| Author |
Message |
|
Hugh Knight
|
 Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Once again, Hugh, I suggest you read di Grassi instructions on fighting with polearms. He wrote favorably of butt spikes on bills/halberds. Secondly, butt spikes aren't useless with a long grip. Meyer's manual has a few techniques with butt, as does Silver's. (Note that Silver's staff has a considerable point on the butt.) Even when the weapon is held long, things can get close. |
I'm sure they do. That's not the point: The point I was making is that battlefield weapons might not have included them because in melee such things just aren't that useful. Single combat is different.
| Quote: | | Not according to John Smythe. He wrote that halberdiers should strike at the head and thrust at face. If anything, he seems to have favored the blow. He stressed how it was often easier to strike than thrust in a press. Meyer also focused at least as much on the blow as the thrust. |
You may be right about Smythe, but Meyer wrote for single combat, Benjamin.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
    |
 |
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That's not the point: The point I was making is that battlefield weapons might not have included them because in melee such things just aren't that useful. Single combat is different. |
Well, judging from the artwork, they certainly weren't always included. But how much of distinction is there between battlefield weapons and ones for single combat? Halberdiers could themselves in more open combat. I guess Smythe did suggest longer and lighter halberds for the halberdiers guarding the shot.
| Quote: | | You may be right about Smythe, but Meyer wrote for single combat, Benjamin. |
Yes, but he mentioned earnest defense with such weapons. And I doubt his system would change entirely for the battlefield.
Anyways, here's what Smythe wrote: “...but then is the time that the ranckes of fhort Halbards, or Battleaxes of fiue foote and a halfe long, with ftrong fhort poynts, fhort staues, and long edges in the hands of luftie foldiers that doo followe the firft ranckes of Piquers at the heeles, both with blowe at the head, and thruft at the face, doo with puiffant and mightie hand, work wonderfull effect, and carrie all to the ground.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Yes, but he mentioned earnest defense with such weapons. And I doubt his system would change entirely for the battlefield. |
I expect it would. After all, the way you use a pollaxe has to change drastically in a melee vs. what we know was done in single combat.
| Quote: | | Anyways, here's what Smythe wrote: “...but then is the time that the ranckes of fhort Halbards, or Battleaxes of fiue foote and a halfe long, with ftrong fhort poynts, fhort staues, and long edges in the hands of luftie foldiers that doo followe the firft ranckes of Piquers at the heeles, both with blowe at the head, and thruft at the face, doo with puiffant and mightie hand, work wonderfull effect, and carrie all to the ground.” |
No offense, but that doesn't sound like a preference for blows over thrusts.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I expect it would. After all, the way you use a pollaxe has to change drastically in a melee vs. what we know was done in single combat. |
And why would this apply to the 16th century? As you've noted in the past, Meyer's style isn't much like 15th-century pollaxe sources. I don't really see why most of Meyer's instruction would fail on the battlefield.
| Quote: | | No offense, but that doesn't sound like a preference for blows over thrusts. |
Before that bit, Smythe complained about long Italian halberds suitable mainly for thrusting. There's certainly nothing to suggest Smythe considered the blow second to the thrust on the battlefield. He specifically wanted halberds with long edges, not the short ones common on Italian halberds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | And why would this apply to the 16th century? As you've noted in the past, Meyer's style isn't much like 15th-century pollaxe sources. I don't really see why most of Meyer's instruction would fail on the battlefield. |
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. What does the date have to do with it?
As for Meyer's instruction, it isn't optimal for the battlefield because it requires you to move in ways that would get in your buddies' way; consider plate G; the figure on the right is doing a low swinging movement that would clobber his own teamate to his left.
