http://manuscriptminiatures.com/4885/14173/
This could just be artistic license, but it also looks like the illustrator was trying to show realistic fighting techniques.
If the aim was just to deliver blunt trauma, then why were swords the knights preferred weapon of the period? I know most people didn't have full mail, but why would a knight chose a sub optimal weapon for fighting an equal?
I'm not trying to put mail down, since I'm sure it usually gave good protection, but I'm interested in information other than the same Alan Williams test we keep seeing. (especially historical accounts) Obviously there was a lot of variation in mail, so it isn't good to draw sweeping conclusions from a single test.
Later writers often mention thrusting at the gaps in plate armor where there was only mail, which shows they considered the mail covered areas weak points in the armor.

Hmm, it doesn't look very realistic to me! It could just be an illustration from a Bible or other book, an image for a passage that says nothing more than "So-and-so slew such-and-such." No, I don't think the artist is trying to show what swords actually did on the battlefield. There were plenty of other good targets for a sword than trying to chop or thrust through the strongest part of an opponent's armor.

Matthew

Medieval illustrations are intended to grab your attention and convey a message. Anything else you want to interpret from the image is pure speculation.

Do we happen to have anyone in our midst who might know a thing or two about the artists who drew the manuscripts?
How versed are they in the war arts they depict, or how much do they study them at least?

I happen to be an artist myself. I'm rather detail oriented, at least I'd think. Sorry if I'm tooting my own horn, but I've been praised by all I've shown my work to for the amount of detail I put into my work. Apart of those details, even though I am a fantasy artist, I prefer to lean towards logic and realism in the same stroke.

In other words, I like to draw pictures would have many viewers say, "Whoa, that is badass!", while at the same time that isn't exaggerated to my knowledge.

To my knowledge.
That is my whole story here, that I why I'm here at myArmoury, to bask in the logical take on what may have been, in that way, though set in a mythical world, I'm aiming for realism.
However, its a tough thought, when thinking about my hopes and dreams connected to them. Which are that perhaps it would help teach or at least be relatable to the more reasonable minds out there of medieval life and combat.

A tough thought, thinking likewise realistically, many would probably just look upon my work say and think 'that's badass!', and that is it, end of story, not much more thought. Due to it being fantasy.

I think taking period art literally in every case is foolish. I think dismissing it entirely is foolish. History has left us 3 main things to study in this regard: surviving archeological specimens, period art (including drawings, sculpture, effigies, etc.), and written text (sometimes text and drawing go together like in a fencing treatise, sometimes not). Studying any of those 3 categories in isolation doesn't get you anywhere significant. Historical specimens by themselves tell you little that's concrete about their usage and context. Text by itself lacks the tactility of the historical specimens and the visuality of art and therefore doesn't create a full, accurate mental image of what's being discussed. Art by itself can be steeped in allegory or overly depictive of a concept and can be divorced from reality. So how do we learn use these things to get anything useful out of it?

Study all three and look for how they fit together. Is some activity seen in a picture corroborated by a contemporary textual source in any way? Can you look at a surviving specimen and decipher it could have been used in that way? That's how we arrive at good conclusions. By not over-relying on any one type of source and seeing where multiple sources (and types of sources) line up--or not. It's called research. :)

I think the reality is that some period art is very good and very accurate. Some exaggerates to prove points. Some is pure fantasy. We can only start to distinguish which is which by comparing art to other art and to text and specimens from the time.

Context is everything. Consider these mail-armed figures with ailettes in the Roman de Renart. (Reynard is a sly fox, and these are like the tales of Br'er Rabbit.)

---

 Attachment: 96 KB
[ Download ]

I am very well aware not to rely on one source, such as art. Just merely my personal perspective being an artist myself.
If you read my post, I pretty much said the same thing, that art isn't always the best example, as it can be hard to tell what it's context is.
I apologize if my input didn't contribute much.

Here's something related that has always intrigued me.

These period art often show a minority of knights wielding falchions as opposed to swords.

So I wonder:

Does this represent the reality of weapon choices, that some would prefer a falchion over a sword or is it just the artist trying to break up the monotony of swords? Certainly the falchions look stylized to me, but I lack the experience to say so with any authority.

If it is true that falchions were used how do that square with what we know about the relative protective qualities of mail? It seems to me that mail is essentially cut proof from any bladed implement. Does a falchion cross over into being an impact weapon that does blunt trauma to the person under the mail?

Apart from the apparently not resolveable issue of the artist depicting real fighting or just fictional allegories, I find the quality of this specific illumination astounding. The knights are looking like they have been drawn by Hal Foster himself. I won't be surprised to find Prince Valiant on the next page. For the beginning of the 13th century it's a masterpiece, I guess.

Thomas