Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 1:34:12 GMT
If brute strength and blind chance does it for you then groovy. Again something I've never said. It's a rhetorical "you", and not you, person with the forum username markus313 specifically.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 2:59:50 GMT
lol Wtf are both of you talking about? I'm attempting to discuss swordsmanship, is there are particular part that confused you? I don't mean that in a smug way, literally if there's something you had trouble following I can try to articulate it better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 11:15:02 GMT
I'm attempting to discuss swordsmanship, is there are particular part that confused you? I don't mean that in a smug way, literally if there's something you had trouble following I can try to articulate it better. Well you can start by first articulating what your argument is against Markus313 to begin with. It's pretty simple. His position seemed to be that battlefield results were an indication of practicality, and mine is that a battlefield is a chaotic environment and there's too many factors to draw conclusions from. A martial art system where practitioners can dissect interactions and demonstrate relationships is more compelling that just some guy who managed to not get killed that particular day. Does that answer your question? Maybe you'd like to ask Markus313 what his argument is against me to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 21, 2019 11:25:51 GMT
It’s all good. I understand where you’re coming from. My position is simply that back then when sword use in battle was still very prominent (for several reasons), much more people must’ve been not only practicing much more, but also with much more earnestly and proficiency. You are right that a battle is more chaotic than a duel, but that doesn’t mean technique (let’s call it technique for now) isn’t important. Speculative? Yes, to an extent. Reasonable? I think so.
Silver, Paradoxes, 1599:
“Our forefathers were wise, though our age accounts them foolish, valiant though we repute them cowards. They found out the true defences for their bodies in short weapons by their wisdom, they defended themselves and subdued their enemies, and those weapons with their valor.”
[…]
“There is no manner of teaching comparable to the old ancient teaching, …”
Joachim Meyer also deplored a demise of “the KDF”, which he believed to be in decline and endangered to fall into oblivion. He also explicitly stated that it was difficult to convey it through books.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 13:57:58 GMT
We're constantly hit with the refrain of the sword being a secondary (at best) weapon "on the battlefield", so how prominent are we really talking? It's extremely prominent in sword training, where it is a primary (and sometimes only) weapon, so it seems a lot more reasonable to me that it would be more highly developed and practical in a place where it gets the spotlight and the time to really explore it. Those hypothetical people going into battle would be likely spending their earnest practice developing proficiency with their primary weapons, wouldn't that make more sense?
This isn't even addressing the fact that earnestness doesn't lead to skill or effectiveness. Walk into any given McDojo and you'll find hard working true believers doing garbage technique to the very best of their ability. Just because you work really hard doesn't mean that you're doing it right.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 21, 2019 15:24:05 GMT
Even if you read accounts from the later centuries, it is apparent that skill does indeed come into play on the battlefield. To suggest otherwise is honestly moronic. Yes there are lots of variables, but at the same time, if you don't know how to fight, and you can't fight multiple people at once because your technique is trash and you never earnestly practiced, you're screwed.
I mean, look at people like Hodson if Hodsons horse. He was acclaimed as a great swordsman, and he survived many battles, dying after being shot while storming a palace. This in an age where swords were a prominent battlefield weapon for those that had them and were expected to see close in fighting.
Sure, his technique didn't save him from the shot, but it sure did save him from multiple other times when he would have been killed.
There are also multiple accounts in the Indian conflicts alone where an opponents skill is described vividly, and many times where a fight is described where a combatants skill with a sword and technique is made central focus of. And that's only of the accounts from the Indian conflicts compiled by D.A. Kinsley.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 15:43:47 GMT
Yes,it is highly moronic to say skill doesn't factor into the battlefield.
I am not, and have not said that!!!!!!!!!!
Battlefield results are not indicative of skill. Just because these guys went home and those guys didn't does not mean they were better in any way, either in skillset or in physical attributes.
Why is this hard to understand?
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 21, 2019 15:51:37 GMT
"Battlefield results are not indicative of skill"
Honestly sounds a lot like, and certainly seems to include skill not playing a factor in a battlefield.
Define "Battlefield results" perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 21, 2019 16:12:28 GMT
I think none of us meant to say that swordsmanship (usually; may it be individually or in formation) was the main factor in winning a battle.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 23, 2019 17:41:51 GMT
It's possible that sword training was used as the paradigm for all melee training. This is one way of looking at the KDF, in any case. It's also possible the Society was a social club, and that longsword prowess was a way of making yourself more impressive in court. Or as a prerequisite to entry into court. In that context, it's possible the fightbooks were made for use not in training but in bragging about your training. Something to show off to guests. At this point the connective tissue of primary sources between the books and the rest of the contemporary world just isn't there until the early modern. But in the mean time, if the choice is between just discarding the fightbooks or earnestly working through them and sparring with their methods, then I think we have to go with the latter. It's what we have. There's no "battle trained" substitute in the modern world to compare results with.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 23, 2019 17:59:53 GMT
I agree with all of that and that’s why I take the historic fight books seriously, which to me, besides all their unquestionable usefulness, means also with critical looks.
