Sam N. wrote: |
I do agree that in fights where the weapons are of equal length and reasonably short (as opposed to polearm vs. polearm), I also believe that the majority of strikes would be to upper targets. I have thrown low strikes before using longsword and sword and shield and it seems that everytime I get cut or stabbed in the head due to the simple geometry of the situation. However, if one weapon far outranges the other, than this geometrical advantage of striking high is negated by length. |
I'm not sure what context this is--that is, are we talking SCA, historic medieval, or historic in general, or just in general? However, when considering 1400s and 1500s sword and shield (where shield is large, small, or buckler), then I don't think this is borne out by the 1500s texts. Well, I suppose if you added up the strikes, you might find that the majority aren't cuts to the leg--if you consider that the majority would be everything else: cuts to the weapon-arm, cuts to the head, thrusts to the face, thrusts to the body, etc. The point is, that for 1500s swordsmanship, leg attacks are a primary attack in the same way that attacks to the head are--unless we don't believe what is in the masters' treatises. Where leg attacks are not primary attacks is in situations where you only have a single-hand sword by itself. In that case, your head is in danger of being exposed (leg attacks still occur, just not nearly as often). However, in the case of Marozzo's Spada da Due Mani (sword for two hands--the huge sword about 5 and a half feet long), leg attacks are a primary attack--in fact, they are a foundational attack--and are made possible by the length of the blade and quillons allowing you to attack your opponent's legs while simultaneously defending your upper body and head.
Steve