| Author |
Message |
|
Hugh Knight
|
 Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 11:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | There's plenty of evidence for striking first with the axe.
Kal's guard plate certainly sets up a stroke from vom Tag. The anonymous axe treatise in the coda to the Vienna Kal manuscript has techniques where both parties strike. |
There are plenty of blows with the axe. I said that previously. But I think using a blow as a Vorschlag is tricky and more indicative of a Buffel than of a master. And the guard to which you're referring is a balanced position from which any technique can be launched; that's why Le Jeu says that an expert stands with his Queue forward. That says nothing about *preferences*, merely that you should be able to use it all.
| Quote: | | Peter Falkner says in the preamble to the poleaxe chapter, "Note this is also a lesson of how you should with dueling weapons act with the murder axe and the halberd, which is also in the judicial duel the striking, thrusting and wrestling." In the last of the few plays that he includes, he says "Note that this is the best technique of those specificially for the halberd: when you both stand against each other and no one wants to strike first, then prepare a great stroke. If he goes to parry it, then pull the stroke and thrust to his body or face. This he cannot counter well and that is good." |
That kind of feint is in Le Jeu, too: He has you strike a blow to the head so your opponent parries, then feint another and hook his knee. But all that shows is the strike as a set up for another technique! To me, that's an argument for ther strike being a secondary technique, not the other way around.
| Quote: | | The bottom of Plate 43 of Cod. Vind. B 11093 shows a windup for a blow with the axe. The hand position is quite conventional and aligned with the axe blade, not the hammer. |
Perhaps it does, but then Ringeck gives us a halfsword counter against someone who swings at us with the edge of the sword in armor--that doesn't make it good technique. As for the hammer/blade alignment, who knows? The only blow I can see that's clear as to the striking end is the top of plate 44, and that clearly shows the Mail being used.
| Quote: | | And, this plate has an excellent analogue in a non-technical manuscript illustration showing the same pairing of guards (I wish I could find the citation! - do you know where this is from?). Obviously, the guy at left isn't swinging the beak at him: |
I'm sorry, I don't have a source for that either; I got it from Sydney Anglo's article on Le Jeu and he didn't include a citation.
But all that shows is a Buffel about to be beaten by a better-trained opponent.
| Quote: | The above are all dueling examples. A blow with the poleaxe can seriously rock someone's world (as you know from incidents arising even from rubber headed reenactment axes), so a stunning blow is a great opener if someone hands you the tempo to use.
To me, it's advantageous to think of Liechtenauer's 'Three Wounders' with the sword - the stroke, thrust, and slice. Now, the axe doesn't slice well, but it does hook. And the advice carries over: make whichever one that is available work, depending on the situation, or as Liechtenauer has it "in all binds, learn to seek strokes, slices, and thrusts." |
My friend, I agree with what you say, but all you've proven is that the blow was an important part of the tool box, a thing I've said myself many times. What you haven't shown is that any source finds the blow to be as useful or as important as the thrust. All I've been seaying here is that the blow is subordinate to the thrust in terms of importance, and I should further qualify that to add that this refers to lethal combats--war and Kampffecthen. In friendlier deeds of arms the blow is probably more important because it's flashy which seems to have been important to those kinds of combats.
And since we were talking about battle when this subject came up, that's the area where it's even more critical, because just stunning someone with a blow (which is all it's likely to do) isn't as useful as killing or severely incapacitating him, which is what a good thrust is more likely to do.
When you use a blow is critical: Consider the figures at the top of plate 44 in Cod. 11093 that we discussed above. You suggested that the figure on the right might be about to strike with his Taillent after the displacement, but in Le Jeu you *never* strike to the side of the body the axe is on (except possibly as a feint)--it's too easy to displace such a strike. Instead, in Le Jeu you only use a blow when your opponent has been rendered relatively helpless (e.g., by knocking one of his hands off of his axe) or when you've turned him so his back is to you. When your opponent is in good guard and is facing you you always thrust (again, except for the one feint). since he's on that side of the body, it seems clear to me that the better technique would be a hook with the Taillent, and that's why he's holding the Taillent forward.
Consider the first four plays in Le Jeu: Your opponent attacks with a blow, so you parry with your Queue and thrust; you only use a swinging blow if he backs out from the thrust with one hand off of his axe! The next two plays arre the same. And there's no hint of using your Mail at all for several plays after that; there's nothing about a blow until paragraph 12 where it's used, once again, after you've rendered your opponent helpless. Etc., Etc.
