[Michael Edelson]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Mike,

It surely was not decided by half-swording. The battle of Courtrai in 1302 that you're referencing was notable for the use of the 'Godendac' - a kind of polearm of some sort - as well as spears. Historians have debated exactly what form Godendac took, but it was the weapon most employed by the Flemish in this battle. This follows a basic pattern where patriotic infantry forces overcome knightly ones; we see this clearly with the Swiss and their use of halberds, and later the pike, against the Austrians and Burgundians, more or less, respectively.

The rise of infantry in the 14th c. is accompanied by a rise in the use of polearms. These forces aren't getting around armour with swords, but with polearms. And as always, the sword is a sidearm, not the primary weapon, in battle.

The idea of 'Bad War' is most expounded on by Italian writers of the late Middle Ages, in reference to encounters where vendetta was the underlying factor, and savage treatment of prisoners was present. In the case of Courtrai, it was an encounter between feudal cavalry and primarily town militia, so the usual laws governing quarter and ranson between nobles don't apply.

Oh, and if I were down to my sword, I'd cooperate with my buddies to knock the knight down, then thrust, likely one-handed into his eyeslots or other opening. I might also use my dagger. They weren't likely to be carrying longswords (swords of war, at this juncture in history) as sidearms along with their pole weapons.

Half-swording isn't illustrated anywhere until c. 1350, btw.

Cheers,

Christian

[Michael Edelson]

Of course, polearms were the primary can openers of the day. The rest is speculation.

The point is, though, killing knights was not uncommon in the 14th and 15th centuries. Not if they could decorate church walls with spurs.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Mike, that actually wasn't the point, as what I said regarded knights killing knights, and how tournaments wouldn't have used half-swording. I also explained that half-swording wouldn't have been the norm between knights on the battlefield and why: in addition to the sword being a secondary weapon, capture and ransom was desirable; in fact, it was also good, and lucrative, business.

You then went on to contradict my point about knightly combat by telling me that militia killed knights - a fact I'm more than acquainted with.

Beyond that, regarding Courtrai, there's not much to speculate on. The chronicles detail the Godendac as winning the day, not the sword.

Cheers,

Christian

[Michael Edelson]

Ah, I missed the connection between your two posts. I didn't realize you were talking about tournaments, my apologies.

However, your subsequent posts suggest you don't believe knights killed other knights, which they did, there are plenty of battles with many knights on both sides with a lot of knightly casualties. That too, however, is irrelevant, when it comes to the issue of halfswording on a battlefield. It didn't matter if someone was a knight or a man at arms in full harness. Armored combat is armored combat. And knights certainly killed men at arms, and men at arms killed each other, and in the HRE in the mid to late 15th C even common soldiers had so much armor that trying to cut them would be almost useless.

I was a soldier, and soldiers don't carry anything they don't think they'll need (which sometimes includes strange things, but nothing wasted). If I'm carrying 4lbs of sword and suspension, it's not because it's some secondary weapon I'll never use, it's because I'm likely to need it before the day is done. And if I needed to use it against another man in harness and I didn't have my buddies with whom to coordinate an assault, how would I use it? I certainly wouldn't try to clobber him with the edge, and I'm not going to grab a dagger and start grappling when I have a perfectly good short spear swinging from my hip.

You're right that there is little or no evidence of half swording on a battlefield, and your decision to stick to what is supported is admirable. I however am not as disciplined as you when it comes to such things and don't mind engaging in a bit of healthy speculation.

We have swords in the 14th and 15th century designed to do this...


(that's <6mm mail)

...and these swords were not made exclusively for judicial duels, they were made for battlefield and defense use, and we have people running around the battlefield with mail voiders. This, to me, means those swords were meant to stick into such voiders, and the best way (the only way?) to do that without bending your sword is to half sword it.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Mike,

There are accounts of battles with lots of knightly casualties. But there are also a shocking number where almost no knights were killed.

Often, when they were killed, it was by matter of execution after the battle was decided. Several Wars of the Roses battles feature this (Bad War), and we have the famous account of Henry V's execution of French prisoners in the aftermath of Agincourt.

It's a complicated matter though because not everything a knight carried would've been used necessarily against other knights. He might use his sword, as backup, against lighter armed troops. Or, he might deliver percussive blows to stun or render unconscious a fellow knight to force his surrender. The sword is a poor weapon for circumventing the harness, but you can still hit someone silly. And there are too many period depictions of knights and men-at-arms swinging sword blows at each other in full harness to discount this.