Likewise, the middle back figures in plate H show a Back-lever Throw with the Halberd--there's no way you could do that in battle unless your lines were intermingled (and by the way it's one place where the halberd is used like a pollaxe).
| Quote: | | Before that bit, Smythe complained about long Italian halberds suitable mainly for thrusting. There's certainly nothing to suggest Smythe considered the blow second to the thrust on the battlefield. He specifically wanted halberds with long edges, not the short ones common on Italian halberds. |
I'm probably sounding confrontational, and I honestly don't mean to be, so please excuse me in advance, OK? But again, all that information says to me is that Smythe is saying he wanted bills and halberds to be good at cutting and that the Italian ones weren't. Well, I want a pollaxe with a Mail (the hammer head) that's good at hitting, but the Mail is far less important than the spikes on either end! That doesn't say he thinks the chopping attack is more or even as important as the thrust.
(Edited because I typed faster than I could check spelling!)
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | As for Meyer's instruction, it isn't optimal for the battlefield because it requires you to move in ways that would get in your buddies' way; consider plate. G; the figure on the left is doing a low swinging movement that would clobber his own teamate to his left. |
Some of it does, sure. But consider his first three device from Field Guard, for example. In the pike section, Meyer explicitly addressed earnest cases in the field. Things don't change completely in there.
| Quote: | | I'm probably sounding confrontational, and I honestly don't mean to be, so please excuse me in advance, OK? |
I think it's fated to be that way. You focus on 15th-century polearm sources, while I focus on 16th-century ones.
| Quote: | | That doesn't say he thinks the chopping attack is more or even as important as the thrust. |
I think he considered both attacks important. You'll note he listed blow at the head first. There's nothing whatsoever in his writing to suggest thrusting came first. For what it's worth, he also claimed halberdiers with weapons no longer than six feet don't interfere with one another while fighting.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Benjamin,
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | The English bill is simply that country's version of the halberd. All English military writers I know of considered bills and halberd interchangeable. Di Grassi considered the Italian bill to be the best of all cutting polearms. Where is this disrespect for the bill coming from? |
Indeed, and the poleaxe is interchangeable with both to boot, according to early fighting treatises. The Peter Falkner Fechtbuch shows bladed poleaxes and bill-like weapons. The text is clear you use the same techniques regardless.
Hi Hugh,
I haven't found the Mair reference yet (assuming I'm not mis-remembering in the first place), but Cod. Vind. 11093 shows bladed poleaxes, swung axe first, in a sequence that is essentially boilerplate German axe combat. While battle remains another matter, it's clear from this source, Falkner, and others, that such weapons were swung to strike (and then likely hook, etc.), regardless of whether we have the coronal head or axe blade.
More hopefully later...
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
|
|
 |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2007 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | I haven't found the Mair reference yet (assuming I'm not mis-remembering in the first place), but Cod. Vind. 11093 shows bladed poleaxes, swung axe first, in a sequence that is essentially boilerplate German axe combat. While battle remains another matter, it's clear from this source, Falkner, and others, that such weapons were swung to strike (and then likely hook, etc.), regardless of whether we have the coronal head or axe blade. |
With respect, Christian, that's not how I see it. When I look at Codex 11093 I see blows of the *mail*, not the Taillent. I posted a picture showing this above but I'll put it here again. There are only 5 pollaxe plates in the entire manual (unless I'm missing pages) and only one is clear about a swinging blow; one plate shows a huge wind-up, but it's not possible to tell what he's going to hit with. The only blow we can see is the mail (see below). The other plates show counters to thrusts (consider plate 45 where a thrust is being displaced with a halfsword--you certainly wouldn't deflect a blow that way!), not blows.
Plate 43 is a deflection of a thrust and a windup for a blow (but we can't tell what kind)
Plate 44 is a displacement of a blow of the Taillent and a hook with the taillent (no coincidence they're both on the same page)
Plate 45 is a counter to a thrust with a longsword.
That's it.
 Attachment: 124.54 KB
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
By the way, di Grassi favored blows in battle and thrusts in single combat. Of course, his role for the bill/halberd/partisan in battle was pike chopping, so this makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
Actually, I think this plate makes my point. The guy on the left has his lead hand turned over (as in with the Scheilhau with the longsword) - he's doing some sort of set aside or perhaps a thrust. [sidebar: this is akin to the left side description of the guard Pflug in the von Danzig mss. - here the left hand leads, so it is *right* Pflug that presents the other 'edge' upward) The guy at right is about to strike up with the axe blade from the lower left.
