I came across this forum thread on the Order of the Seven Hearts Forum and it sparked a curiosity about the vague notion of 16th Century Armored Combat.

http://salvatorfabris.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=473

I began to do research into this but sadly found this article to be the only one that tackles the topic: http://www.thearma.org/essays/DOTC.htm. I have looked into books but they seem to be either out of print or rare.

I am also looking into the treatisies left by the Bolognese Fencing Masters and they only discuss the contexts of the Duel and Honor. I was able to find a few references pertaining to fighting in armor or fighting against an armored opponent (I'm looking at Marozzo, Dal'agochie, Viggiani, Anonymous Bolgnese).

Can one make this argument: Was it possible that Armored Combat changed from fighting with Spear, Dueling Shield and Longsword to Sidesword and Rotella shield, Lance and Rotella or Spadone? Could it also be possible that the practitioner having knowledge of the weaknesses of the armor used that knowledge when fighting in armor by adjusting his technique and using that? Could the former be the reason why there are little to no references of armored combat in the Bolognese treatises?"

Feedback, input, suggestions, recommendation are welcome.

I think you have to understand the Bolognese school holistically. There is this notion that it is unarmoured sword and buckler, with some other weapons that might or might not be armoured. What it really is is a single form of combat used in and out of armour, with some weapons favoring harness over others. Authors like Manciolino and Viggiani make it clear that this is a system for war and duel alike, and we should take them at their word, and read carefully.

Consider for example, Manciolino's discussion about how to choose armour for the judicial duel - not weapon *systems*, but rather how to choose light or heavy armour, and for which parts of the body, based on the physical attributes of your opponent.

We also see periodic references to combat "en arme" scattered throughout. Marozzo has two places in his sword and buckler material where he mentions to do something in the matter of the spade en arme - by which he means half-swording - and it comes up once in spadone; Viggiani talks about how to target armour weakness. Polearms were meant to be wielded in varying degrees of harness and the attacks and advice on the weapon, show that. For example, the bill might be wielded by foot soldiers in partial harness, with or without gauntlets, and has raking attacks to the hands. The poleaxe is a knightly weapon, and although the plays are similar, they are specifically adapted for *full* armour. In a similar way, look at the targets of the spada and rotella sequences - primarily, they target the vulnerabilities of a man in half-armour.

HTH!

Greg

Joshua,

Firstly, I'm glad you took the time to cite the locations - I confess I was typing on the fly. ;)

If we assume that "spade en arme" means to the Bolognese what it did to Fiore and Vadi - and based on Marozzo's advice to grip the blade with the buckler hand, it seems safe to do so - this is what we generally call "half-swording". Note that is distinct from the way that he grips the spadone blade for playing against polearms - which is why I think he calls it out separately.

For the Anonymous - he has a large section on spadone - mostly plays of gioco stretto, but I have not had opportunity to really work with it. I would argue though that the size and power of the spadone makes it ALL useful in harness/against harness, especially half harness. However, as you said, he is the one master to SPECIFICALLY talk about armoured combat - in his chapter for the "Axe in Armour". I translated (with significant help from Steve Reich) and interpreted most of this section in my essay in the book In the Service of Mars - and I think if you compare it to Marozzo and Manciolino's section on the bill you will get a great idea of where half vs full armour causes some changes (more throws, for starters). Otherwise, no, nothing more to speak of that I can recall. Steve Reich and Tom Leoni know this source much better than I, however.

I absolutely would say that spada and rotella, spadone and polearms all give you a clear idea of fighting in harness, and most of Marozzo's prese does as well (compare to Fiore's dagger defenses, for example). Even his forward grip dagger work is interesting, although of the seven or nine plays, probably half clearly presume no harness. As to fighting in half harness - really just stick with this rule - cut where the armour isn't, thrust into the gaps. No go and look at the sword and buckler plays again, and you'll realize that many of them will clearly work well against half harness - the strikes to the lower leg and inside of the hand, cuts to the face, thrusts to the face, groin, armpits and throat. It's adaptation, but not really requisite of a radical reconsideration of combat.

Finally, you might want to track down Il Tre Giorni of Pagano, which teaches spadone, partizan and a "pole knife", which is some form of spear. (Neapolitan, 1550s).

Hope this helps!

Greg

Sean,

Sean Manning wrote:

Is there any period evidence of that though? I'm not confident that every student of a 16th century master would know that any metal armour was proof against sword cuts and one-handed thrusts. They don't spell this out as often as we might expect in the 15th century, but they fairly often distinguish explicitly between armoured and unarmoured combat.