Half-swording may have other detriments on the battlefield as well. It must be done at very close range, and that might be dangerous in the press of men crowding about. If you fight tightly, using short-range, precision thrusts, you can easily be approached by other attackers. Swing blows however, and you carve a wider swath through the field, widening your defensive circle. The trade-off between more targeted damage to your opponent and vulnerability to others is significant.

Personal combat, particularly to a an ordained lethal conclusion, with no hope of help from others, is a vastly different tactical scenario than either the tournament or the field of battle.

I'm sure half-swording *was* used at times in battle, particularly later in the medieval period, but we shouldn't assume it was the battlefield norm, not with the evidence of iconography, ransom ethos, and military theorists railing against 'bad war' all stacked against it.

Cheers,

Christian

[Michael Edelson]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

The Cold Steel poly swords are a really good half-swording alternative.

Cheers,

CHT

[David Teague]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Michael Eging]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Michael,

I don't think too many knights are using swords in formation in the late medieval period. When formed up, we'd see spears and the like, with swords used more likely in the general melee after contact.

In his primary role as a cavalryman, we'd see formation on horse, and if dismounted little forming of lines.

For the infantryman, it's a different story, of course.

Cheers,

Christian

[Jean Henri Chandler]

Are these available at retailers like therion or kult of athena yet?

J

[Jean Thibodeau]

[David Teague]

No, just Purpleheart so far in the US.

They are cool. I have 4 for freeplay and beginners to use as trainers.

David

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Sam Gordon Campbell]

Well I got one of the single handers, and I use it for basicaly everything involving a shield of any type. Seems to work well and allow for a nice amountt of *omph* and speed to make you think.
I got mine from here: http://www.medieval-fightclub.com/products/Sy...sword.html
So yeah, looking forward to getting the longsword version when it comes out down here

[Craig Shackleton]

I've had my Rawlings wasters for a week or two now. I've used them a bit and have a few comments. I have the single hand version.

1) When I ordered mine, they were advertised as silver-grey nylon. They are white. For a waster, this doesn't matter, but I actually intended to use mine for displays at security sensitive venues. I wanted something that looked a little less fake. also, my neighbour does a lot of stage combat stuff, and was keen on these as an alternative to steel (as they were advertised). Nope.

2) The balance is good, the weight is fine, they perform pretty similarly to the steel blunts we mostly use. I do find that they are too heavy for most kids to use still.

3) The disk pommel does not screw on in such a way as to line up properly with the blade and guard. The sword came with instructions to file the tang down around the threads until it lines up better. I can do this, but should I really have to? Instead, I just don't screw the pommel on all the way, and let the slight overhang from the rubber grip hold the pommel in place.

4) I'm pleased with the amount of flex in the blade. I haven't had any trouble with overflex at the wrong time so far. The swords do seem to acquire a bend pretty quickly just from sitting around, but bend back fine.

5) As far as safety goes, I am currently skeptical that they are safer than a light steel blunt with a good safety tip. They hit harder than my Alchem scarf swords or my Hanwei Hutton sabers, which is good for some techniques but is still hitting harder. The blade flex on the thrust is comparable to either of those. They are safer than a wooden waster, which of course has no flex in the thrust.

All in all, these are fine tools for the price, but they have limited specific application. I don't use wasters much, because I prefer rebated steel, and these don't quite work for the applications for which I do. They are way better than wooden wasters IMO, but mostly I'll stick to rebated steel. I'll continue to play with them for a bit, but I doubt that they will become a permanent addition to my toolbox.

[Jesse Eaton]

I think that the true value of these synthetic wasters is being over looked on this thread. What these give us is a safe standard for use when a member of one group wants to go spar with a member of another group. We can practice, spar, and compete with a standard medium. Because we have a standard, we can watch videos of each other and have an idea the skill level displayed and techniques we see.

In other words, we have the beginings of a real and legitimate sport. With wood and blunts we have to have a large number of conventions and restraints on our actions. Now all we need to add is some La Crosse geer, one of the new fencing masks designed for this style of fight and mat to land on and wee can get dow to business in a competitive way. The only thing missing is a standard method of scoring and we have a very real sport. Any takers?

BTW: as to the weighting and balance, federshwert were considered apropriate training tools and the balance of these is, like the nylon wasters, different from the real thing.

Oh and one last thing. I think we need more videos with skilled swordsmen using these for sparring purposes to counteract the enormous number of really bad videos I see on the net.

[Sander Marechal]