| Author |
Message |
Chuck Russell
|
 Posted: Sat 25 Aug, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Greg Coffman wrote: |
A You don't have to kill the guy, just take him out of the fight. For example, while wearing an 80 pound harness if you kick somebodies knee, that knee will break and the sombody will go down. Anytime you can put somebody on the ground in the middle of a battle, they are pretty much a gonner. |
umm kinda hard to kick a knee with a large fan and articulation that doesnt bend that way. and if the guys wearing full plate he's gonna have a lifetime or paid training to cut your leg off before you can kick at it. and trust me, i've seen many guys rolling around the ground wrestleing in full armour to know once there on the ground they keep fighting and fighting. there not out fot the count.
|
|
    |
 |
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Sun 26 Aug, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chuck Russell wrote: |
umm kinda hard to kick a knee with a large fan and articulation that doesnt bend that way. and if the guys wearing full plate he's gonna have a lifetime or paid training to cut your leg off before you can kick at it. and trust me, i've seen many guys rolling around the ground wrestleing in full armour to know once there on the ground they keep fighting and fighting. there not out fot the count. |
Leg harness is just like the rest of the harness...pretty hard to cut through. And I'm not talking about two guys wrestling on the ground. I'm talking about putting one guy on the ground while you are still standing and in the middle of a battlefield surrounded by both friends and foes...and especailly after the guy on the ground has a knee that bends the *other* way.
Perhaps it's not as much a kicking movement as it is stepping on the guy's knee while moving forward. I was just using that as an example. Fiore shows a couple of good throws in harness which would also put the other guy on the ground and leave you still standing. Throwing a guy on his head is gonna do some damage, harness or not.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Sun 26 Aug, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chuck Russell wrote: | | umm kinda hard to kick a knee with a large fan and articulation that doesnt bend that way. and if the guys wearing full plate he's gonna have a lifetime or paid training to cut your leg off before you can kick at it. and trust me, i've seen many guys rolling around the ground wrestleing in full armour to know once there on the ground they keep fighting and fighting. there not out fot the count. |
Hi Chuck,
Actually, Ringeck and von Danzig both reccomend kicking the knee in Kampfringen. You do it, however, by stomping on the front of the knee which, even in armor, can hyperextend the knee quite satisfactorily, believe me.
Edit: Here's a picture of two of my students practicing this technique out of armor. One of the secrets I've found is that since you're wearing light medieval shoes you have to sort of let the sole of your foot sort of cup around your opponent's knee.
 Attachment: 48.45 KB
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
 |
|
Greg Coffman
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Aug, 2007 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The kick is also depicted in Gladiatoria on page 29. The fighters are seen in a bind at the half sword with one stomping on the other's knee.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 27 Aug, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Coffman wrote: | | The kick is also depicted in Gladiatoria on page 29. The fighters are seen in a bind at the half sword with one stomping on the other's knee. |
Quite so. My translation of that plate is:
"Note the technique. If one has thrust hard to the chest and the swords have connected out of range then lift his point up powerfully with your sword and lift your left foot and kick against his knee like in the picture above." (Gladiatoria, fol. 29r)
I'll attach a picture of that from our class, too.[/url]
Attachment: 30.98 KB
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas Auer
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
hi folks...
i think we should not mix up battlefield and court arena...these are two different typs of fighting...is this topis about battlefield or a court ordered fight of two people...???
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree. For the most part if you draw a dagger to wrestle a man in full armour his friend standing beside him would clock you with his pole axe I'd imagine. Good point. I do still think the general techniques are valid and good but think they might not always be used the same as in duel.
AS far as armour penetration. do a search please. There are posts of this nature almost monthly or every few months at least and they end exactly the same. The same people advocating the same conclusion. My recommendation is see what has been repeated in the past and read them yourself so you can form your own idea.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
Lloyd Clark
Location: Beaver Dam, WI Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 508
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| George Hill wrote: | | The answer is that a man in armor was almost invunerable. You cannot directly compromise the breastplate with anything short of a couched lance at the full gallop. . |
And even this is not a guarantee. I have attempted to pierce a 16ga, mild steel breastplate (provided by our own Allen Senefelder of Mercenary Tailor!) a number of times from horseback (this riding a 2000lb Percheron at full gallop) and unless the person is pretty much tied to the trunk of a tree, the best you will be able to do is cave-in the breastplate and, perhaps, put a small hole in it. (of course, later Chris Last and his guys did one huge number on it with a bunch of weapons designed to inflict pain and suffering on armour wearing individuals  )
This is using an 8', hardwood shaft and a sharpened steel lancetip -  (I used the steel Greek Spear Butt which, remarkably, did not deform and is a very good representation of a period "sharpened" lancetip.
