| Author |
Message |
|
Ken Speed
|
 Posted: Wed 27 Feb, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: Re: Dueling Pike |
 |
|
Greg Coffman wrote, "Staffs would some times have metal caps on them or even small spikes and still be considered staffs. But even with the bare wood end, it still can deliver both crushing blows and strikes. Learn to use the weapon as it's intended and it won't come across as clubbing with big sticks.
I don't know Greg, I feel like I've stepped through the looking glass, you know? I'm really wondering what we're going to do next; discuss how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Yes, of course staves can have ferrules or a small spike on the end but that still doesn't make them spears or pikes. I didn't say that they couldn't have metal on them! I simply said that a spear or pike is a different thing than a staff.
Is there a functional difference between being dealt a, "...crushing blow or strike" with a staff and getting clubbed with a big stick? Trauma is trauma, concussion is concussion. An attacker may be a martial arts superstar with a beautifully crafted staff or some knuckle dragger with a sapling with the limbs torn off ; if he hits you solidly on the head you're likely a corpse.
Ken Speed
|
|
  |
 |
|
Dan P
Location: Massachusetts, USA Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 208
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Feb, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
There's the whole "clubbing with big sticks" thing, which is just taking the weapon and swinging it as hard as possible. And then there is the advancement into different grips, striking with both ends, parrying and countering, jabs, disarms, midstrikes, etc. The result, admittedly, is that the other guy still gets hit with a big stick, but generally the person who has more options for getting there while denying the same to the other guy comes out on top.
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hand
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Feb, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | What would you call the grip used by Swetnam, Meyer, Mair, and (I think) Silver? Rear hand right by the butt, front hand a few feet above it. (A foot and half in Swetnam's case, often much more in Mair and Meyer.) |
Swetnam's stance is unique amongst English sources. I would refer to it as a spear or pike grip. Silver does not explicitly state where to hold the hands but recommends having a foot of the staff behind your rear hand (paradox 19) and discusses techniques which are physically impossible unless the front hand is at the point of balance (for example BI Cap. 11, 9-10). Wylde, McBane, MacGregor, McCarthy and Allanson Winn all recommend the front hand at the balance point and the rear hand roughly a quarter of the way up the staff.
Meyer and Mair were German, and so really didn't have any bearing on English practice and terminology.
Cheers
Stephen
Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield
Stoccata School of Defence
|
|
 |
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Feb, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject: Re: Dueling Pike |
|
|
| Ken Speed wrote: |
I think there is a huge difference between two antagonists stabbing and slashing each other with what are essentially elongated spears and two fighters trying to club one another senseless with big sticks.
Is there a functional difference between being dealt a, "...crushing blow or strike" with a staff and getting clubbed with a big stick? Trauma is trauma, concussion is concussion. An attacker may be a martial arts superstar with a beautifully crafted staff or some knuckle dragger with a sapling with the limbs torn off ; if he hits you solidly on the head you're likely a corpse.
Ken Speed |
See, I think that there is a difference between the use of a staff, especially as taught by Swetnam, and especially in the case of the longstaff, versus the use of a club. And I also think that there is not a difference in use between a pike and a longstaff, which both fall into the same length range, or between a pike and a staff in the thrust oriented system taught by Swetnam. To go one step further, in the German martial tradition the teachings on the quarterstaff are the same as the teachings on the halberd or like polearms and the teachings on the longstaff are the same as the teachings on the pike. That is what is so neat about the staff! Considering that Silver's staff of perfect length would be 8 or 9 feet, I don't think it is comparable to a club in how it fights.
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Feb, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Silver does not explicitly state where to hold the hands but recommends having a foot of the staff behind your rear hand (paradox 19) |
I take issue with this interpretation. Silver wrote as follows:
And this note, that these lengths will commonly fall out to be eight or nine foot long, and will fit, although not just, the statures of all men without any hindrance at all unto them in their fight, because in any weapon wherein the hands may be removed, and at liberty, to make the weapon longer of shorter in fight at his pleasure, a foot of the staff being behind the backmost hand does no harm.
As you can see, he wrote that a foot of staff behind the rear hand does no harm in the context of discussing staves not perfectly suited to the wielder. This is not the same as recommending leaving a foot behind the rear hand. It implies to me that Silver's default grip put the rear hand right by the butt, as Swetnam's does. (In other words, if the staff doesn't perfectly fit your height, feel free to leave a bit behind your rear hand to get the length right.)
The question is complicated by the nature of staff weapons. As Silver wrote, the wielder's hands move freely across the weapon. But given Silver's great respect for reach and distance, why would he want you to leave a quarter of your nine-foot staff unused? According to Paradox 26, he expected a swordsman to need a least four paces to close the distance against his short staff. This implies he counted every inch of that reach, or used rather small paces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Speed
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Feb, 2008 7:14 pm Post subject: Re: Dueling Pike |
|
|
Greg,
If you read the whole discussion you will see that the definitions of the weapons and their length is constantly changing. I started out saying that I had a tough time believing that a quarter staff could be used as a quarter staff when it was something like 13 to 18 feet long. Then the argument was made that a quarter staff and a pike were in fact the same thing. I argued that they are not because a quarterstaff does not have a spear head because then it would be a pike nor an axe head because then it would be a halberd. You pointed out that a quarterstaff could have metal caps or a small spike on one end which is still neither an axe or spearhead. Now you are talking about a long staff and I frankly don't know if this is in fact the same thing as a quarterstaff or something different. I would note that the staff you seem to be talking about is now 8 or 9 feet long a far cry from the 13 to 18 foot length that was originally mentioned.
You said, "See, I think that there is a difference between the use of a staff, especially as taught by Swetnam, and especially in the case of the longstaff, versus the use of a club." I didn't say that a staff and a club were the same I said that being hit with a staff, like being hit with a baseball bat is being clubbed as opposed to being slashed with a sword or stabbed with a spear.
Yes, I agree a halberd and a staff that are both 8' long will be used in a similar manner, a 8' long staff will be used in a different manner than a 18' long pike.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
David Lohnes
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Feb, 2010 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I would not characterize Terry Brown's treatment of the quarterstaff in English Martial Arts as "extensive." I'd say it's barely introductory at best. There's a relatively brief chapter of historical background that relies heavily on Silver and a presentation of ten techniques using captioned photographs with no other explanatory text besides the photographs. It's certainly in no way a systematic presentation of a coherent art, merely ten fairly random individual techniques.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 27 Feb, 2010 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I recommend David Lindholm's Fighting with the Quarterstaff for wide-ranging but detailed survey of European staff techniques. I wish had stuck a little closer to his sources; he gives you the historical maneuver adapted to his personal martial preferences. For example, all the photos of Swetnam's moves show folks leaving a foot behind their rear hands even though the text explicitly says to grip right by the butt. In the context of such a great resource, however, this quibble hardly matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic