[Jared Smith]

I just attended an ARMA training seminar Saturday (August 20th) involving about 5 hours of steady training (agile footwork, rehearsed wooden waster maneuvers, and padded foam sword sparring with about 15 minutes break every hour) in 100 deg. F heat. This was hosted by Jacob Norwood in Clarksville TN. Jacob is one of the few U.S. people around who can give John Clements a good challenge in sparring. Jake does a great job of coaching and inspiring participants, and included demonstrations of; the ability to easily dispatch attackers even outnumbered 3 against 1, applicability of techniques to rapier and buckler, daggers against longsword, etc. Despite the weather, this was tremendous fun, and quite humbling as Jacob generally finishes off an average opponent in less than 10 seconds, beginners “lethally killed” in a single hit. Despite flaws in what this “unarmored style” might or might not represent historically, it is vigorous exorcise, a cheap starting point for beginners, and illustrates the potential of the sword as both weapon and highly effective shield.

Numerous historical texts by medieval sword masters describe both unarmored and armored combat techniques. One might argue that unarmored sword combat played some part in knightly training, by at least some masters, over a span between 300 to 500 years based on texts and premises that original tradition was oral, according to the first masters to record the techniques in writing. Also, numerous, highly generalized articles, I have encountered on the web describe training of squires as including unarmored and armored combat techniques with multiple weapons. In the context of all of the above points, a couple of questions persist in my mind;

1) Who would have emplyed the German longsword combat style, as advocated by John Clements, and the great longsword masters of 1300’s through 1600’s, and under what circumstances?
Tournament dueling without shield in plate armour?
Foraging skirmishes (possibly men at arms attacking without full battle armor), etc.?
Training and conditioning?


2) Long hilted (grip lengths of at least 7” or more, preferably 8” to 10”) longswords are very advantageous for execution several associations’ present “interpretation” of techniques described by the historical masters. Additionally, good hilt length was repeatedly described historically as having room for 2-1/2 to 3 hands between guard and pommel. Admittedly, there are very few such swords remaining in museum displays. Where happened to such swords?

Did they never exist (all of the great masters detailed descriptions, and illustrations are highly inaccurate?)
Were such things utilized so extensively that they were typically broken in combat?
Were long hilted swords limited to dueling and training, and hence not preserved as representative of a real combat sword?

[Martin Wallgren]

[Jared Smith]

I was aware of the judicial combat usage. According to other's translations ( I can not translate original texts) judicial combat was not specifically mentioned in earliest fechtbuch texts, and teaching of the techniques to merchant and civilian class was strongly discouraged. The technique of the two handed grip longsword was described by the masters' as a foundation for warriors' training with both sword and polearms/ staffs. In later texts, the discouragement of teaching this style of longsword combat to non-noble class does not seems to be mentioned any more, and the judicial combat is mentioned more often... A lot of changes occur during this period. Paid militia, civilian militias, and mercenary forces are utilized more and improve in terms of effectiveness during this period.

The whole subject of sword combat technique against armour (mail or plate) is rather baffling. Test cutting or slashing effectively is pretty difficult against mail and plate (I suppose trauma from impact alone could have been a very significant factor.) Some of the ARMA folks have tested cutting effectiveness against mail and found that even "bearded" axes require a special hooking technique to actually rip through mail. A lot of effort and several minutes can be wasted attempting to penetrate a small trial piece. This creates something of a mystery as to just how practical swords really were in armored battlefield combat from 12th century on, or at least doubts as to what manner they were really used (bludgeoning clubs? or chivalrous fencing instruments?). I do not dispute that they were used, only speculate that technique may have been quite different from my own childhood conceptions. Heavy sword weight, and long hilt leverage such as the Svante, might be more practical for armoured battle if technique actually rewarded brute force ("overbearing opponents like a buffalo" as the masters would say.) Alternatively, the swords may have only been utilized for a brief interlude (half swording, quick thrust attempt, etc.) prior to grappling and dagger work, as the bulk of the masters' advice on armored combat seems to suggest.

Lots of speculation, few answers, and few proofs.

[Martin Wallgren]

[Elling Polden]

Lets not forget the people that would practice swordplay for fun. Most of them would not have armour, or would not bother to wear it.

[Joe Maccarrone]

[Patrick Kelly]

[Allen Johnson]

There are tests which are on video somewhere of John hitting a heavy punching bag 'wearing' a full riveted shirt as well as a gambeson of some sort if Im not mistaken. The results were little to no damage to the mail. With a tapering longsword and a strong thrust got into the gambeson only slightly but what was really interesting is that the rings almost bound up around the tip- keeping from going in very far even if one of the rivets were broken. It's been forever since I've seen this so the details may be off but that is what I seem to recal. I agree that a small patch does very little by the way of demonstrating what would happen to a person but usually those tests show newbies that you can not slice through mail. It is certainly cheaper than hacking at a full shirt. But tests on that have been done as well.

[Jean Thibodeau]

We have been over this discussion before with the same frustrating results, at least for me, that once past the disclaimers about the tests not being scientific very little is said about the results of the tests.

The discussion then often degenerates into arguments about why this or that test is not conclusive proof of how effective or not effective a cut or a thrust against mail would be.

The last thing I want to see or start is one of those arguments

I just think that if people have tried different things and gotten various results: Please tell us what they were somewhere in your post. ( It's like being told a good joke without ever being told the punch line )

So a test need not be THE test that will give us the final definitive answer to be worth hearing about !

AFTER you tell us the results you can give us all the reasons why we shouldn't generalize from a particular unscientific test.

[Martin Wallgren]

Well, correct me if I am wrong but the original thought in this tread was not maillecutting, but rather Blossfechten. Just so we dont OT here!!

Martin

[Jean Thibodeau]

Martin;

You're right, it is OT

My only excuse is that the discussion had already started to drift a few posts before mine: These OT digressions do happen a lot here and sometimes we get some interesting content this way, but yes we should get back to the original topic or start a new one or ask one of the moderators to split off the topic where it got OT and make a new topic from it.

I would suggest that it would be a good idea to go back to the first post and re-read it attentively as the questions asked are very interesting. I think what happens is that we jump in in the middle and reply to the last few posts and neglect to check what the original question was.

Sorry if this is also OT

[Martin Wallgren]

There´s no need for exuses, I just wanted to enlight the original question...

Thanx... Martin

[Chad Arnow]

[Patrick Kelly]

Starting a new thread might be a good idea if you'd like to focus more on that point.

Leaving the moderating to the moderators is also a good idea guys.