However, I have jousted and fought with steel weapons in partial and full armour for about 27 years now and while you may feel "invulnerable" you can most definitely be injured, sometimes severely/terminally, in armour. Much of the WMA practices are designed to take advantage of the "chinks" in the armour. A poleaxe and bec d'corbin are both highly effective weapons against armour, in that you can use them to leverage your opponent to the ground and can then finish them of with a misericord.
Cheers,
Lloyd Clark
2000 World Jousting Champion
2004 World Jousting Bronze Medalist
Swordmaster
Super Proud Husband and Father!
Last edited by Lloyd Clark on Tue 28 Aug, 2007 12:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
As I said, it depends on the quality of the breastplate. Tests on a munitions-grade breastplate achieved penetration. John Smythe and other wrote about armor specifically proofed against halberd and pikes thrusts, suggesting that some armor could be pierced.
And, of course, there's what Cesare d'Evoli wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Still the fact it collapsed the breastplate might really mess someone's day up as well....
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | As I said, it depends on the quality of the breastplate. Tests on a munitions-grade breastplate achieved penetration. John Smythe and other wrote about armor specifically proofed against halberd and pikes thrusts, suggesting that some armor could be pierced.
And, of course, there's what Cesare d'Evoli wrote. |
Without getting into the debate about how hard it is to penetrate plate (not that it's an invalid or unimportant debate!), I think the more important issue is that even if we allow, for the sake of argument if nothing else, that it is possible to penetrate plate armor, I think all agree it's very difficult to do and certainly not a "sure thing". That means, from a practical standpoint in medieval combat, that you don't normally try to do so because if you try but are unsuccessful your opponent may be taking that moment to do something nasty to you. We would do better to follow the instructions of the guys who really knew how to fight in armor, such as Sigmund Ringeck who told us:
"If you want to attack a prepared man, then you must find his openings quickly. First attempt to attack him in the face, but also under the shoulders, in the palms of the hands or from the rear in the gloves, or in the hollows of the knee, between his legs and to all the members there, where the amour has his joints inside. Because it is best to attack him at these places."
And, since Ringeck was looking primarily at thrusting attacks when he wrote that, we look to Le Jeu de La Hache, the premier pollaxe manual, to see that with a striking weapon (i.e., the "Mail" or hammer of a pollaxe; or, although Le Jeu doesn't mention it, the pommel of a sword as Ringeck and others tell us in regard to armored halfsword techniques) and see that the head and the hands were primary targets, too; not that you were likely to penetrate the plates on either, but helmets, while normally quite thick, were lined with very thin linings and gauntlets were made of very thin metal and so were easily crushable. This idea is supported by the primary-source material; in an account of a 15th-century pollaxe fight we read that: "Herve, stepping within distance, struck Sir James so hard on the head with his polaxe (sic) that he knocked him to the ground, stunned, face down". (by Matt Galas at http://www.thearma.org/essays/Lalaing.htm)
After that we can also look to other primary combat descriptions for insight. In Sydney Anglo's Anglo-Burgundian Feat of Arms: June: 1467, p. 260-1 we read of a pollaxe fight between a Lord Scales and the Bastard of Burgundy in the late 15th century in which the combatants struck at each others' pauldrons which were surely very difficult to penetrate because of the overlapping plate construction. Why then would they strike there? Simple: Articulated armor can be dented and damaged fairly easily, and it takes very little effort to dent it enough to prevent the articulation from functioning, and the account above mentions how damaged the pauldrons were after the fight for just that reason. When that happens the wearer will have great difficulty moving the joint in question and if he does manage to do so it will likely be because the damaged plates move up and away from the joint in question (since they can no longer articulate properly) creating a bare target to exploit.