I really can't agree that they don't spell it out in the 15th c - the Liechtenauer commentaries begin with the instructions of where to strike and include plays that say "if he knows little of the art and wishes to cut at you". Then look at how they teach and what they teach - I don't think it needs to be more express than that. After all, *we* can figure it out, and we are notably more removed from sword combat than the original audience.

>It seems to me that Manciollino's sword and rotella has a number of fendenti (to the head?), thrusts to the flank, and cuts to >the sword arm which might not be the best choice against a man in harness.

I think there is a mistake that "armoured" = any kind of armour. It means *fully* armoured. Less armour, more you apply other techniques. We can have a textual debate about this, but we can see it by analyzing the plays themselves.

Anonymous Poleaxe: the combatants are in full harness. The plays involve thrusts to the weak points, like the groin, throws and hooks.

Bill - Billmen generally fought in varying degrees of partial harness. The techniques are quite similar, but include things like using the horn of the bill to rake the hands or forearms while recovering a thrust - something that would be useless against full harness.

Sword and Rotella - yes thrusts to the flank, as beautifully depicted by Agrippa - which take you in under a breastplate or into the armpit. And fendente to the face are possible as long as the helm doesn't as a brim, like a burgonet, which was quite likely in the first two decades of the 16th c. If his helmet is visored, don't cut there.

I'm not a living historian worried about the portrayal of the "common student" of a fencing master. As a martial artist, my concern is about the art taught by the actual fencing masters at its fullest expression. In the end, Viggiani, Marozzo, the Anonymous and Manciolino all tell us that the art is for use in armour and without. Do they give a treatise on how to pick and choose based on how much harness? No. But we can deduce that quite clearly by looking at what they do say and the plays they teach, Not surprisingly, it seems to follow the advice in Chinese and Japanese swordsmanship: avoid the harness. IMO, there seems little reason to believe that professional masters at arms living in the 16th c somehow did not understand the same lessons, especially when we compare their plays to advice given in the 15th c.

To make things short, I agree with what Greg has written pretty much 100%. In general, the Bolognese give us hints about armor and the period artwork shows that it was definitely still worn. I think that the key is that you learn how to defend yourself in the worst possible scenario (i.e. you have no armor) and then adapt to the situation.

In terms of knowing that your armor would be proof against a cut or a thrust, while your opponent might be aiming for a gap, even if he wasn't, would you trust your armor well enough to leave your defense to it's passive protection? I wouldn't and I'm not sure very many people would even if they wanted to--since you'll likely have trained to react to anything coming to your vital targets. Granted, if desperate situations, you would probably do things like parrying with your greaves or gauntlets, but you're probably not likely to consider that a primary defensive tactic.

In general, I think that the key to learning the Bolognese system is internalizing the fundamental actions and the complex actions. Ideally, the complete swordsman will adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent. Of course, that is easier said than done, but there really isn't a special formula that addresses it other than practice and experience...

Steve

Sean,

Sean Manning wrote:

Hold on- I said that they don't spell it out as often as we might expect. The texts that gloss the line "Leather and gauntlets, below the eyes, seek the openings correctly" in the 'Liechtenauer' poem on armoured combat are a significant fraction of the written sources on armoured combat, but they aren't all of the sources. But perhaps this was something that one was expected to already know, or pick up by example, or learn in person.

I understand the frustration, I guess that in this case I don't think there is much more to be said. Fiore explains how to find the openings in armour, the Merkverse have it, and in the end, none of these works are for someone without any knowledge of swordsmanship, so I don't think that there is much more that needs to be said, for the intended audience.

Not to turn Steve and I into a broken record on this, but I think that he encapsulated it well here:

In general, I think that the key to learning the Bolognese system is internalizing the fundamental actions and the complex actions. Ideally, the complete swordsman will adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent. Of course, that is easier said than done, but there really isn't a special formula that addresses it other than practice and experience...

I highlighted it because that is what we come away with from the discourse in the texts: "armour is a factor and the way you factor it in is to strike where it is absent or weak. Now, when using the cloak...."

Now, I wish someone had just said that succinctly! But honestly, the Bolognese material is so expansive (I don't think most folks realize that just Manciolino's sword and buckler section is about four times as long as all of I.33) and so preliminary in our efforts, that right now we are best served by focusing on the foundations and seeing how they apply against the broad range of weapons - which in turn I believe will answer a lot of these questions.