|
Post by markus313 on Sept 20, 2019 20:06:42 GMT
Again Reinhardt, on European medieval helmets:
“Weights and thicknesses seemed to vary from what we would term eighteen gauge to a heavy one that would be as thick as fourteen gauge. But the average conical helmet seems to have been slightly less than sixteen gauge in thickness. Sixteen gauge is good protection; a sword really isn't going to cut through it. But it would damn sure rattle your brains to catch a hard blow on the side of the head. It's problematical how much damage it would do, but it isn't something I am going to volunteer to find out.
The great helms of the Middle Ages gave almost foolproof protection against sword blows, and a great deal against mace blows. Large axes and halberds are a different matter. Even if they didn't penetrate the iron of the helm they could drive it down on the head and crack the skull, and in some cases have been known to actually cut into the helmet. Helmets were usually not steel, but iron. A very rich knight might have a helmet that was made of steel, or case hardened iron, but usually the helmet was made of iron. This means that it usually wasn't as hard as the sword edge, but that doesn't mean the sword could cut through it.”
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 20, 2019 20:28:31 GMT
And one more from Reinhardt:
“In my opinion, skill in the use of the sword began to decline during the middle of the 13th century. At this time armor began to be increasingly effective and was available to more and more warriors. Mail, which could be penetrated by a strong blow with the sword, was now being augmented with sections of plate.”
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 20, 2019 20:32:40 GMT
What does he base that on? There are no detailed primary sources to compare with what we have in the late medieval and beyond. My understanding is that spears were the primary battlefield weapon until then.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 20, 2019 20:42:02 GMT
Basically he argues that mounted combat and the use of blunt/impact weapons and polearms went together with the development of armor, and thus replacing the use of swords on the battlefield. And that more and more soldiers could afford better protection. He also argues it became increasingly profitable to capture knights alive.
He never says spears weren't the primary battlefield weapons until then.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 20, 2019 20:55:55 GMT
Thanks, I should get that book. I'd agree that the battlefield usefulness of one handed swords declined during the 14th, but I don't think anyone knows enough to say whether skill levels declined. The existing sources show a pretty high skill level.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 20, 2019 21:07:00 GMT
Showing skillful fencing, written to distinguish oneself from once „common“ knowledge, trying to preserve “the art”, perhaps – better than what was relied on when the SHTF, IDK. Even modern sportsmen tend to stray by play in practice. And of all involved in sports, commentators seem to have the most complete understanding of a game.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 20, 2019 21:49:05 GMT
I was at a lecture from Michael Chidester a few weeks ago in Seattle, and he pointed out that we *still* don't really understand the place of the KDF/German school in the larger society. There are basically no primary sources outside the KDF itself that reference the KDF. And of course there's bo diddly for I.33. There's more for some later Italian stuff and by the early modern we have a much better integration of the sources. Certainly the common thread seems to be get skilled instruction and practice all the time. The idea of constant practice goes back all the way to the King's Mirror.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 20, 2019 22:12:52 GMT
And all the world over, each nation's the same They've simply no notion of playing the game They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won And they practice beforehand which ruins the fun! The English, the English, the English are best So up with the English and down with the rest.
A song of patriotic prejudice - Flanders and Swann
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 22:40:22 GMT
Thanks, I should get that book. I'd agree that the battlefield usefulness of one handed swords declined during the 14th, but I don't think anyone knows enough to say whether skill levels declined. The existing sources show a pretty high skill level. If anything, skill is likely to have increased after a diminishing role on a battlefield. There's sophistication that doesn't have an opportunity to manifest in the chaos of a battlefield where random elements abort the expression of higher principle.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 20, 2019 23:05:52 GMT
And practicability gets ensured how again? It’s not like they were battling all the time, with no time for reflexion, was it? What’s a theory without reality? I’m also interested in the context of the Fechtbücher, enjoy and spend quite a bit of time on them (all relatively, of course) - but can't imagine they'd have given me too high hopes regarding their usefulness for the battlefields. Not even self-defense, probably, for most cases.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Sept 20, 2019 23:23:46 GMT
It's possible they were related to courtly status, but as Lincoln says we work with the tools we have. Until someone finds a medieval text describing training and techniques for the battlefield the fight books are what we have.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 20, 2019 23:33:10 GMT
In addition to archaeological evidence, medieval sources other than later fencing books, recreational testing and so on. Also it seems that even the early treatises (if that's a good word), knew about different ways to skin a cat (why else the distinctions > “commoners”, “buffalo” etc.?). And different cats. And treatises. Perhaps cats are eaten best with a touch of salt. In some cases, a handful of salt – though the cat may seem tasty while skinning it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 23:59:32 GMT
And practicability gets ensured how again? It’s not like they were battling all the time, with no time for reflexion, was it? What’s a theory without reality? I’m also interested in the context of the Fechtbücher, enjoy and spend quite a bit of time on them (all relatively, of course) - but can't imagine they'd have given me too high hopes regarding their usefulness for the battlefields. Not even self-defense, probably, for most cases. Practicality is ensured by compliance with geometry and physics, which trump the might of the strongest person. Just because someone gets hit with a random rock, arrow, or bullet doesn't render their art meaningless. What a depressing and limited view that would be. I guess I don't get what's so great about "the battlefield". Absolute garbage can survive on the virtue of pure chance while sublime technique had the misfortune of standing in the wrong place.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 21, 2019 0:18:02 GMT
It’s about delineating, practicing and constantly evaluating a simple yet adaptable skillset suiting a variety of situations, and not getting encumbered by false assumptions of reality and seductive principles. Ever tried bind work with a mace?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 0:23:27 GMT
It’s about delineating, practicing and constantly evaluating a simple yet adaptable skillset suiting a variety of situations, and not getting encumbered by false assumptions of reality and seductive principles. Ever tried bind work with a mace? It's about understanding context, binding with a mace would be stupid. If it is demonstrably workable then it isn't a false assumption, being able to demonstrate an interaction is literally a foundational component of demonstrating reality. Just because someone comes along and shoots me in the face doesn't negate the principle I'm in the middle of expressing. I honestly don't understand what you are saying. If you only care about winning on a battlefield, it's a crapshoot. Have fun with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 0:27:24 GMT
I mean seriously, we're both on a battlefield. You're gonna tell me I'm better than you are because I had the good luck to stab a complete derp, when you ended up dying in the middle of fighting master? Only the end result of who walked home at the end matters?
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 21, 2019 0:33:31 GMT
Only the end result of who walked home at the end matters? In the end, yes, and it’s about finding the governing concepts to get there. For example, is the concept of “measure” more important than “pressure”?
…Not all that can be demonstrated is reliable, not to speak of validity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 0:45:21 GMT
Only the end result of who walked home at the end matters? In the end, yes, and it’s about finding the governing concepts to get there. For example, is the concept of “measure” more important than “pressure”?
…Not all that can be demonstrated is reliable, not to speak of validity. Then there's a fundamental disconnect, because the superior art is not always victorious in every interaction. I would prefer to be grounded on principle than random chance, but all get to decide for ourselves. If brute strength and blind chance does it for you then groovy.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 21, 2019 0:50:40 GMT
If brute strength and blind chance does it for you then groovy. Again something I've never said.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Sept 21, 2019 0:53:22 GMT
(...) the superior art is not always victorious in every interaction. I would prefer to be grounded on principle than random chance (...) Agreed!
|
|