|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 17, 2019 23:57:57 GMT
However you define it, there will always be a space between you and the target that your weapon must move through to reach that person. If you swing forward with your sword, why would the opponent stand there and take the hit? There's going to be a shield or his sword or something put up to deflect and potentially counter. However you phrase it, the same problem always comes up. Good downright blows still have to deal with this problem unless you're killing huddled peasants or something.
Given this, and given what folks have discovered about how to deal with mail (ie thrusting is better), it makes sense that the cuts would create an opening in armored fighting and the thrusts would be used for the actual attack. Or potentially the shield would create the opening, and again some kind of thrust-cut would be used if the only openings were armored. What doesn't really make sense is two guys in mid measure cutting at each other over and over again.
But I could be wrong, always. I'd encourage you to try these concepts out in sparring.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 18, 2019 0:11:28 GMT
In short:
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 18, 2019 0:20:15 GMT
But I could be wrong, always. I'd encourage you to try these concepts out in sparring. I have
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 18, 2019 0:21:08 GMT
However you define it, there will always be a space between you and the target that your weapon must move through to reach that person. If you swing forward with your sword, why would the opponent stand there and take the hit? There's going to be a shield or his sword or something put up to deflect and potentially counter. However you phrase it, the same problem always comes up. Good downright blows still have to deal with this problem unless you're killing huddled peasants or something.
Given this, and given what folks have discovered about how to deal with mail (ie thrusting is better), it makes sense that the cuts would create an opening in armored fighting and the thrusts would be used for the actual attack. Or potentially the shield would create the opening, and again some kind of thrust-cut would be used if the only openings were armored. What doesn't really make sense is two guys in mid measure cutting at each other over and over again.
Peasants would be why we would still be using swords in the first place, wouldn’t they? Otherwise we’d be using axes, or clubs (or maces), to get a decisive hit.
That’s the whole purpose of armor, to close the gaps that can’t be defended against the short and unexpected hits. And because many (though far from all) rules of “fencing” don’t apply to the wars (“In the wars there is no observation of Stocatas, Imbrocatas, times, nor answers.”, Paradoxes, Note 14 in Finis), and no space to move with measure (“when men are joined close together”, chap. 20), “he that gives the first wound with a strong blow, commands the life of the other.” (Paradoxes, Note 13 in Finis).
...I have never said or implied I’d prefer to stay “in mid measure cutting at each other over and over again.”, at least not if given another choice, which you seem to be assuming.
Perhaps at least a bit of help could be a look at John Clements’ Medieval Swordsmanship Illustrated Methods And Techniques (1998, dated ?), and here especially pages 127-133, on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 18, 2019 0:24:08 GMT
Given this, and given what folks have discovered about how to deal with mail (ie thrusting is better), it makes sense that the cuts would create an opening in armored fighting and the thrusts would be used for the actual attack. Or potentially the shield would create the opening, and again some kind of thrust-cut would be used if the only openings were armored.
I don’t think all those using forward-weighted cutting swords with spatula points where wrong, do you?
Your picture shows sports play, or dueling, at best - although a bit unfair, really. Is it an assassination? I always thought those Starbuck(l)ers where a bit trippy and fidgety. Should that be Meyer? Funny, that was my main source for years. I guess this would be tea, not coffee.
