I hear this talked about very often as a means of defeating an opponent who is wearing armour that that your sword cannot penetrate. The thing it often sounds made out to be a simple a simple tactic. To me it sounds really, really hard to do. Not only are you targeting a small area on a guy who's moving around but when we assume the opponent is no less aware of the gaps in his armour than you are he probably anticipates what you are trying to do and has a plan to counter it. I don't know how you could focus on a narrow gap without leaving yourself completely exposed to a counter. If anyone has a more in depth knowledge of how this was done successfully (doing it without getting hit yourself) could they please share it?

My experience is extreeeeeemly limited, so salt according to taste, but from what little I understand, this is normally done by half swording, which makes your sword behave like a pool cue* (which are quite capable of precision). Also, one of the major "gaps" to be targeted are the armpits. From my very very limited experience, the point of a longsword will naturally sit at right about the armpit of your opponent when halfswording.




*not to be taken too literally

which is why you don't stand still and wear proper undergarmnents with mail. Its certainly possible, but its all very chaotic and messy. Its a heck of a lot easier once your opponent is on the ground and/or otherwise incapacitated however

Oh, it probably *is* hard to do! Small moving targets, often covered with mail. But face it, if you're going against a fully armored man with only a sword, your options are limited! And that's the whole point of armor, to make the wearer really hard to kill.

Matthew

Which is why you use halfswording techniques where you to move into close measure, then switch to half sword and use it like a crowbar to take the fellow appart.

[ Linked Image ]

For the most part, armored fighting techniques are different than unarmored techniques in 15C European treatises both because armor needs to be defeated (i.e. attacking the gaps / mail) and because of the protection it offers. Many half-swording techniques for instance provide for covering the line of your opponents weapon (via a parry for instance) while closing the point of your weapon to an open area such as under the arm (placing the forward hand quite close to the opponent to guide the point home).

It is certainly a great deal more difficult defeating an opponent in full harness, as others have said.

Armored combat, speaking of Fiore's treatises, often takes place at close distance making Abrazare (grappling) a necessary skill. As another said "heck of a lot easier once your opponent is on the ground".

Take a look at youtube videos from a couple of HEMA events from last year, the WMAW and Longpoint 2015 "passage of arms" armored fencing (both were invitational events with senior HEMA practitioners from 15C German and Italian traditions).

I have zero experience with this.

Wouldn't it be easier to stab a weak point in the armor if you first stunned your opponent with a good whack to the helmet, or knocked him over? (I mean in real combat, not in a friendly fencing match.)

Here is a harness demonstration from Fechtschule Frisbee 2015 with Bill Frisbee and Ken Mondschein demoing and explaining armored fighting techniques which I think will be helpful in understanding some basics of 15C armored combat.

i have to agree with J.D. while i have very little experience with HEMA and new to it but experience with contact sports makes me think that even with armor striking someones head hard would make it easier to line up a good stab. even if you don't break the helm the impact to the head will disorient and depending on force the neck will be injured while i may not know how armor changes the impact versus sports helmets but both of these can ruin your day and i would assume threaten your life in the middle of a fight

T. Kew.
You are absolutely right, a pool cue is not a good comparison, but it was the best one my sleep deprived brain could come up with at the time. I think what I was trying to get at is that by having a larger gap between your hands than the distance from your front hand to the tip, you gain a great deal of precision and control over the point .

i assumed that youd make guy dazed before trying to do this
like hitting him a coupla times so he slowes down then haldswording to get a joints

Just remember that your opponent is trying to do the exact same thing to you at the same time, and is also parrying those opening blows to the head! Darned uncooperative of him, but there it is...

Matthew

Another question I wonder about is how well these sophisticated longsword fencing techniques translate into battlefield situations.

First, from what I understand, hand-to-hand sword combat rarely dominated late medieval battles (an exception being one of the Roses battles...which one was that again?).

Second, space would be more limited and the situation a melee rather than one-on-one. My limited experience with melees is that you don't get hit by the guy in front of you. You get hit by the guy you don't see behind you.

Third, any real life experience I've had with fighting (never in armor!) resulted in one or both combatants on the ground within a few seconds.

Fourth, if you get the other guy on the ground in medieval times, and he's rich enough to own a complete suit of armor, wouldn't you want to make him surrender and ransom him rather than stick a blade through his visor?

Finally, on a slightly different point: the youtube demo above seems to assume that one can readily stab blades through mail in the gaps between plate, whereas others who contribute to this site maintain that this is impossible. (I'm not taking a side on this issue, just pointing out the discrepancy in views).

I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on these points.