All in all, then, by looking at these sources we have a pretty good idea of where to strike with what kinds of strikes and for what specific purposes: You thrust into the gaps between plates (and you do so differently depending upon whether the target is covered by mail underneath, but that's a different discussion), you strike to the head, hands and articulated joints with the Mail of a pollaxe or the pommel of a sword. You never thrust at plate except in friendly deeds of arms where you're trying *not* to hurt your opponent. Clear, simple and easy to understand.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I agree. You see the same sort of targeting advice even for soldiers in the field. Both Smythe and Fourquevaux instructed swordsmen to go for the face, legs, or any other unarmored part. Smythe wrote that halberdiers should strike at the head and thrust at the face. I believe he had pikemen aiming for the face also, though perhaps not exclusively.
On the other hand, it's not so easy to hit the other guy exactly where you want you. A thrust for the face might easily land on the throat or upper chest. A blow to the head could strike the shoulders. And so on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | Yes, I agree. You see the same sort of targeting advice even for soldiers in the field. Both Smythe and Fourquevaux instructed swordsmen to go for the face, legs, or any other unarmored part. Smythe wrote that halberdiers should strike at the head and thrust at the face. I believe he had pikemen aiming for the face also, though perhaps not exclusively.
On the other hand, it's not so easy to hit the other guy exactly where you want you. A thrust for the face might easily land on the throat or upper chest. A blow to the head could strike the shoulders. And so on. |
Another thing to consider when you think about how hard it is to hit a smallish target (i.e., a gap in plate) with a thrust is that it may be hard to land a full-power, ripping thrust intended to penetrate the mail voiders and punch right out the other side, but that may not be what you needed to do.
Interestingly, in several Fechtbücher there are several one-handed thrusts to the armpit or groin in halfsword combat (usually when you're holding your opponent's sword, spear, etc. in your left hand). But a one-handed thrust is much less powerful than a two-handed thrust, and both of those targets were likely to have been protected by mail. Why then a one-handed thrust? The reason is that you're not necessarily trying to penetrate the mail with a smashing thrust. Instead, I believe the intent is to simply lodge your point in the links of mail and then re-grab your weapon and move up into the Fourth Guard (sort of a way of "couching" your sword so that you can use your whole body to thrust rather than just the strength of your arms). You then drive the point of your sword in with a heavy push of your entire body. Even this might not break the links of mail (although my experiments show it has a fair chance of doing so), but regardless, it will push the mail back like pushing on a shower curtain, and the point will sink in several inches even without breaking the mail. I'll attach a picture of this below.
This means that a careful, softly-placed point can often be just as effective as a fast, hard thrust, and is much easier to "hit" with, and you can do this as easily with a pike as you can with a halfsword, and to even more deadly effect. Moreover, this can be done to lightly or un-protected targets (e.g., the face) just as easily.
Attachment: 27.74 KB
None of the links were actually broken in this demonstration.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
hugh, what is that? 14 guage 3/8ths inner dia butted?
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suspect that kind of thrusting is better suited for the duel than for the field. Smythe wanted powerful thrusts from skillful pikemen. One mighty thrust, typically, in unison with the other pikemen. The face was his primary target, but he allowed the possibility of many others. A blow against armor could glance off harmlessly, but, if strong enough, it might well overthrow or at least disorder the opponent.
I'm sure those pushing thrust are effective, but it's a pain to have to hit your opponent in only a few places, even if you don't have to commit a lot to the attack. In unarmored combat, you go for whatever is closest. That's why armored men murder unarmored ones in battle, I guess.
A thrust only a few inches deep is also unlikely to quickly incapacitate. Armored combat seems to have many such attacks. A poke in the foot, hand, or armpit might make you bleed to death eventually, but it shouldn't stop you instantly. In unarmored fighting, on the other hand, you commonly try to cleave the other guy's skull or chop off his arm (and that's just with the single sword).
So, even if you can wound the man in harness, that won't prevent him from killing you before treating his wounds. Fighting an armored man while unarmored doesn't sound like fun to me.
Last edited by Benjamin H. Abbott on Tue 28 Aug, 2007 3:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chuck Russell wrote: | | hugh, what is that? 14 guage 3/8ths inner dia butted? |
Something like that; it's not a good test material, it's just what we had when we took the picture from my spear and halfsword book. Our real testing and experimentation as done on flat-link riveted mail, this picture was only intended to show the way mail pushes in when you make a thrust.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | I suspect that kind of thrusting is better suited for the duel than for the field. Smythe wanted powerful thrusts from skillful pikemen. One mighty thrust, typically, in unison with the other pikemen. The face was his primary target, but he allowed the possibility of many others. A blow against armor could glance off harmlessly, but, if strong enough, it might well overthrow or at least disorder the opponent. |
I don't know, I've done the place and thrust-type thrusts in full-speed, full-power melee and it works well. The biggest problem with it, actually, is that we have to practice with blunt weapons with foam tips (anyone who says they practice competitive-type full-speed combat with metal weapons is lying or cheating by not thrusting for the correct targets) and a real point would "lodge" in place, making it very hard for your opponent to move it out via anything other than a step backward. Moreover, the push-type thrusts are better at pushing your opponent's backward and out of the line than the slamming thrusts and are less likely to slide off of plate when you do try to just move them backwards.
I don't know the source you're referencing and I do *not* study pike combat, so please don't take this the wrong way, but is it possible that by "powerful thrusts" he was actually referring to a push thrust? Against a target covered in mail (e.g., the armpit) you still want to thrust hard after all. I've often heard the expression "a push of pikes", and hearing that has often made me think they're talking about placing points then pushing rather than making slamming thrusts. In fact, the few times I've handled pikes that's what they feel as though they'd be best at.
Again, this isn't my field of study since it's not covered by 15th-century Fechtbücher, all I'm saying is that in limited experiments I've done this idea seems to work well, so please don't think I'm contradicting you. But pikes just don't "feel" like they're for fast, slamming thrusts the way shorter spears do to me.
| Quote: | | I'm sure those pushing thrust are effective, but it's a pain to have to hit your opponent in only a few places, even if you don't have to commit a lot to the attack. In unarmored combat, you go for whatever is closest. That's why armored men murder unarmored ones in battle, I guess. |
That's the point to armor, after all, as I'm sure you know! <grin> Armor doesn't really make you invulnerable, after all, it just makes you invulnerable *enough* to allow you to ignore a lot of what happens in a fight (single or melee) so you can be better at killing.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't know the source you're referencing and I do *not* study pike combat, so please don't take this the wrong way, but is it possible that by "powerful thrusts" he was actually referring to a push thrust? |
Yeah, that's certainly possible. I've never played with decent pike replica, so I can't say what feels best. However, Silver, di Grassi, and Meyer all treated single combat with the pike, and I don't recall any instructions on push thrusting. I guess that's why I've always assume it's the same as with a staff. Meyer's text includes bits such as swinging the point up to gather power for a thrust. To me, this suggests the type of fast thrust I'm familiar with. Also, both Meyer and Silver have single-handed thrusts. I think you have to do those quickly, unless you're Hercules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Yeah, that's certainly possible. I've never played with decent pike replica, so I can't say what feels best. However, Silver, di Grassi, and Meyer all treated single combat with the pike, and I don't recall any instructions on push thrusting. I guess that's why I've always assume it's the same as with a staff. Meyer's text includes bits such as swinging the point up to gather power for a thrust. To me, this suggests the type of fast thrust I'm familiar with. Also, both Meyer and Silver have single-handed thrusts. I think you have to do those quickly, unless you're Hercules. |
To my shame, even though I have Forgeng's translation of Meyer I have never actually read any of the pike material. Is he showing single combat with the pike (as it seems from a cursory examination of the plates) or is he showing war-fighting skills? While I don't have a translation, this plate from Mair:
http://mdz10.bib-bvb.de/~db/bsb00006570/image...?seite=347
seems to show a pulling back sort of action that you'd use in single combat, not packed into a pike formation (although why folks would duel with pikes in single combat escapes me).
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 28 Aug, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | (although why folks would duel with pikes in single combat escapes me) |
Why not? Despite what many believe, the evidence from manuals suggests pikes were effective weapons in duels, not just in formation. As I said, di Grassi, Silver, and Meyer all cover single combat with the pike. Silver considered the pike one the best weapons for a duel against one man, second only to a staff weapon of perfect length (eight to nine feet).
Meyer mainly treats dueling, but he also has a brief section about earnest cases in the field.
Thinking about it more, I can see how push thrust could be useful with a pike. Smythe uses three words to describe attacks with the pike: thrusting, foining, and pushing. I'm not sure whether these were all meant to be synonyms or to describe three different actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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