...I’m sorry for diverging the thread, Johndoe. I will step back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2019 1:57:14 GMT
I was looking for the period ad offering the best mail shirts, circa WWI. What I found in briefly looking was an old thread an John Wilkinson-Latham describing some wares in post #7. www.swordforum.com/vb4/showthread.php?98186-Strange-sword-Probyn-s-HorseThe ad may be the obscured photobucket ad but it seems to me it was a different ad. Looking back at a couple of decades (+) regarding maille, the bottom line seems to still read that armour was worn for protection, and fairly effectively so. The cavalry anecdotes of serious cuts and one particularly regarding cleaving a helmet (along with other stuff) in a thread regarding the French complaining about the British. Some suitable gore described. www.swordforum.com/vb4/showthread.php?68153-1796-LC-sabre-French-complaintsI remember also one discussion I obviously "lost" with Dan Howard re Homildon Hill and Shrewsbury but my argument was that not all in armour survived and that archers did have some effect in battle at the time. A fun little aritcle for a why not www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/57960One fairly recent and my Walsingham argument someone else presenting. www.physicsforums.com/threads/arrow-passing-through-a-moving-target-what-is-the-final-velocity.969615/"The battle of Homildon Hill 1402. The earl of Douglas, “evidently placing trust in his armor and that of his companions, which for three years they had taken pains to improve ... strove to rush the archers,” the bowmen “pierced entirely through these armored men [armatos omnino penetrarent], drilling through their helmets [cassides terebrarent] ... and piercing through all their armor with ease [et omnem armaturam levi negotio transverberarent]. The earl of Douglas was pierced [confossus est] with ve [5] wounds, notwithstanding his extremely costly [sumptuosissima] armor.” He lost an eye and a testicle in this battle. Thomas Walsingham, Historia Anglicana ed. H. T. Riley, 2 vols. (London, 1864), 2:251–52. ~~~~~~~~ Going back to the original premise of martial arts for the gladiators, I would imagine anything was fair game, within the confines of arms supplied and experience. We return time and again to the term "speculative" but our bodies in motion haven't changed a whole lot and why the explorers look to later chronicled works. From grappling to holding a spear or sword, or for that matter a shield; toss in two from different and later schools that were written of and there are unerringly similar actions. Translations can seemingly cause as much debate at times. Cheers GC
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 18, 2019 16:48:42 GMT
True, but the strong blow has to wound in order to command life. That's the crux of this issue. Plus, when you are pinched in formation, the thrust becomes far easier than big powerful swings.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 18, 2019 17:32:30 GMT
Cosmoline, have you really sparred much with larger (especially strapped) shields (and intention)? You actually need the larger motions to get around the things (not so much with big center-gripped round shields, ‘cause the shield is very active, but with strapped shields it's rather mandatory).
See, my argumentation is based on the contemporary artwork in picture and written work from around the world, the interpretations/opinions/experiences of very knowledgeable experts and practicioners (btw, SCA and Buhurt people aren't all stupid, my friend) from various fields (gents that R.W. should be thankful for, they served to for him have at least a base for his patronage/clientship) and my own personal experience.
You simply ignore all the links/info I’m giving/hinting on. So if you are entitled to "win" this discussion at all cost, that is fine with me. I cannot deny the impression you might be a bit brainwashed by recent “developments”/"agendas" prominent in the hema “business”. I’ve seen this happen to many people in ma, not only hema. Usually there is money involved. Funnily enough it was R.W. pushing/copying the language of those circles (heavily active here in Germany) and applying to his version(s) of practical (??) hema. I also get the sense that while I must have at least a basic knowledge of "your" sources, you seem to have litte or none at all of those I favor/have hinted at - or, again, simply ignore them, for whatever reason.
It's also very possible, with fencing being not more than an exclusive branch of swordmanship, that "fencers" always had a tendency of tricking themselves and others into thinking of being fit for fighting, and in contrast fighters training swordsmanship being able to use a sword to fight with, amongst other things.
But perhaps it's just a thing of communication, though. Perhaps we aren't that far apart in our thinking/acting.
Enough of me. You clearly have all odds on your side, don’t you.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 18, 2019 18:45:59 GMT
The difference between preferring pole arms and thrusting with swords vs. trying to break bones with sword blades (as opposed to hilts) isn't all that big, but it does tie in to some much larger debates. I'm sure you're aware that for many years, the Victorian doctrine on medieval swordplay held sway. Specifically, that arming swords and weapons in general prior to the Renaissance, were crude hacking tools. And that knights would just smash at each other with them because they had no art in them. What folks have found more recently is a considerable volume of late medieval fight books that are full of complex moves and do not show fighters smashing each other with swords in hopes of concussive injury.
