Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > How long did the fighting last? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Fri 22 Dec, 2006 5:25 am    Post subject: How long did the fighting last?         Reply with quote

The recent thread on mace you got me to thinking about how long a 'fight' lasted? i.e. how big is the issue of a few pound weapon being tiring (especially as relative to ten to twenty times that weight in armour)).

I'm given to believe that most medieval battles consisted of a relatively small amout of time actually in melee combat. A lot of time was spend manuevering, regrouping, waiting and the actual melee was usually over fairly quickly.

Most street fight scenarios last seconds with only a handful of strokes thrown. So ambush by brigands or skirmish fighting is unlikely to last long.

The most rigorous of tournament-melees (not sure on terminology ) were, I think, 75 to 80 strokes (for those with a set number of strokes).

I'm sure there are exceptions. And I don't doubt that a weapon which is less tiring to use has its advantages. But I wonder how big a deal it is relative to other concerns.

Thanks.

P.S. My workout consists of several sets of eighty full power strokes, totalling hundreds to near a thousand, so I suspect that I have the endurance for unarmoured fighting (though not armoured having never done it).

Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jean-Carle Hudon




Location: Montreal,Canada
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 445

PostPosted: Fri 22 Dec, 2006 5:45 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hello Steven,
I suppose that the length of an engagement would depend on the depth of the ranks of the opposing parties, choice of arm (cavalry vs infantry), and how many different battles were sent in to engage according to the tactics employed. For example, the implication of the reserve battle at the appropriate moment, before the first line could break, would lengthen the time of the total engagement, whereas the reserves getting caught up in a rout would significantly shorten the time of the engagement, and so on... I don't think we have reliable primary sources on this subject, maybe Froissart on some hundred year war stuff, but that is just a wild guess.
My favorite military expression, on a par with S.N.A.F.U, is undoubtedly : " Hurry up !.... and wait....", I think it sums it all up quite well.
I hope others have references to documented timelines of some famous battles,if so I think this could be the start of a great thread.
Regards,
Jean-Carle

Bon coeur et bon bras
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,689

PostPosted: Fri 22 Dec, 2006 8:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Go check works by such military historians as John Keegan, Paddy Griffith, or Colonel Ardant du Picq. They generally state that hand-to-hand fighting consited of brief periods of intense contact lasting only a few minutes punctuated by (usually longer) lulls, except in cases where the enemy broke and routed under the initial shock of the charge. So yes, while a major battle might last for hours, the actual period of hand-to-hand fighting experienced by a single man woud have been short. Cavalry engagements would have been even more fluid.

Of course, with skirmishes and ambushes (which were much more common than open battles) the fighting itself was usually over in a matter of minutes.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Sun 24 Dec, 2006 11:00 am    Post subject: Re: How long did the fighting last?         Reply with quote

Steven

While it doen't really answer your question you might find it interesting that in August, 2005, during ARMA member Matt Anderson's prize play for the rank of Senior Free Scholar in longsword Matt fought his first 55 matches in 15 minutes. That's around 15 seconds per match. Afterwards they slowed the pace some but Matt was required to fight for a full hour. None of these matches involved sword-tag playing, rather all matches involved physically intense sparring using blunts, wasters, and padded swords. The following picture will give you an idea of the physical effort Matt had to maintain for an hour.










Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,689

PostPosted: Mon 25 Dec, 2006 8:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

We have to remember, though, that the stresses experienced in a massed battle is far from being identical to that experienced in single combat. It takes a great deal more mental (and perhaps physical) effort to deliver a killing blow when you're being sandwiched and squeezed out of breath between the friends on either side.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > How long did the fighting last?
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum