Quote: |
When I say layers of cloth, I am referring to the three layers of linen and two of wool you would likely find on a medieval man wearing a linen undershirt, a linen lined doublet and a linen lined wool coat. Now these things were not always linen lined, so you may run into less layers, but you would not ask your opponent to examine his clothing prior to striking, so you prepare for more, and get pleasantly surprised when there is less, rather than the opposite. |
Sure, and I agree that cutting through that is a reasonable skill to develop. It does reflect the 'blossfechten uniform', if you will.
Quote: |
As for jacks, there is no evidence that cutting through layers of fabric was not considered an important ability either. In real life there is no neat division between types of fighting. You could have been accosted by bandits during your travels as a lord’s body guard or a lord himself, and some of those bandits could be wearing jacks. Being prepared for this is better than not. Thrusting through jacks, or thrusting or striking around them, is easier and tactically more sound, but is not always an option. It is better to not be limited to certain wounders or target areas. |
Quite the contrary - there's evidence that jacks were considered sword proof. If something was regarded as proof, you wouldn't practice against it. That's not to say that "striking" against a jack wouldn't slow said bandit though.
Quote: |
The fact is, a longsword can cut a jack, and it doesn’t take a giant swing or any grand movement that gives up anything to the opponent. And if I can cut a jack, you can bet that medieval swordsmen could cut them also. |
If period texts say jacks are proof, and you can cut them, then odds are you're not cutting a reasonable facsimile of a period jack. This is a test problem, much akin to Dan Howard's strong criticism, which I agree with, of tests against mail: no one's using a reasonable period mail reproduction, so the test doesn't mean much.
There are people who cut through plate armour too. It's when you realize what kind of reproduction was used that the limits of the test become clear.
Quote: |
Actually it’s quite easy and intuitive, and it happens subconsciously. This is where a lot of cutting training and a lot of pell work come in. |
Well, when I see bouting that reflects that, I'll find this more credible. And, in the past, you've been critical of the idea of being able to change up blows on the fly, so this contention is a bit surprising here.
Quote: |
I have three pells that I use. One is a standard post pell, in this case a 4x4, which you can use for training measure, basic striking mechanics, etc. I use this pell to practice bind work (it’s a swinging pell). The second and most useful pell is a cloth pell, which consists of a Revival cotton gambeson suspended on a chain. This pell can be used to strike full force without damaging your steel blunt and to train the drawing motion necessary for good cuts into your striking mechanics. This pell also traps your sword sometimes and is fantastic for developing fuhlen. The third pell type is not applicable here.
The point is, training cutting along with different kinds of pell work develops a subconscious ability to switch your mechanics subtly depending on your goal. This is a basic tenet I try to pass on when I teach cutting…the type of strike you do depends on the goal. Learning which you need when and to adjust them without thinking is one of the benefits of cutting practice. |
I like the idea of the different pells. That's cool.
Quote: |
Also, in regards to this particular strike, I never use a short edge unterhau as a vorschlaag and I see no evidence it should be used that way, so it’s not a question of is he moving or not…you’re in the war, so he’s moving or he’s dead. |
Use of the slashing up blow is documented in the Ringeck techniques for the Nebenhut. I didn't realize that years ago, but it's in there:
It~ wann du tribst die streÿchen zu° dem mann vñ helt er dañ sin schwert zwerchs vor im vnd ist hoc mitt den armen vnd will dir vff din schwert fallen So streÿch im vnden an sÿn schwert vnd schlach in vff den arm oder stoß in an die bru~st ~~
"When you use the slashing to the man and he holds his sword across before him and has his arms high and wants to fall upon your sword, then slash under to his sword and hit his arms or thrust to his chest."
He's not striking here; you are. I missed that subtlety years ago.
Quote: |
This is our strongest point of contention, and one we’ve had for a while. A sword is a cutting and thrusting implement, not a club. And while it is true you can inflict a good amount of damage on someone without getting through his clothing, I do not believe that one should train to do “just enough.” I firmly believe that you should train to make use of the weapon’s full potential. Things in battle don’t usually go your way, and targets don’t stand still, so “just enough” can quickly turn into “oops, that wasn’t enough and I’m dead.” |
Well, we don't disagree that strongly here, actually. First, I've never alluded to a sword being a club. Even when a sword doesn't 'bite' per se though, it delivers a lot of pounds per inch because of its geometry - it has an edge. However, not all swords had particularly keen edges.
And I agree with the need for power generation, edge alignment, and....some cutting practice. Our difference lies only in degrees - how much emphasis to put on what. Further, I believe the very strong emphasis you've been putting on cutting *through* targets is distorting your read on technique and tactics in general.
Quote: |
I don’t believe in basing one’s mechanics on words, particularly one the use of which is not, and cannot be, fully understood. A proper sword strike does indeed have a chopping or hacking action, but it also should have a drawing action, or the full potential of the weapon is not realized. To believe otherwise is to believe that our medieval ancestors did not know how to make the most of their weapons, which is something I simply cannot accept. |
I think that's sometimes true, and sometimes not. I think a 'strike' is fine from wide measure. I think once you're in close, then a powerful, finishing cut (a la Talhoffer's beheading) makes more sense. Of course, if you can cut off a hand or two on the way in, that's great too. [Interestingly though, we only see that with single-handers in manuscripts]
Quote: |
I really don’t think we’ll ever convince each other of any of this, and that’s fine. The fact is, neither you nor I can know if we’re right, we can only each pursue our own ideas and see how they turn out. I think this is good, and healthy for the community. In a situation like ours, where we are recreating a dead art, it’s important, I think, to approach it from many directions. Time may tell which of us was right, or that we were both right and wrong on some points, and those that follow after can only benefit from this. |
Well, again, this is a matter of degrees. I think it would be misleading to say that these positions are diametrically opposed, given that I do use cutting as a part of our training.
Cheers!
Christian