| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term. Last 10 Donors: Daniel Sullivan, Anonymous, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
Author |
Message |
Hugh Knight
|
Posted: Wed 13 Jun, 2007 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alberto Dainese wrote: | Well, I've got your point, I've no issue admitting cross were (at least, probably) not used to strike holding sword by the blade, and I thank you (and Mr Tobler) 'cause this is something I've never tough about but make sense.
Maybe you're right about ads weapon in fechtbucher, but Vadi clearly say you must have your cross's arms pointy (and so the pommel) to wound your opponent. Now I think that the way this wounding was intended is holding sword by handle (or handle and blade) and pressing cross into joint or gaps in armor (visor?). eg while crossing blade at half-swording you can stick your point into opponent's visor, or your pommel, or MAYBE (there's no reference AFAIK) your cross-end. |
Hello Alberto,
But then why didn't he show any techniques using the cross this way in his book? Why don't *any* of the authors that show such weapons show techniques using the cross to attack? I argue it's likely because it's a fanciful weapon that was never actually made.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
Posted: Wed 13 Jun, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh and Christian-
Thanks for showing me how and why the pommel strike makes more sense. (I certainly would not want to be hit by the spiked pommel shown in the Codex Wallerstien :-9
-Steven
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
Alberto Dainese
|
Posted: Wed 13 Jun, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh Knight wrote: |
But then why didn't he show any techniques using the cross this way in his book? Why don't *any* of the authors that show such weapons show techniques using the cross to attack? I argue it's likely because it's a fanciful weapon that was never actually made. |
Hi Hugh,
I don't know why (who knows? I could say ) but I admit your hypothesis makes sense. Thanks for sharing knowledge!
|
|
|
|
|
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
|