It's the hand positions that tell the story: the lead hands are oriented with the axe blade facing forward. That's the business end for striking in most of this work's (few) poleaxe plates.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Actually, I think this plate makes my point. The guy on the left has his lead hand turned over (as in with the Scheilhau with the longsword) - he's doing some sort of set aside or perhaps a thrust. [sidebar: this is akin to the left side description of the guard Pflug in the von Danzig mss. - here the left hand leads, so it is *right* Pflug that presents the other 'edge' upward) The guy at right is about to strike up with the axe blade from the lower left.
It's the hand positions that tell the story: the lead hands are oriented with the axe blade facing forward. That's the business end for striking in most of this work's (few) poleaxe plates. |
I don't see it that way. I'll admit the guy on the left's hand is turned strangely, but that's just bad art--something this MS is prone to. You wouldn't turn your hand over that way with the pollaxe for anything--it's weak. If any evidence beyond that was required, look at the left hand of the guy on the left in the picture I attach below--his hand's completely turned around in a way you'd be stupid to do--there are lots of examples of that kind of bad art in this book.
I think the guy on the left is doing a straight Oberschlag with his Mail that's been deflected with the Queue of the guy on the right's axe. This is similar to Talhoffer's Bind Behind with the axe from his 1467 Fechtbuch exept done with the Queue. I think the fact that the Taillent is "forward" on the guy on the right's axe has nothing to do with a strike; my guess is that the guy on the right is now going to step forward and hook with his Taillent. Again, there's a play much like this in Talhoffer 1467 except the displacement is forward not back, but he still ends up hooking his opponent's knee.
Attachment: 141.52 KB
[ Download ]
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
Yes, I have to admit there's some wonkiness with the hands in this work. However, it isn't weak to hold the left hand like the guy on the left, provided you assume it isn't held exactly in that orientation (limits of the art and all), but still with the knuckles up. It keeps the wrist straight that way.
I agree that the guy at right intends to hook aside the attack (whether it's a thrust or stroke) and bring the head to bear, possibly to hook. But there's no reason why he couldn't deliver a blow here as well (or, do both!).
We also need to be careful in assuming that swung blows aren't important. They aren't discussed much in the manuscripts because they make up simple attacks, much the way the longsword works don't focus much on the techniques of the Vor ("just hit him"), but rather the counterattacks of the Nach. But certainly these attacks are expected, as a good number of techniques involve breaking them.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James Barker wrote: | | Hi I just want to toss my 2 cents in on earlier comments on bills. Bills were used by the lower class not by knights and men at arms. They might have been used against men in armor but I doubt they would have the same effect as a poleaxe. Bills are top heavy and clumsy weapons while poleaxes are balanced and elegant. Bills were gardening tools taken to war and were likely far more effective against the more lightly armed men on the field. |
As Hugh and Christian know, my own preference is for the poleaxe as well. But having said that, with all do respect, neither 15th or 16th century masters at arms agree with you.
As noted before, the 15th century Germans masters make it clear that the bill, halbard and poleaxe are functionally the same weapon - so much so that Falkner's manuscript illustrates them interchangably for one another. The weapon is what we tend to call an "Italian bill" (something of a misnomer, as it is really a central-European design), a little longer than a man. If we look at the Emperor Maximillian's "Freydal", also known as "Max's Bib Book of Chivalric Smackdown", we have the Emperor wielding a short-hafted weapon in the manner of a poleaxe that is identical to the halberd's shown in many fechtbucher. (We also see the famed paragon of Chivalry performing deeds of arms in harness with the staff and the two-handed flail, or threshall, weapons we'd all consider "peasant's weapons", and yet which we periodically see late medieval masters including in the chivalric repertoire.)
