The other problem with attacking only unarmored targets is that it's difficult. Ideally you want to strike at what's available to you; if warriors could merely cut or thrust anywhere they desired, every attack would be cut to neck or thrust through the brain. You can try to attack certain targets but the dynamics of the fight might well make your stroke land elsewhere.
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
| The other problem with attacking only unarmored targets is that it's difficult. Ideally you want to strike at what's available to you; if warriors could merely cut or thrust anywhere they desired, every attack would be cut to neck or thrust through the brain. You can try to attack certain targets but the dynamics of the fight might well make your stroke land elsewhere. |
Good point, it would make no sense to not strike a opening that presents itself to because it's not ideal. Then again, it make no sense for a warrior not to have train himself o be that fast in accurate just because you know it will be much for difficult to be precise and accurate on the field. Sorta the point of regular training IMO to make the previously difficult things instinctive so that you can land successful opening not matter how small be able to whatever it takes to kill disable opponent etc,
This fight account gives two examples of attacking armor with a sword, the first turning out poorly for the attacker, the second turning out rather well.
I've always thought the practice of ransoming captives would have an impact and wonder if it wasn't common for a mailed knight to be bludgeoned into submission then ransomed as opposed to stabbed in the eye then having his family looking for revenge..
Mail seems to make this practice possible.
Mail seems to make this practice possible.
| Jojo Zerach wrote: |
| 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. |
Okay, a couple of things to clear up...
First, the sword was not the preferred knightly weapon - it was the weapon on which the greatest symbolic significance rested. In reality, it was the knightly weapon of last resort. If a knight had to draw his sword on the battlefield, it meant that his shock charge had failed to break the opposing formation, and he was now having to fight for his life.
As far as why it was chosen, there was a element of status, I think, but it was also very nimble. An axe, on the other hand, while delivering more force, does not turn on a dime. A mace was a status symbol reserved for a leader for much of the early Middle Ages. And, as our group's WMA instructor mentioned in this weekend's practice, a bit dead is just as good as really dead. The sword could deliver a blow with sufficient force to get past the mail, so it was useful on a horse.
As far as how swords were actually used, the earliest combat manual we have is i.33 - you can find it here: http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/i33/i33.htm
And, as far as the illustration goes, it does look a bit over the top, but not too far...I'd actually say that it looks pretty realistic, from what I've seen and know of swords.
| Robert B. Marks wrote: |
|
First, the sword was not the preferred knightly weapon - it was the weapon on which the greatest symbolic significance rested. In reality, it was the knightly weapon of last resort. If a knight had to draw his sword on the battlefield, it meant that his shock charge had failed to break the opposing formation, and he was now having to fight for his life. |
The sword makes a good weapon after the charge routs the infantry, does it not?
I suppose for a weapon of last resort, you want something that doesn't easily break (ie. Not having a wooden shaft), and isn't easily dropped (pommel to help stop it sliding out of tired hands)
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum