Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > A little question about the usage of axes Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2 
Author Message
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 1:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian Henry Tobler wrote:
1. Falkner actually illustrates three distinct variants: a hammer-faced axe, a bladed one, and one that has a bill-like head with a forward hook. There's nothing to suggest anything is specialized for these weapons in the techniques he describes.


Interesting. I really look forward to learning more about this book.

Quote:
2. What's your source for assuming hooking is preferable to striking? I don't see that in my read, although I haven't cracked open "La Jeu de la Hache" in a long time.


I don't think there is a preference for hooking over striking, all I said was that you're more likely to see hooking *before* you see striking in any given engagement (and I meant "before" in the sense of "prior to", not in the sense of "preferring"). Most pollaxe plays tend (tend!) to do something to disarm, unbalance or move the enemy into a bad position *then* use some technique to finish him off--and the finish him off technique can often be a smashing blow. For example, in Le Jeu's action from the bind of the Demy Hache you hook your opponent's haft then thrust to finish the play. In that case, as in many others, the hook is a "set up" technique because it doesn't finish your opponent off. Swinging blows, on the other hand, are finishing techniques used at the end of an engagement.

The exception is Le Jeu #22 wherein you strike a swinging blow on the assumption it will be blocked (setting your opponent up to think that's a common attack for you) then you swing a second such blow to cause him to defend himself, then you suddenly change in mid strike to a knee hook. So in that case the swinging blow is in the nature of a deceit.

Quote:
3. I see the use of the head as being akin to Liechtenauer's Three Wounders with the longsword (hewing, thrusting, slicing), only as the axe doesn't slice, that action is replaced with the hook. These tactically match up:

    a. You can strike a hewing blow with the axe/sword.
    b. If the axe or sword falls short, thrust.
    c. If the axe or sword overshoots, slice with the sword or hook with the axe.


Certainly much is made of the idea of 'hauen' (hewing) with the axe in a number of treatise. This clearly indicates, to my mind, the use of a blow, not just a placement ending a hooking motion.


The difference is that in most sources you never see an instruction to open an engagement with a swinging blow (except in the case of the feint in LJ#22 above). A great example is paragraph 7 where you block with your Croix, deflect your opponent's shaft with your Queue to disarm or knock him out of place, and only *then* does Le Jeu talk about using a swinging blow when he says: "And if you have made it jump out of his hand, you can do whatever seems good to you with a swing or something else." In fairness, paragraph 8 says that if you make a swinging blow and it's blocked as in #7 that you can then do something, but it's only to show the concept of acting first in a bind.

There are no plays in Talhoffer nor in Paulus Kal in which the person who swings first with the mail is the winner of the engagement.

So Schlagen (a better term than Hauen, don't you think?) are not typically used to open an engagement by skilled combatants, they are typically used to end engagements. The reason for that is the unbalanced nature of the weapon; the Queue is simply lighter and faster and is better against a prepared opponent. That's why Le Jeu says that someone who comes at you with the Queue is an experienced opponent. these kinds of things showcase how different the pollaxe is in use from most other weapons, even though underlying principles are the same.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Christian Henry Tobler




Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 704

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 1:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Hugh,

I'll have more on this later, but here's just one thought...I don't think we can read too much into the fact that the victor doesn't strike first, only that strokes aren't good counters to strokes in these methods. These are all techniques for the Nach, not the Vor. Much like the general advice for the sword, if you can seize the initiative, you "just hit him." For me, that would be a simple stroke or thrust in the tempo of his preparation or guard change while in measure.

I do think some of the material refers to hauen with the axe, as opposed to schlagen (which Falkner uses), but I need to double-check this.

I'll see what else I can come up with in the next day, but I'm off to Pennsic after that. If I run out of time, remind me to pick this up in a week!

All the best,

Christian

Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar

Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship

Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 1:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Elling Polden wrote:
Personal experience, and what you are saying.
Say that you strike from the long. How did you get to the long grip? By sliding. You thrust with the but end, slide, hook and step in, slide, sweep, slide back to strike, hit him in the head, slide, thrust him in the armpit, and so on.

While the individual techniques might have static grips, moving between these grips is best done by sliding. These also need be quite fast, or the opponent will counter you, or attack you in the transition. you might change to the long grip and then strike, but this will be both slower and less powerfull than just sliding to long as the blow starts.


That's not what the manuals tell or show us. With the exception of that one weird technique I posted above, no manual shows sliding-hand blows; quite the oppisite, in fact. Consider this plate from Talhoffer's Alte Armatur und Ringkunst:
http://base.kb.dk/pls/hsk_web/hsk_vis.side?p_...p_lang=eng
The fellow on the right struck a blow, and yet he's still holding his weapon in thirds.

The reason for this is that the pollaxe can be a very clumsy weapon because of the way it's balanced, and if you slide your hand you let the weapon go too far out of control, a thing the manuals are careful to warn us against. Consider this from Le jeu: "Whichever guard you are on, you can try to hit him on the head. Not so that, if you should miss, your axe passes beyond him: because that would be dangerous." This is the start of #22 as I mentioned in my post to Christian, so it's a feint rather than a serious attack, but the important point is that he tells you not to let your axe swing too far because that would be dangerous. Another reason not to do it is that doing so makes it harder to use the Queue end of the axe, and that's the most important part of the weapon.

I personally believe that in war, when you're part of a mass of troops, you do swing your axe long, possibly even sliding it as you do, but that's very different from the kind of single-combat thing you're talking about; there all you have room for is Oberschlag and thrusts. The only "sliding" you do in single combat is the pool-queue thrust, and even there Le Jeu is adamant about returning to "battery" quickly.

And I have no idea what you mean by "static grips" or a need to slide between them. You hold a pollaxe roughly in thirds and about the only change you need to make is whether your grip is "thumbs aligned" or "thumbs opposed", which you accomplish just by changing the grip of your right hand.

When you really study the material in Talhoffer and Le Jeu you come to see the "sense" of the system; it's not about a huge, powerful swinging weapon, it's about a close, tight, balanced--emphasis on balance--weapon. You want to be able to use any part at the right moment, and to do that you have to hold it in such a way to let you do so which you can't do if you make the mistake of letting one end out too far.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 2:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian Henry Tobler wrote:
I'll have more on this later, but here's just one thought...I don't think we can read too much into the fact that the victor doesn't strike first, only that strokes aren't good counters to strokes in these methods. These are all techniques for the Nach, not the Vor. Much like the general advice for the sword, if you can seize the initiative, you "just hit him." For me, that would be a simple stroke or thrust in the tempo of his preparation or guard change while in measure.


I may not be saying this well, Christian. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Oberschlag is a relatively slow, clumsy blow that's far too easy for a skilled opponent to displace with his Queue. Le Jeu talks about this when he says that someone coming at you with the Queue is an experienced opponent.

Of course, I don't want to sound too dogmatic; I'll bet there certainly *are* times when an Oberschlag is the right blow to use at the beginning, I just bet it's a lot less often than most people would believe, and my testing with realistically unbalanced pollaxes supports this. If you strike at someone who knows what he's doing it's like you are moving in slow motion; the displacement with the Queue is just that effective.

In his article on Le Jeu, Anglo goes so far as to argue that the Mail isn't really used much at all in the art. I think he's wrong, but only because it's use is implied rather than specified. He's certainly right that swinging blows are almost completely ignored as not being good technique in most parts of the fight, but many plays in Le Jeu end with "and from there you can follow up with whatever blow seems good to you", and the "blow that seems good to you" is often going to be the lethal Oberschlag.

Quote:
I do think some of the material refers to hauen with the axe, as opposed to schlagen (which Falkner uses), but I need to double-check this.


Cool, let me know what you come up with. I know that in Talhoffer 1467 he talks about "schlag" on plate 81, 82, 87, etc. as he also does in fol. 73v and 75r of his Alte Armatur und Ringkunst, and Hau doesn't show up even once. Neither word is used in Kal (even more hints that the swinging blow isn't good technique in the early stage of a fight).

Quote:
I'll see what else I can come up with in the next day, but I'm off to Pennsic after that. If I run out of time, remind me to pick this up in a week!


Excellent; this is an interesting discussion and I look forward to more insights from you. Enjoy Pennsic!

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Christian Henry Tobler




Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 704

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 3:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Hugh,

Well, first, the anonymous poleaxe treatise in the text addenda of the Vienna Kal uses both schlagen and hauen. At one That's not surprising, given that blows with dueling shields are often referred to as haue. And, at one point it describes how to deal with your opponent's 'simultaneous stroke', so clearly you've struck as well.

I hear what you're saying about the ponderousness of the blow with the axe - I've fought a lot of bouts with them and that's certainly true in my experience. But...I did refer to exploiting those timings - guard changes in measure, etc. - and, there's no reason why you can't perform the first play of the Zornhau with the axe (bind & thrust in one extended time) or flip the weapon to perform a Schielhau-like action that either hooks or thrusts.

The thing with the axe though is that ambiguity is easily created regarding which end will attack. A feint with the butt can easily provoke a response while the head actually delivers the blow, or vice-versa. Vom Tag with the head is easily Ochs with the butt.

All that said, yes, against the skilled combatant it's best to recall that the axe is all weapons...including the spear and half-sword. Now, of course, fighting at the barrier is a bit of different beast. Wink

All the best,

Christian

Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar

Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship

Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Christian Henry Tobler




Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 704

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 3:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ok...more goodies Hugh...

1. I'm reading the Dresden Mair - he uses hauen almost exclusively with what he calls a halberd (but it has a short haft and is used with both sides of the weapon).

2. This same work basically has the Zornhau first play laid out - stroke v. stroke, thrust to his face.

3. I'm pretty sure I was mistaken about Kal's axe appearing in Mair. I confabulated that with his buckler, which does appear there, technique for technique.

All the best,

Christian

Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar

Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship

Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 5:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian Henry Tobler wrote:
I hear what you're saying about the ponderousness of the blow with the axe - I've fought a lot of bouts with them and that's certainly true in my experience. But...I did refer to exploiting those timings - guard changes in measure, etc. - and, there's no reason why you can't perform the first play of the Zornhau with the axe (bind & thrust in one extended time) or flip the weapon to perform a Schielhau-like action that either hooks or thrusts.


No question, Christian. In fact, I believe that fol. 73r in alte Armatur und Ringkunst *is* a Schielhau analog done with a hooking action (the text just says a neck wrench):
http://base.kb.dk/pls/hsk_web/hsk_vis.side?p_...p_lang=eng

Quote:
The thing with the axe though is that ambiguity is easily created regarding which end will attack. A feint with the butt can easily provoke a response while the head actually delivers the blow, or vice-versa. Vom Tag with the head is easily Ochs with the butt.

All that said, yes, against the skilled combatant it's best to recall that the axe is all weapons...including the spear and half-sword. Now, of course, fighting at the barrier is a bit of different beast. Wink


Absolutely! That ambiguity is one of the real reasons you don't want to do sliding strikes: you lose that, both the appearance of being able to act from either end and the real ability to do so when you need to. And I like your phrase that the pollaxe is "all weapons".

As for fighting at the barriers, that's exclusively for friendly deeds of arms; you'd never see a barrier in Kampffechten, and Le Jeu is the only Fechtbuch that really seems to honestly address friendly deeds, but you're right, it surely is a different kind of animal. But that sort of like the way you use swinging blows of the edge in friendly longsword bouts--it's just a different kind of fighting not addressed by the Fechtbücher.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 5:25 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian Henry Tobler wrote:
1. I'm reading the Dresden Mair - he uses hauen almost exclusively with what he calls a halberd (but it has a short haft and is used with both sides of the weapon).


Do you suppose that's because he's using an Axe+Spike pollaxe? There you have to swing with a cutting edge--you have no choice, whereas the Talhoffer sources refer specifically to the Hammer+Spike axes where "cut" (hew=hau) has no meaning. My use fo Schlag as the correct word derives as much from it being used by Talhoffer (one of my primary sources, as you know) as from the fact that it appears in the Mordschlag and Tunrschlag in halfswording.

Quote:
2. This same work basically has the Zornhau first play laid out - stroke v. stroke, thrust to his face.


Really? Can you get me more information, please (text + citation)? I actually teach this play as part of my curriculum (but as a what to do if your finishing blow is blocked kind of thing, not a Vorschlag) and it's in the pollaxe book I've written (well, that I'm re-writing) but I've always included it with a huge apology about how it isn't *really* authentic but fits known principles, etc. and I'd really like to be able to say it's a real technique.

Is there anything else unusual there?

Quote:
3. I'm pretty sure I was mistaken about Kal's axe appearing in Mair. I confabulated that with his buckler, which does appear there, technique for technique.