I don’t agree with certain interpretations, but that doesn’t mean I don't think I’ve used some I.33 with large round shields (or strapped, for that matter; no, big shields of any kind are clearly not the same as bucklers).
|
|
|
Post by pvsampson on Sept 24, 2019 3:52:39 GMT
myarmoury.com/talk/spotlight.phpIn reading warbow threads for decades, even 160# was a higher draw with the norm more in the 120#-150# range. The numbers of archers in the 13th-15th century growing exponentially in the UK and the transition towards plate still left a lot of soft spots for massive flights of arrows that might make a wound. Kind of a spray and pray which, in some cases, carried the day. Any good accounts of archers in the Colosseum? Cheers GC As someone that has actually been shooting bows for decades,I have had many a discussion about warbows with many an archer,and read many a tome on the subject.The reasons that warbows of the times were such high poundage were for range and penetration.A 120lb bow shooting a 1000 grain arrow would reach 200 yards downrange easily with plenty of penetration power kill any unarmoured soldier and horses.Get up to around 1500 grains then maximum range is decreased,still 200 yards is quite achievable but the penetration factor is increased.Possible to start piercing armour,add more weight to the arrow and then penetration is increased again.But,one cannot simply add heavy points to add weight.The spine weight of the arrow must be increased to be able to be shot straight from the bow.An arrow spined for a 100lb bow will not shoot straight from a 150lb bow.A 100 lb spine arrow with a 500 grain head will shoot vastly different than if it had a 700 grain head. There were so many factors that came into archery in warfare. Men were trained to use whatever bow weight they could shoot with and maintain the shooting in a battle situation. A weedy 14 year old that could only draw a 90lb,or 80,70 would not have been refused service.Especially if he could get 12 arrows 200 yards downrange a minute.12 1000 grain arrows a minute falling on the enemy would do some damage,no matter what poundage the bow was. Jeez,I could do that with my old 50lb Korean composite with 500 grains and get every arrow within a 15 yard radius.I would not like to have been standing there.Yes there were higher poundages generally,and some up to around 160lb or more,the heavier poundage would simply have had more penetration factor than the lighter ones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2019 16:39:45 GMT
myarmoury.com/talk/spotlight.phpIn reading warbow threads for decades, even 160# was a higher draw with the norm more in the 120#-150# range. The numbers of archers in the 13th-15th century growing exponentially in the UK and the transition towards plate still left a lot of soft spots for massive flights of arrows that might make a wound. Kind of a spray and pray which, in some cases, carried the day. Any good accounts of archers in the Colosseum? Cheers GC Hello Edelweiss, a point about the "spray and pray" You probably already know but... There is actually a bit of contention on that especially with modern researchers,etc. Some say they didn't actually volley arrows often like we have originally believed but actually were far more deliberate and also fired at closer ranges then originally thought. I kind of bore of these discussions easily and then get salty about things. One can start by reading of accounts from period historians, or not. From there, one can start doing the forensic and pathology work. From there, discussions such as this one, wander around with some simple references made that anyone can actually read about. I referenced just two battles and they might be a good start for those interested in archery on the big island at the dawn of the 15th century. I am not looking for argument, praise or disagreement but I find your post and point lack much substance. I might be more interested in the discussions or material you do not reference in your post. The two battles I referenced (and showed the historical account sources) show both "spray and pray" and more aimed shooting. If you have read my posts, you can probably guess which battle used which tactics, or indeed even know something about the order of the two battles. If knowing this, I find your post kind of missing material I laid out and my own implications. Both volley and aimed archery occurred, more than just by the English and Welsh. Context really is everything. With that said, I still see no mention of archery in Gladiatorial martial arts
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Sept 24, 2019 16:51:22 GMT
The "Sagittarius", not very common but there exists a bas-relief in Florence showing them and one text.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 24, 2019 17:28:38 GMT
A knowledge of technical details seems to have been important for the archers. In the Tales the Yeman is described:
And he was clad in cote and hood of grene. A sheef of pecock arwes bright and kene, Under his belt he bar ful thriftily— Wel koude he dresse his takel yemanly; His arwes drouped noght with fetheres lowe— And in his hand he baar a myghty bowe. A not-heed hadde he, with a broun viságe. Of woodecraft wel koude he al the uságe. Upon his arm he baar a gay bracér, And by his syde a swerd and a bokeler, And on that oother syde a gay daggere, Harneised wel and sharp as point of spere;
So his arrows are in perfect form so as not to fall short, his bow is mighty and his melee weapons are ready to be used in combat. His kit in general is "yemanly," so the social class had become an adverb by this point. The class had also become associated with the warbow, possibly because of the Yeoman's traditional role in maintaining forests and policing against poachers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2019 17:39:56 GMT
Continuing the term to raise the UK yeoman militia during the Napoleonic era. Chaucer has always been a good read. Cheers GC
|
|