|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 11, 2019 22:50:45 GMT
Well HEMA is pretty speculative, too. We still don't really know why the KDF texts were written, or what they were actually written about. The bad rep of speculative reconstructions is that there has been so much nonsense from those circles. I think the key is to apply martially sound standards to whatever you're doing. SCA heavies are a good example. I love the folks, but the basic idea that early medieval fighting was based on super hard sword hits has no basis in reality. So you end up with padded club fighting that doesn't tell us much about actual medieval sword fighting. The solution is not difficult. You simply have to test your ideas in various ways. If someone from SCA had tested this idea they would have found that even massive hits from a period sword do little or nothing to riveted mail, and at most create a bruise under the armor. But the concepts were written into their system back in the 80's and nobody can change them now without creating huge controversies. Even doing something as minor as replacing the padded clubs with steel simulators has proven very difficult for them.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 13, 2019 0:17:36 GMT
Roger Norling over on HROARR has some neat articles on Meyer's reasoning for writing his fechtbuch. Some people believe Talhoffer wrote his manuals as a resume of sorts, which would explain the lack of text in his work but other than those two ive never heard much on "the why " either. Are those two even considered KDF? Fair enough on the other part, I fedl Hurstwic and ACTA really appear to be doing it the right way though and probably deserve a little more credit for their work in the HEMA community, imo. We do know more about Meyer, in part because he explains himself to his patron. But he was very late in the game. I just went to a lecture from Michael Chidester of Wiktenauer this past weekend. He has been trying to link the sources to other primary sources. For example, if the original KDF was intended as a guide to judicial duels, can we find outside references to contemporary masters or to a practice of special training? So far, there's very little for the 14th or 15th. He has unearthed some material from Renaissance Italy, but the judicial duels described at that point were quite different from what's discussed in Liechtenauer. The role of fencing masters in general remains rather surprisingly unknown or at least unmentioned in wider primary sources. Though Michael noted that there's a ton of material in various German museums and archives yet to be explored.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 13, 2019 4:55:20 GMT
Well HEMA is pretty speculative, too. We still don't really know why the KDF texts were written, or what they were actually written about. The bad rep of speculative reconstructions is that there has been so much nonsense from those circles. I think the key is to apply martially sound standards to whatever you're doing. SCA heavies are a good example. I love the folks, but the basic idea that early medieval fighting was based on super hard sword hits has no basis in reality. So you end up with padded club fighting that doesn't tell us much about actual medieval sword fighting. The solution is not difficult. You simply have to test your ideas in various ways. If someone from SCA had tested this idea they would have found that even massive hits from a period sword do little or nothing to riveted mail, and at most create a bruise under the armor. But the concepts were written into their system back in the 80's and nobody can change them now without creating huge controversies. Even doing something as minor as replacing the padded clubs with steel simulators has proven very difficult for them.
I mean, claiming HEMA as a blanket term is pretty speculative is I think more than a little inaccurate. Sure, we might not have an exact idea of why the KDF was written or the I.33 was written, I haven't read them but I have read that the latter was written for civilian usage and the former as a source for fighting in the general sense of it, but actually for quite a lot of treatises we know why they were written and for who, we know much of why the smallsword, sabre, and broadsword treatises were written for example. I mean, I have 4 sabre manuals on paper sitting across from me, and 3 more on my kindle app. In each of them it is clear why they are written and some even explicitly state so. My "New Manual of Swordsmanship" by O'Rourke is for American officers, the "Berliner Fecthschule" is for teaching German military sabre with the pallasch and 1811 style sabres. These are (the various sabre, rapier, smallsword, etc) all hema and actually comprise a huge amount of hema fencing.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 13, 2019 15:21:55 GMT
I mean, claiming HEMA as a blanket term is pretty speculative is I think more than a little inaccurate. Sure, we might not have an exact idea of why the KDF was written or the I.33 was written, I haven't read them but I have read that the latter was written for civilian usage and the former as a source for fighting in the general sense of it, but actually for quite a lot of treatises we know why they were written and for who, we know much of why the smallsword, sabre, and broadsword treatises were written for example. I mean, I have 4 sabre manuals on paper sitting across from me, and 3 more on my kindle app. In each of them it is clear why they are written and some even explicitly state so. My "New Manual of Swordsmanship" by O'Rourke is for American officers, the "Berliner Fecthschule" is for teaching German military sabre with the pallasch and 1811 style sabres. These are (the various sabre, rapier, smallsword, etc) all hema and actually comprise a huge amount of hema fencing. I dont think I.33 is even complete so it is at least a little speculative. Theres pages missing. I think cosmoline was referring to earlier stuff like pre-16th century KDF. Alot of what is known is pieced together. Not to mention if KDF was meant for general fighting why is it mostly unarmored longsword? Civilians couldnt really carry swords (although they did work around the laws by carrying the langes messer or kreigmesser). So civies cant carry swords in most cases and there is a debate on just how popular the longsword was on the battlefield, so what is "general fighting?". Ive heard speculation that they are meant for duelling and probably more for wealthier people since the prices to purchase or make manuals was not cheap for the time. Then theres Talhoffers books which they assume are a resume since it is not a very thorough instructional and full of flashy pics... I dont know really what to think on it, tbh. General fighting is the term I use to describe fighting on unspecified terms, So not specifically for a duel, or for civilian self defense, or for battlefield use. Doesn't KDF, though focusing primarily on longsword also actually cover a decent range of weapons like the dagger, messer, polearms and unarmed fighting? I've heard the same speculation, and to a point it makes sense. But I also do have to ask, why does the purpose, or rather our lack of absolute concrete knowledge in its original purpose, make it speculative? I actually meant to add this to my post last night. The manuscripts that make up HEMA, even the incomplete ones, and even the ones that don't explicitly say why they were written still show clearly technique and how to perform this technique, however sometime sparse on detail it can be. My main point is to throw all of the hema fencing manuals into the same boat as the 100% speculation of viking martial arts. Artistic images don't really actually depict technique too well unless they've been drawn in the context of fencing.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Sept 13, 2019 15:42:23 GMT
Yeah I agree not all hema is terribly speculative. Some of it certainly is (looking at you viking sword) but stuff like rapier and sabre is super duper codified. We have so many sources and lineages confirming the same stuff again and again that it's hard to reasonably take a position the techniques we employ with those weapons today isn't historical. Longsword kinds straddles that line where we have a good idea, but aren't positive.
But recreating gladiator techniques is a cool idea. I'm interested to see where that community goes. I hope people just rememeber that gladiators were not soldiers, but entertainers. Great fighters too I'm sure, but the moves need to be viewed in the context of how a third party would view them.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 13, 2019 17:27:36 GMT
Good point about the later sources. But the difference is pretty stark. With 18th century fencing manuals we have enormous amounts of surrounding source material that tells us how swords were used and what role different kinds of training played and for whom. What we're missing for the 14th and 15th is this connective tissue establishing its actual purpose for the patrons and wider communities. Who was taking these classes and for what purpose? Who was reading the books and for what purpose? Were the books a form of advertising, or bragging, or didactic instruction manuals for use by others? We could take them to be a general purpose instruction manual for young students. Or we could take them to be a concept of what such instruction should include. Or we could take them as training for duels with little application beyond that. You can find support in the texts for all these possibilities. What we don't have, as yet, is anything from the same periods telling us what these masters were actually doing or why they were writing these texts. And the answers to those questions will invariably change the interpretation. Heck, right now we can't even agree if the KDF and other period sources were intended to teach people how to kill with swords.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 13, 2019 18:18:19 GMT
Indeed, but what does it mean? Without knowing the context we can't tell what the ultimate purpose was. Talhoffer certainly seems to be focused on judicial duels with lethal results, but was he trying to show people how to win them or something else? The problem is there's so little reference to these people and what they were doing outside the sources until the 16th and beyond, by which time the world had changed considerably. For example, was the KDF established as knightly military training? Was I.33 training for self defense? Was this part of a courtly game of swordplay or was it supposed to be used for combat? Would students go to these masters to learn how to fight in combat or as a kind of social status symbol? Who were the "common fencers"? Who were the false masters?