Ah, now I feel better; I'd studied it pretty carefully and was feeling stupid for not having seen it. But you're spot on about the buckler plays--I noticed that myself. And did you see all the Galdiatoria plays, and Paulus Kal's mounted Lance and sword play? Oh! And what about the Rossfechten play from Talhoffer's Ambraser Codex where you leave your horse to get on the back of your opponent's horse (that's in Alte Armatur, too). On my discussion list I noted dozens of correlations between the Munich Mair (book II) and earlier Fechtbücher, especially Codex Wallerstein, of course, since Mair once owned that. I think Mair's going to be a treasure trove of interesting insights when it's properly analyzed (a task well beyond me, I'm afraid).

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Fabrice Cognot
Industry Professional



Location: Dijon
Joined: 29 Sep 2004

Posts: 354

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 7:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi all

I jump into this poleaxe discussion, quite briefly :

Quote:
Le Jeu is the only Fechtbuch that really seems to honestly address friendly deeds


Yes and no. Actually, more on the latter. You *can* be friendly, but as you quoted it every so often you can end the play by an blow or thrust to the undefending opponent ; besides, other 'targets of choice' mentionned inLe Jeu can be not too friendly : thrusts at the face, armpit, exposed palm of the hand - with the dagger of the axe, or even worse. Furthermore, in the introduction to the treatise, it is well mentionned that your quarrel should be noble and just - another indicator pointing to an engagment with consequences more dire than the apparently simple, straightforward tone and composition of the manuscript could make one believe. And to add to that, applying teachings from Le Jeu in a Wager of Battle would, if you folow the Burgundian ways, invariably lead to the death of the looser.



I don't think there is that much sliding in Le Jeu, if any at all (except for the occasional jab), as a proper use according to the author implies a certain degree of equal opportunity of use for each part of the weapon (head, demi-hache and queue) when performing the techniques.



Quote:
he tells you not to let your axe swing too far because that would be dangerous. Another reason not to do it is that doing so makes it harder to use the Queue end of the axe, and that's the most important part of the weapon.


I don't think one should see that far. A blow to the leg with too short a reach, and that swings past the opponent creates an opening that the latter might exploit immediately - I'm not even sure the author of the treatise thought worthwile to mention the recovery time needed to bring back your queue into play : besides, although it is an important part of the weapon and its plays, you can also cover with parts of the axe other than the queue.


Regarding this #22, you'll notice that the author mentions to strike the knee with the bec de corbin first and foremost, and then to hook *only* if the bec reaches past his knee :

et a dont luy pouez donner sur le genoul du becq de faulcon. Et se vostre becq de faulcon passe lescreuisse de son genoil deuez tirer a vous pour le ruer par terre



On the rest : agreed that the basis is the same, but that a halberd is longer than a poleaxe, and that changes a thing or two.

Cheers

Fab

PhD in medieval archeology.
HEMAC member
De Taille et d'Estoc director
Maker of high quality historical-inspired pieces.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Greg Mele
Industry Professional



Location: Chicago, IL USA
Joined: 20 Mar 2006

Posts: 356

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 9:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian Henry Tobler wrote:
Hi Hugh,

Interestingly, Falkner makes almost a point of saying you use a halber the same way as this weapon: "If you have a murder axe or a halberd..."

There might be some other sources with axe blades...I'll have to dig in and look.


Hi Christian!

And don't forget, in those plates Falkner even shows one of the plays being done with what we think of as an "Italian" bill. Which makes sense, as when we look at the Bolognese material, the poleaxe plays overlap strongly with the bill and halberd plays, just with more in fighting, and a few less slicing actions with the hooks, because the opponent is in full armour.

Hugh, agreed about the horn of the axe being used for hooking. Just a side note - in the Anonymous Bolognese, it *is* used to strike, but specifically by striking the horn into place to then hook - so you smash the knee and hook or smash the lead hand and hook. I suspect you may have been including that in your definition, but for everyone else....

Greg
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Christian Henry Tobler




Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 704

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 9:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thanks Greg, but I did mention above that one version was 'bill-like'.

My working assumption, which I know you share, is that most polearms could be used with these techniques.

All the best,

CHT

Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar

Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship

Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Greg Mele
Industry Professional



Location: Chicago, IL USA
Joined: 20 Mar 2006

Posts: 356

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 9:30 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hugh Knight wrote:
Elling Polden wrote:
Personal experience, and what you are saying.
Say that you strike from the long. How did you get to the long grip? By sliding. You thrust with the but end, slide, hook and step in, slide, sweep, slide back to strike, hit him in the head, slide, thrust him in the armpit, and so on.