The debate also seems to tie into a more fundamental view of technique in fencing. The "just bash 'em" school seems upset at what it views as mere dueling, and wants to harken back to a simpler style of combat it believes existed. I would posit that melee combat, by its very nature, is never simple or easy.
Ultimately the early and high medieval situation is an unknown. We have some overtly fanciful period art showing knights in mail cleaving helmets and cutting through mail without a problem. To date nobody has been able to duplicate these feats in testing, probably because we aren't mythic supermen. But that doesn't mean swords weren't used or that they weren't used against mail. What the testing I've seen and the hits I've experienced suggest is that they do a much better job against mail if deployed in a thrust, or if the bashing bits on the other end are used. So to the extent we speculate, I think we should follow testing rather than the period art.
I'm not sure where the "brainwashing" allegation comes from. I'm following what tests I've seen and what I've experienced getting hit with arming sword simulators many, many, many times. If tests show otherwise, I'll follow that new evidence. For example, I don't believe anyone has explored the impact of a medieval riding sword hitting a mail-clad shoulder at speed. THERE indeed you may be onto something. Horse fighting in general has not received nearly enough attention, and if we add the power of the animal to a swing the math changes. While I disagree about the average weight of arming swords, there is no dispute that a longer bladed, front-heavy species was developed in the period. This could have been for chopping while riding.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 19, 2019 2:22:49 GMT
I have given myself a break, and am back again. Back to force because I have no interest in discussing armor evolution, here's an account of a British soldier cutting through the likely iron helmet of an Indian warrior. A blow without the man giving his strength to it? Certainly not a weak armed blow without the use of the arm, chest, and shoulder muscles.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Sept 19, 2019 12:27:41 GMT
Also Cosmoline, can you please stop arguing points no one is making? You bring up the "just bash em school" and the idea that swords are unsharpened percussive weapons. Literally no one, let me repeat that, literally no one here is saying that. The only thing I've seen people say, is that delivering a blow with a considerable amount of force can matter, and can situationally do some amount of damage through protective gear.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Sept 19, 2019 16:33:50 GMT
I have given myself a break, and am back again. Back to force because I have no interest in discussing armor evolution, here's an account of a British soldier cutting through the likely iron helmet of an Indian warrior. A blow without the man giving his strength to it? Certainly not a weak armed blow without the use of the arm, chest, and shoulder muscles. Straight through the exact tip of the spike, all the way through the steel helmet and mail aventail? Hmmm... I could be way off, but that seems like a fantastically difficult thing to do. I can't imagine how the sword wouldn't simple deflect off to one side or the other of the spike, instead of somehow biting into the tip of the spike and slicing it all the way in half lengthwise.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 19, 2019 17:04:39 GMT
While I'm sure there could be some exaggeration in terms of splitting exactly down center of the spike, I don't really see a reason to disbelieve it in its entirety. Mail is actually easy enough to split if made improperly or of poor quality material. Modern tests use modern materials. Not a 19th century Indian helmet that could be for all we know the iron quality of a dog dish. I'm sure it looked something like this. www.oriental-arms.com/photos/items/93/002093/ph-0.jpgRead past the red circle and towards the bottom, and there is a similar account of a British officer wearing a "steel cap" under a turban where the cap is also cut into. There are actually a decent number of accounts in the book about cutting through or into what we would consider impervious armor, such as a shield, So it is easy to think that the quality of the metal they were making their armor out was not up to snuff with our current steels.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 19, 2019 17:16:23 GMT
Also have there been any truly scientific tests against armor? So far the only videos I've seen performing these "tests" are backyard cutters hitting modern items with modern swords on a cutting stand.