The good news is that there are still treasure troves of German language material in particular that nobody has looked into yet.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 13, 2019 18:56:44 GMT
Please excuse the polemics, but of course you need strong blows to discomfort an opponent in large surface armor. You’re not going to get far wielding your weapon like a paintbrush. Artists got paid for their work, and warriors for theirs. Some knights got educated a bit on painting too, though, probably to acknowledge the gaily colored walls when “fencing” in salle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2019 19:18:03 GMT
As a note, it isn't just about "making him feel it", there's an element of unbalancing. I don't care if my hit damages tissue under the armor or if I give him a bruise or a break - it's about getting him staggered or ideally off his feet, and set up to really eat whatever comes next. Timid gentle taps aren't likely to move him.
Of course a good jolt can aid the cause, but really I'm not so concerned with hurting him under the armor.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 13, 2019 20:44:28 GMT
Please excuse the polemics, but of course you need strong blows to discomfort an opponent in large surface armor. You’re not going to get far wielding your weapon like a paintbrush. Artists got paid for their work, and warriors for theirs. Some knights got educated a bit on painting too, though, probably to acknowledge the gaily colored walls when “fencing” in salle. Is your goal to bruise or discomfort? In the SCA, probably so. But in combat cutting with a sword against mail--let alone plate--does not break bones or cut skin. You have to thrust very hard with a weapon able to get through mail, thrust under the armor or cut to an existing opening in it. I'm not sure what this has to do with painting. Thwapping each other's armor with arming swords is basically meaningless. If the face is exposed, you cut to the face. If the wrist is exposed, you cut to the wrist. If nothing is exposed--as in the case of full transitional or 15th century harness--you make an opening.
Again, this is a major shortcoming of many speculative reconstructions. Specifically, because the initial theory is never actually tested properly, it becomes doctrine. In this case, nobody bothered to check whether repeated hard cuts with period sharps against period riveted mail or transitional harness would actually get through the protection. Instead they assumed a hard cut would be needed to break the mail. Probably because they were using craptacular butted stuff 40 years ago. Then it became doctrine, and anyone questioning the doctrine was referred not to a proper test of the theory but to the doctrine. You can go test this yourself anytime by getting some decent riveted mail and seeing how well cuts from a sharp do against it. You have to thrust with the right kind of tip and plenty of force. Otherwise you're wasting time trying to bruise instead of kill.
Obviously we lack pre-14th century harnessfetchen manuals. But any speculative theory about early or high medieval armored combat needs to start with some basic understandings about what will and will not do damage. A trust up under a skirt or aventail will do the job nicely. A good thrust or throw of a proper spear can also break the links. A smack on shoulders or chest? Nope. Not unless you're using a proper impact weapon like a pole hammer or axe. You're wasting your precious time. And you may only have one hit like that in a melee. Given that pre-14th century armor frequently left portions of skin exposed, it makes sense that harness combat from that time would focus on attacking the exposure. Like the face for example. Or wrists, or up underneath. Barring that the pommel and crossguard can be used against smaller bones. But you don't just flail against riveted mail.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 13, 2019 20:57:27 GMT
As a note, it isn't just about "making him feel it", there's an element of unbalancing. I don't care if my hit damages tissue under the armor or if I give him a bruise or a break - it's about getting him staggered or ideally off his feet, and set up to really eat whatever comes next. Timid gentle taps aren't likely to move him. Of course a good jolt can aid the cause, but really I'm not so concerned with hurting him under the armor. If we're talking about high medieval arming swords, any unbalancing attack should be done with the shields they were invariably paired with in combat. I've never in my life been knocked over by a one handed sword swing. The physics are all wrong. But a heater shield thrust has sent me tumbling. The sword attack, in fact, will work better if it's not even noticed until it's too late. Snaking up the skirt to impale the private bits and gut, or snaking up the aventail. The armor dulls your sensations and can keep you from noticing this.