While the individual techniques might have static grips, moving between these grips is best done by sliding. These also need be quite fast, or the opponent will counter you, or attack you in the transition. you might change to the long grip and then strike, but this will be both slower and less powerfull than just sliding to long as the blow starts.


That's not what the manuals tell or show us. With the exception of that one weird technique I posted above, no manual shows sliding-hand blows; quite the oppisite, in fact. Consider this plate from Talhoffer's Alte Armatur und Ringkunst:
http://base.kb.dk/pls/hsk_web/hsk_vis.side?p_...p_lang=eng
The fellow on the right struck a blow, and yet he's still holding his weapon in thirds.


Not entirely true - the Anonymous Bolognese master uses the talgio cambiata with his axe, just as the othe Bolognese taught with their halberd's (even less wieldy) and partizans. Here's how the technique works: you strike a forehand blow, right hand leading on the axe. You recover straight back, and the rear hand slides up to meet the lead hand. From there you strike a backhand, with the former lead hand sliding down the haft as the blow is swung, creating a very sharp levering action. So you can swing a forehand-backhand combo without crossing wrists.

It's fairly unique to the Italian masters, I think, but not unique to polearm fighting. If you look at video of naginata technique, you see it done in a number of Japanese ryuha (schools) as well.

Quote:

I personally believe that in war, when you're part of a mass of troops, you do swing your axe long, possibly even sliding it as you do, but that's very different from the kind of single-combat thing you're talking about; there all you have room for is Oberschlag and thrusts.


Agreed, and to be clear, this is a specialized slide used in a specialized place; it is not the same as sliding the hands to strike long, as you detail above. I just wanted to make it clear that there are some times that slides occur.

Greg
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Greg Mele
Industry Professional



Location: Chicago, IL USA
Joined: 20 Mar 2006

Posts: 356

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 9:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian Henry Tobler wrote:
Thanks Greg, but I did mention above that one version was 'bill-like'.

My working assumption, which I know you share, is that most polearms could be used with these techniques.

All the best,

CHT


My mistake, I thought you only noted the connection between murder axe and halberd.

Otherwise, yup, I think you, Fab and I are all in agreement. The length or form of the weapon changes a few things - particularly how much you use the butt, but there is a certain "core" corpus that remains consistant.

Greg
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Thu 02 Aug, 2007 9:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Boy. I hadn't expected so many responses, and such excellent ones at that. I can just sit back, fold my hands, and steal the knowledge from you folks without exercising any body parts other than my eyes...

(OK, not really. Now I'm tempted to try it myself though, alas, I have no good poleaxe simulators handy...)
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Sat 04 Aug, 2007 12:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Fabrice Cognot wrote:
Yes and no. Actually, more on the latter. You *can* be friendly, but as you quoted it every so often you can end the play by an blow or thrust to the undefending opponent ; besides, other 'targets of choice' mentionned inLe Jeu can be not too friendly : thrusts at the face, armpit, exposed palm of the hand - with the dagger of the axe, or even worse. Furthermore, in the introduction to the treatise, it is well mentionned that your quarrel should be noble and just - another indicator pointing to an engagment with consequences more dire than the apparently simple, straightforward tone and composition of the manuscript could make one believe. And to add to that, applying teachings from Le Jeu in a Wager of Battle would, if you folow the Burgundian ways, invariably lead to the death of the looser.


I quite agree that Le Jeu was primarily intended for Kampffechten, but it also has clear application in friendlier deeds of arms as well, that's all I meant. In para. 2 he says "whether it be "a oultrance" or otherwise; now "a oultrance" doesn't necessarily mean "to the death" as some (including Anglo) have translated it--it refers to combat with weapons of war using less safe rules, but many "friendly" deeds of arms were also fought that way to show how macho the combatants were. But it's the "otherwise" that indicates Le Jeu de La Hache was also intended for non-lethal encounters. So the author is saying that this book is intended for friendly deeds, "dangerous" friendly deeds and for lethal duels.

Quote:
I don't think there is that much sliding in Le Jeu, if any at all (except for the occasional jab), as a proper use according to the author implies a certain degree of equal opportunity of use for each part of the weapon (head, demi-hache and queue) when performing the techniques.


You are quite correct.