|
|
|
Post by elbrittania39 on Sept 19, 2019 17:19:35 GMT
Also have there been any truly scientific tests against armor? So far the only videos I've seen performing these "tests" are backyard cutters hitting modern items with modern swords on a cutting stand. Which also tells us little about what would happen to a person underneath that gear. You don't have to pancake a helmet or cleave mail to cause enough precusive force to someone's temple to seriously injure them for example.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 19, 2019 17:29:47 GMT
Also have there been any truly scientific tests against armor? So far the only videos I've seen performing these "tests" are backyard cutters hitting modern items with modern swords on a cutting stand. Which also tells us little about what would happen to a person underneath that gear. You don't have to pancake a helmet or cleave mail to cause enough precusive force to someone's temple to seriously injure them for example. The closest thing we've gotten to that is skallagrim poking the Ivan head under a helmet and saying "yup, that's a concussion". Obviously, these tests are a benchmark to hold the rest of our field and research up to.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 19, 2019 17:42:15 GMT
Also have there been any truly scientific tests against armor? So far the only videos I've seen performing these "tests" are backyard cutters hitting modern items with modern swords on a cutting stand. What would be a truly scientific test in your opinion? Far be it from me to decide the benchmark, as I am certainly not qualified in my own research, but I would imagine it would start with having a Smith recreate the material, and create an exacting replica of a helmet, as well as multiple other helmets to have a good sample size, and the same per swords. Then someone who is intimate with the swordsmanship theory used in the region and time period the arms and armor are from should be used to test the weapons and armor. Of course, all of this would be speculative with it on a cutting stand that doesn't behave like a person in a fight. Of the top of my head, with little thought given to it, that's my thought on it. A sample size of 1 or 5 from KoA a convincing test does not make.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Sept 19, 2019 17:57:21 GMT
What would be a truly scientific test in your opinion? Far be it from me to decide the benchmark, as I am certainly not qualified in my own research, but I would imagine it would start with having a Smith recreate the material, and create an exacting replica of a helmet, as well as multiple other helmets to have a good sample size, and the same per swords. Then someone who is intimate with the swordsmanship theory used in the region and time period the arms and armor are from should be used to test the weapons and armor. Of course, all of this would be speculative with it on a cutting stand that doesn't behave like a person in a fight. Of the top of my head, with little thought given to it, that's my thought on it. A sample size of 1 or 5 from KoA a convincing test does not make. Agreed. We need more tests like the excellent arrows vs breastplate one that Tod's Workshop gave us.
|
|
|
Post by legacyofthesword on Sept 19, 2019 17:59:20 GMT
While I'm sure there could be some exaggeration in terms of splitting exactly down center of the spike, I don't really see a reason to disbelieve it in its entirety. Mail is actually easy enough to split if made improperly or of poor quality material. Modern tests use modern materials. Not a 19th century Indian helmet that could be for all we know the iron quality of a dog dish. I'm sure it looked something like this. www.oriental-arms.com/photos/items/93/002093/ph-0.jpgRead past the red circle and towards the bottom, and there is a similar account of a British officer wearing a "steel cap" under a turban where the cap is also cut into. There are actually a decent number of accounts in the book about cutting through or into what we would consider impervious armor, such as a shield, So it is easy to think that the quality of the metal they were making their armor out was not up to snuff with our current steels. Interesting, thanks. A flat topped helmet spike like the one in the link you posted would certainly be more believable.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 19, 2019 19:37:29 GMT
I have given myself a break, and am back again. Back to force because I have no interest in discussing armor evolution, here's an account of a British soldier cutting through the likely iron helmet of an Indian warrior. A blow without the man giving his strength to it? Certainly not a weak armed blow without the use of the arm, chest, and shoulder muscles.
He was on a horse, though it's not clear if it was still moving forward. I'm starting to wonder if that's a factor in this. To my knowledge nobody was ever able to match these "helmet splitting" accounts in art and literature, but I don't know that they tried it horseback. It would be very interesting to recreate the period helmet and include a horse back saber charge. This account is near enough in time that folks could eliminate much of the speculation inherent to recreating medieval events.
|
|