And as I said, Le Jeu says that an expert starts with his Queue forward: Not to set up a swinging blow (not that the threat isn't valuable) but so as to have the business end forward and ready to go! Note that the counters Le Jeu shows in that section of the book (i.e., the section where he deals with experts who start with the Queue forward) are against someone who thrusts with his Queue or else against someone standing in that guard: There isn't a single starting attack with a blow in that section.
Again: I consider the blow a critically important part of the pollaxe's arsenal--powerful and very useful under the right circumstances. But it's less useful and less often called for than the thrust (just as the hook is less often called for than the blow) in most kinds of fighting. I think you're hearing me as saying that you shouldn't strike blows with the pollaxe because they're somehow bad technique; that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying there are times when you thrust, times when you strike blows and times when you hook, and you have to know which is which, and I'm also saying that the thrust is more valuable and more often used in the pollaxe manuals (by the winners! the fact that the loser of the fight often swings a blow shouldn't be taken to show they're a preferred attack) except in specific situations. And finally, I'm saying a thrust is more valuable in battle because a blow is unlikely to do more than stun your opponent (or break fingers--which isn't a bad thing, of course) whereas a thrust is far more likely to kill.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
    |
 |
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | There are plenty of blows with the axe. I said that previously. But I think using a blow as a Vorschlag is tricky and more indicative of a Buffel than of a master. And the guard to which you're referring is a balanced position from which any technique can be launched; that's why Le Jeu says that an expert stands with his Queue forward. That says nothing about *preferences*, merely that you should be able to use it all. |
I'd like to be careful about using Le Jeu to substantiate the German material. I know you see a lot of correlations between it and what you're seeing in Talhoffer, but I'm a lot more reticent about that. And, I'm not sure the text says 'expert' - that seems to be a very interpretive thing Anglo derived from the text that isn't actually there.
| Quote: | | That kind of feint is in Le Jeu, too: He has you strike a blow to the head so your opponent parries, then feint another and hook his knee. But all that shows is the strike as a set up for another technique! To me, that's an argument for ther strike being a secondary technique, not the other way around. |
Right, but like all 'feints' in this system (and 'feint' is not quite what 'fehler' means) it either draws their fire or hits them. We could say the same thing about any Oberhau with the longsword - "and so he must parry" - but the implication is that if he doesn't, you just hit him. The techniques for the Vor simply aren't discussed because they're obvious - strike or thrust him. Without that proviso, we're left with an art wherein the assumption is that you always counter-punch; this is something we know isn't true. To my knowledge, there's not a single dagger play described where you seize the initiative. Why? Because you just stab him.
| Quote: | | Perhaps it does, but then Ringeck gives us a halfsword counter against someone who swings at us with the edge of the sword in armor--that doesn't make it good technique. As for the hammer/blade alignment, who knows? The only blow I can see that's clear as to the striking end is the top of plate 44, and that clearly shows the Mail being used. |
Do be careful with that play from 'Secrets' - I don't think I handled that segment well back then.
As to alignment, this setup of the upper and lower guards posited against each other is nearly universal. Talhoffer shows it twice in the 1467 codex, and he says nothing of the guy in vom Tag being a chump. A number of the binds originate from both combatants swinging blows from this guard. This idea is reflected in anonymous axe treatise too...what to do when you both strike blows at the same time. Clearly, such an attack is not view then as foolish as a way to seize the initiative.
Conversely, I don't know of too many plays that advocates thrusting to initiate an axe attack. The reason is pretty clear - such thrusts from a heavy-headed weapon are really easy to parry. They're comparatively slow compared to one with the spear. Now, Le Jeu may stress this, but we may (or may not) be comparing apples and apples.
| Quote: | | I'm sorry, I don't have a source for that either; I got it from Sydney Anglo's article on Le Jeu and he didn't include a citation. |
Bummer...well, back to scouring my books!
| Quote: | | But all that shows is a Buffel about to be beaten by a better-trained opponent. |
Again, I don't think so. This setup is universal in the German sources. In fact, the anonymous treatise presents it from both angles - what happens when you counter an attack from vom Tag and what happens when that happens to you - the counter to the counter.
| Quote: | | My friend, I agree with what you say, but all you've proven is that the blow was an important part of the tool box, a thing I've said myself many times. What you haven't shown is that any source finds the blow to be as useful or as important as the thrust. All I've been seaying here is that the blow is subordinate to the thrust in terms of importance, and I should further qualify that to add that this refers to lethal combats--war and Kampffecthen. In friendlier deeds of arms the blow is probably more important because it's flashy which seems to have been important to those kinds of combats. |
Ok, but where are the plays that say "thrust to him; if he then..."? If you're reading that just from the artwork, then I think the idea of one having prominence over the other is problematic.
| Quote: | | And since we were talking about battle when this subject came up, that's the area where it's even more critical, because just stunning someone with a blow (which is all it's likely to do) isn't as useful as killing or severely incapacitating him, which is what a good thrust is more likely to do. |
If we're talking about the hammer, perhaps. But I can, even with that, and certainly with the axe blade, that if you wallop someone atop the collar area (very fragile) or at the side of the sallet/bevor combo, it's going to be a very bad day for the receiver. And those are the areas likely to be affected by the diagonally targeted Oberhau.