Quote:
Regarding this #22, you'll notice that the author mentions to strike the knee with the bec de corbin first and foremost, and then to hook *only* if the bec reaches past his knee :

et a dont luy pouez donner sur le genoul du becq de faulcon. Et se vostre becq de faulcon passe lescreuisse de son genoil deuez tirer a vous pour le ruer par terre


While I have the greatest respect for your work with with Le Jeu, here I must disagree. There's no evidence for striking with the point of the Bec, that's just a result of the way the author writes. There are several good reasons to believe this:

1.) Just as the lower cannon of the vambrace is thinner than the couter, so is the cuisse and greave thinner than the poleyn. If he wanted us to penetrate plate he would have picked a thinner spot that's easier to hit.

2.) No other instruction to try to penetrate plate is listed; why this one odd shot?

3.) No other instruction to try to strike with the point of the Bec exists; why this one odd target?

4.) The author often uses a precise term to mean a general area. For example, in the counter to the action from the Bind of the Demy Hache (paragraph 32) he tells you to go with your opponent's pull and strike him in the side of the neck with your Queue. Now if we were to read that *literally* we'd think it's a thrust since the Queue is a thrusting point, but context makes it clear this is a strike with the side of the Queue being used to knock your opponent down. Clearly, then, he's referring to the general area of the Queue by the specific term, and so it is in this case.

5.) If you try it, you will find it *extremely* difficult to hit the poleyn squarely with the point of the Bec. I don't believe the Bec (nor any other art of the axe) is routinely capable of penetrating plate (not routinely enough to bet on it, if you see what I mean, and even if it does penetrate it won't be deep enough to do much harm) but it it was, we'd see Le jeu telling us to strike other targets with it, too.

Why then does the author say to strike with the Bec rather than just saying to hook with it? There are two good reasons:

1.) When most people try to hook something the don't drive their hook deeply enough, often catching the target with just the tip of the hook. This usually results in an insecure hooking action and often results in losing your connection. The best way to hook something is to strike the axe down onto the target just behind the hook and then pull it. We practice this in class all the time: I have my students try to hook the shaft of an axe (it's dangerous to do it to the knee at full speed) first with a fast hooking motion (the way an untrained person would do it instinctively) and second with a "strike then hook" motion as Le Jeu tells us, and the latter is far more successful and effective. I gained this insight specifically because of this play in Le Jeu as I tried to understand the apparent contradicton in the text.

2.) When you hook someone's knee they can be surprisingly strong at resisting your pull; after all, it's not like Judo where you were able to first break your opponent's balance before throwing him. By striking into his knee first you tend to "crumple" the user's leg, taking his weight off it and making the pull much more effective. We learned this the hard way by having it actually happen in practice.

Why then does he say to hook with the Bec "if" it's behind your opponent's knee? Because it's quite easy to miss; that's all there is to it. It's not that hooking wasn't the primary intent all along, it's just not the easiest thing to do.

Incidentally, this isn't important, but I have a terminology question for you: Le Jeu refers to this part of the weapon as the "Bec de Faulcon" whereas you refer to it as the "Bec de Corbin"; I think the terms are largely interchangeable, but wondered if you had some specific insight about it that caused you to use the other term.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Hugh Knight




Location: San Bernardino, CA
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Reading list: 34 books

Posts: 739

PostPosted: Sat 04 Aug, 2007 12:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Greg Mele wrote:
Hugh, agreed about the horn of the axe being used for hooking. Just a side note - in the Anonymous Bolognese, it *is* used to strike, but specifically by striking the horn into place to then hook - so you smash the knee and hook or smash the lead hand and hook. I suspect you may have been including that in your definition, but for everyone else....


HI Greg,

Interesting what you said above about the sliding strokes with the Partisan, but I think we're in agreement about them in general. I know you guys will probably jump all over me for saying this, but once again I get a sense that the 16th-century stuff was just a different animal than the 15th-century material. Mair's and Meyer's halberd (admittedly the only two sources I've really looked at) just feels different to me than Le Jeu de La Hache, Kal and Talhoffer's pollaxe material. I almost wonder (and this is thinking out loud, it has nothing to do with anything I've researched, etc.) if it isn't the difference between unarmored (or largely unarmored) combat with a weapon with a cutting edge (i.e., the Halberd or the Axe+Spike pollaxe) and combat with a hammer-armed axe (regardless if its backed by a spike or axe blade) done in full harness and that the lengths of the weapons are largely irrelevant to the question. Almost as if the Halberd is a weapon whose origins are primarily for use by un- or lightly-armed troops in war that have been adapted to single combat while the pollaxe is primarily a single combat weapon used in full harness that was also used in war: Two almost completely different starting mindsets, if you see how I mean that.

