states. I find the source far more credible here.
|
|