I'm also disinclined to treat things like Charles the Bold's death as apocryphal. I'm confident that axes could seriously damage armour in some cases. Even if we don't buy it splitting the helm, it only has to dent so much before your head dents inside it.
| Quote: | | When you use a blow is critical: Consider the figures at the top of plate 44 in Cod. 11093 that we discussed above. You suggested that the figure on the right might be about to strike with his Taillent after the displacement, but in Le Jeu you *never* strike to the side of the body the axe is on (except possibly as a feint)--it's too easy to displace such a strike. Instead, in Le Jeu you only use a blow when your opponent has been rendered relatively helpless (e.g., by knocking one of his hands off of his axe) or when you've turned him so his back is to you. When your opponent is in good guard and is facing you you always thrust (again, except for the one feint). since he's on that side of the body, it seems clear to me that the better technique would be a hook with the Taillent, and that's why he's holding the Taillent forward. |
I agree with much of this, with the assumption that the guy in the lower guard is quite ready. If he's just assumed the guard, then that's a great tempo to just hit him in the head. I do agree that Mr. Lower Guard's best bet is to set aside and hook.
| Quote: | | Consider the first four plays in Le Jeu: Your opponent attacks with a blow, so you parry with your Queue and thrust; you only use a swinging blow if he backs out from the thrust with one hand off of his axe! The next two plays arre the same. And there's no hint of using your Mail at all for several plays after that; there's nothing about a blow until paragraph 12 where it's used, once again, after you've rendered your opponent helpless. Etc., Etc. |
Right, but that's Le Jeu, and there may be a different tactical framework in play there. I've a couple problems with this: a) Le Jeu is, to my mind, a collection of more sophisticated tricks, with much of the boilerplate material missing and b) I have the usual suspicions when it comes to superimposing what we think is going on in one system onto another. I don't see Le Jeu in much of the German material.
| Quote: | | And as I said, Le Jeu says that an expert starts with his Queue forward: Not to set up a swinging blow (not that the threat isn't valuable) but so as to have the business end forward and ready to go! Note that the counters Le Jeu shows in that section of the book (i.e., the section where he deals with experts who start with the Queue forward) are against someone who thrusts with his Queue or else against someone standing in that guard: There isn't a single starting attack with a blow in that section. |
Right, and again, that's Le Jeu. That manuscript places a lot of emphasis on the butt end thrust. That's not reflected in either the text or illustrated German sources to such an extent, if at all.
| Quote: | | Again: I consider the blow a critically important part of the pollaxe's arsenal--powerful and very useful under the right circumstances. But it's less useful and less often called for than the thrust (just as the hook is less often called for than the blow) in most kinds of fighting. I think you're hearing me as saying that you shouldn't strike blows with the pollaxe because they're somehow bad technique; that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying there are times when you thrust, times when you strike blows and times when you hook, and you have to know which is which, and I'm also saying that the thrust is more valuable and more often used in the pollaxe manuals (by the winners! the fact that the loser of the fight often swings a blow shouldn't be taken to show they're a preferred attack) except in specific situations. And finally, I'm saying a thrust is more valuable in battle because a blow is unlikely to do more than stun your opponent (or break fingers--which isn't a bad thing, of course) whereas a thrust is far more likely to kill. |
But is the thrust more likely to kill? Sure, if you get a lucky shot in. I can more easily see stunning the opponent, rendering accurate targeting for a lethal, or at least debilitating, thrust more likely. And an axe fight with a smashed (and let's be realistic, 'broken' isn't the word here!) is no fight at all - it's a massacre about to unfold.
And more again, you can't assume the blow is bad because the loser does it. Most losers in Liechtenauer's longsword techniques strike Oberhaue. Does that make the Oberhau bad? Nope, it just makes it the most likely attack. The implication I get from the axe techniques is that the stroke is the more likely blow used by the *initiator*, and it's often good to break it with methods other than another stroke. But that hardly makes the stroke ill-advised: just be prepared that it will likely be parried and be prepared to keep working from there.
Thanks for a fun discussion, btw!
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
|
|
 |
|
|
|
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