And you're quite right about the hooking action you wrote about here. If you read my long-winded reply to Fabrice you'll see I agree completely. You strike into the target with the back of the axe just below the spike, then pull with the spike.

Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Sun 05 Aug, 2007 6:23 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Greg Mele wrote:

the Anonymous Bolognese master uses the talgio cambiata with his axe, just as the othe Bolognese taught with their halberd's (even less wieldy) and partizans. Here's how the technique works: you strike a forehand blow, right hand leading on the axe. You recover straight back, and the rear hand slides up to meet the lead hand. From there you strike a backhand, with the former lead hand sliding down the haft as the blow is swung, creating a very sharp levering action. So you can swing a forehand-backhand combo without crossing wrists.

It's fairly unique to the Italian masters, I think, but not unique to polearm fighting. If you look at video of naginata technique, you see it done in a number of Japanese ryuha (schools) as well.


I use this move quite a lot with my glaive, in formation fighting.
It is very usefull for striking at one opponent, twisting the hand so the blade points the other way (the glaive having only one striking surface...) and striking the guy next to him.
We do this against the tights, but the same mechanic would apply to the head in real combat.
This technique is very effective, because the head of the polearm is allready behind the target's field of vision. Chances are he'll never know what hit him.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Thu 13 Sep, 2007 8:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
I almost wonder (and this is thinking out loud, it has nothing to do with anything I've researched, etc.) if it isn't the difference between unarmored (or largely unarmored) combat with a weapon with a cutting edge (i.e., the Halberd or the Axe+Spike pollaxe) and combat with a hammer-armed axe (regardless if its backed by a spike or axe blade) done in full harness and that the lengths of the weapons are largely irrelevant to the question.


Maybe, but I don't understand exactly how armor would change things so much. Meyer, for example, has many cuts and thrusts to face. Such attack should work against armored men. More importantly, if the butt is simply swifter and thus better for defense, why don't unarmored sources use it? The last thing you want to be is slow when you have no protection. Leading with the butt isn't the only response to the weight of the weapon. Halberds weren't light.

Note that di Grassi suggests the middle grip for what seems to be unarmored combat. Strangely enough, he favors defending with the butt mainly for the field. In single combat, he suggests thrusting with it. If you haven't already, you should look at di Grassi. You might find his style a bit more similar to that of the 15th century.

While I'm sure armor does change things, different styles might also explain much of it. The old masters don't agree on everything. You can get radically different styles with the same weapon. For example, consider the staff without armor. Swetnam had no respect for the blow or the middle grip, while Christian Egenolph liked both. I'm not completely convinced armor is the reason for the middle grip in 15th-century pollaxe sources.
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Fri 14 Sep, 2007 4:25 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

From experience, turning a 2,4 m+polearm from butt lead to strike is just to slow to be practical in combat.

in the Butt first mode, the weapon is used essentially as a spear, keeping the enemy at bay with swift thrusts. It is also better at parrying blows, since the pole is allready next to your head.
Should your foe lower his guard, you strike with the head.
If the weapon is to long, however, this strike will be visible a mile away. It will also be immensely hard hitting, since you are dropping the axe from ballistic orbit.
However, chances are that you get poked in the face before it lands.

So, if your are on the field with a long weapon, like a "field" halberd, glaive or bill, you want to keep the man bussines end of the weapon forward, and make short, fast crosstrike blows. While not a powerfull as the ballistic strikes, they are more likely to hit, and keeps the pole between you and the enemy at all times.

In a loose formation, however, long polearms held head first have a quite slow " turn speed". It actually takes a significant amount of time turning around to face a new threat.
Held but first, however, the pole handles like a spear, and turn speed is almost instant. So, figthing mobile foes, the but first grip would be more efficient. There is also a greater chance of getting a clean shot for a balistic strike against a foe that is already occupied elsewhere.

When it comes to armour vs unarmoured combat, there is a general trend towards shorter weapons for armoured combat. Most likely, this is because you are less likely to stop a armoured foe with a single blow.
Thus, chances that a rush will be successful goes up drastically. Instead of being settled with feints and desicive blows, armoured combat is settled by rendering the foe defenceles through binds, wrestiling or takedowns, and finishing with repeated blows or stabs to weak points.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > A little question about the usage of axes
Page 2 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2 All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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