It's actually surprising I'm having to remind people in this group that swords were not heavy bludgeoning weapons. They were light, fast and sharp. They do damage by cutting. To make one an impact weapon you use the hilt end.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 13, 2019 21:03:43 GMT
Period art works indicate pretty clearly that blows where given hard (also with swords, although effects where often probably shown exaggerated, but that’s just even more confirming the hard-hits theory). No time for refined "fencing" techniques in real combat. Anyone ever hit by a hard blow through even thick armor can attest to the effects – sometimes it throws you of balance, in any case it hurts and sometimes even maims. No need to cut through mail to injure, though it could be / was done – with strong blows. Salle fencing will exclude real combat techniques and Starbucks HEMA too.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 13, 2019 21:06:23 GMT
Test it then. Do it with riveted mail and a sharp arming sword and post the video. I'd like to see it. I've been hit many, many, many times with arming sword simulators with moderate padding. It bruises and at most might break a finger bone if I didn't have gloves. While you're wasting time with that, he can cut your exposed face in half just as 3227a describes. A cut that requires very little muscle at all. The sword will sail through flesh if your alignment is good.
As far as whether anybody used training in "real combat," I'd like to see any source suggesting they didn't. While we don't have fightbooks from the period, we have references to the need for constant training. Nobody has ever said go fight by swinging a sword as hard as you can and forget about technique.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 13, 2019 21:08:43 GMT
With all respect, but I think you have never been hit by a strong blow, Cosmoline.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 13, 2019 21:10:31 GMT
I've taken mordschlags to the head to test helmet strength. I've taken full force rib hits that left green bruises. None of kept me from fighting. Hell I took a full force spear thrust to the throat a few days ago in the mosh pit at Swordsquatch. I couldn't breath for half a minute but it didn't drop me. But, again, go test your theory on some riveted chain with a sharp arming sword. Prove me wrong. You guys never do. You cite to what you believe and refuse to test it. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with speculative reconstruction. It HAS to be based on quality testing done before any techniques are proposed.
Otherwise we're left with someone telling me--WITH FRESH BRUISES FROM BRAWLING A FEW DAYS AGO--that I haven't actually been hit hard. This isn't slow play either. These are fit young dudes with simulators. My only protection is a gambeson with some hardpoint protection attached and a regular HEMA helmet. Hell, in the longsword tournaments I've seen hits way, way more powerful than any arming sword could generate. Nobody gets knocked out from that. Swords don't work that way.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 13, 2019 21:14:52 GMT
Would you volunteer? Then again, I won’t even hit you. Starbucks HEMA, let’s have a cup together.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 13, 2019 21:16:21 GMT
You don't need a living person. Put it on gelatin or just use a cut of meat. It's not difficult at all. Set it up and cut as hard as your mighty arm can. See if the rivets fall out and your sword blade cuts into skin. A Dane axe can generate that kind of power and is weighted for it. Arming swords aren't. And keep in mind it is EXTREMELY difficult to get beyond a sword and board in actual sparring to allow for that kind of cut. You don't get to stand there in close measure and cut over and over again.
Other methods (yes, skill comes into play) need to be used. Hard thrusts or cuts that end in a tip-jab have shown an ability to get beyond at least some mail links and create openings. This can help us reconstruct how they actually fought. Macho nonsense or claims that someone hasn't ever actually been hit with a sword are not helpful. And in this case they're laughable. I mean I'm not a great sword fighter, so if there's one thing I've gotten to experience over and over again it's getting hit with sword simulators.
But, as always I will put myself on the line at least when it comes to simulators. I'm usually at the squatch in Seattle and you can see if folks hit hard enough for your liking there.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 13, 2019 21:22:40 GMT
And yet period artwork shows a clear contrast between unarmored techniques for the salle and real combat. And no sane person I've ver met would like to get hit full force on the riveted-mail-covered and medium-weight padded arm (or a helmet without neck pad), even with a medium-weight arming sword. Everyone holds back in sparring, almost no one uses period armor, and no one uses real swords. It's just like that.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 13, 2019 21:27:09 GMT
Test it and post the video. Otherwise this is just subjective arguments over whether we're hitting each other hard enough in sparring you didn't experience and have never seen. What do you do, anyway? Do you do harnessfetchen? Do you have harness?
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 13, 2019 21:30:43 GMT
Do you do harnessfetchen? Do you have harness? Not talking Harnischfechten, this is wrestling and polearms. Talking mail.
|
|