Likewise, the Italian master at arms, clearly note the "azza" (poleaxe, *always* described as being a polehammer, so much so that it is sometimes called a "three-toothed", "four-toothed" or "pronged" axe), the "alabarda" (halberd), and the ronca (bill). By the 1490s, they again make it clear that the weapons are largely interchangable, being anywhere from 6 - 8 feet in length, with the same root guards and techniques, and then some techniques that are unique to each weapon. For the poleaxe, the assumption is that both figures will *always* be fully armoured (their words, not mine), so the repertoire includes more throws and close-in techniques, then the halberd plays, which will sometimes advise "if he is wearing armour do x, " or "if he is lightly armed, do y". The only difference between the halberd and bill is that the bill plays include more hooking techniques and using the horn to slice the hands of unarmoured opponents.
Also as noted before, the "English bill", whose form, per Oakeshott and David Edge, can be dated to the 14th century, is nothing more than the English form of the halberd. It is not a hooked, pruning tool adapted to the battlefield, and its use, as described by Silver in 1599, is nearly identical to the halberd plays be see of the German masters in the 1520s - 1570.
I'll leave the discussion of what a "knightly" combatant is in the Anglo-French world vs. central Europe for another thread, but it's quite clear the poleaxe was viewed as a "chivalric weapon", apparenlty primarily for individual feats of arms (and that includes the judicial duel), but the men who trained people how to to use these weapons also clearly thought that their students, from burgher to fully armoured man-at-arms, might use any of these polearms against combatants of any station. More importantly, at least by the 1470s they clearly felt that they were all used in the same general fashion.
Much like the old idea that only nobles and knights wore swords throughout the period, the truth is more complicated than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Yes, I have to admit there's some wonkiness with the hands in this work. However, it isn't weak to hold the left hand like the guy on the left, provided you assume it isn't held exactly in that orientation (limits of the art and all), but still with the knuckles up. It keeps the wrist straight that way. |
Perhaps weak isn't the right word, but to me this is a case of Occam's razor--there's a really simple and widely-used sequence being shown here if you look at it in the simplest way. Larry (we call the guy on the left Larry and the guy on the right Ralph in my Schule) is making an Oberschlag and Ralph is displacing it with his Queue in preparation for a hooking attack with his Taillent. Simple, claean, and a very effective technique.
| Quote: | | I agree that the guy at right intends to hook aside the attack (whether it's a thrust or stroke) and bring the head to bear, possibly to hook. But there's no reason why he couldn't deliver a blow here as well (or, do both!). |
The reason I don't believe it's ablow is that he'd be striking to Larry's front side--where his pollaxe is. Most strikes with the Mail in Le Jeu (done by the winner, that is) are done to the victim's back, or the side on which the pollaxe isn't, if you see how I mean that. (I usually refer to these as inside vs. outside, but I know those terms have complicated meanings in other contexts). Hooking, however, is often done to the side that the pollaxe is on, and so it will be here, I think.
| Quote: | | We also need to be careful in assuming that swung blows aren't important. They aren't discussed much in the manuscripts because they make up simple attacks, much the way the longsword works don't focus much on the techniques of the Vor ("just hit him"), but rather the counterattacks of the Nach. But certainly these attacks are expected, as a good number of techniques involve breaking them. |
If I gave the impression blows weren't important then I pushed my case too hard. I *do* believe blows are important under the right circumstances--usually when you've disarmed or moved your opponent into a helpless position; then you stun him with the Mail so you can finish him off with your dagger or with a thrust. I don't, however, believe that swinging blows of the Mail would be something the author of Le Jeu wouldn't often recommend as a Vorschlag in single combat.
On the other hand, in battle that changes: In battle you only have the thrust of the Dague and the blow of the Mail (and myabe a hook--I've done that in melee with some success, but I'm not satisified how it fits into real war fighting). And while stunning blows of the mail can be useful, thrusts are far more deadly in those circumstances, and I think it was this to which I was referring that made you believe I think blows are unimportant. Again, even in battle blows are useful, but not as useful as a good thrust to the face with the Dague.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Again, even in battle blows are useful, but not as useful as a good thrust to the face with the Dague. |
What's your basis for this? Multiple sources suggest polearm blows to the head can kill instantly through a helmet. With an edged polearm, blows can sunder opposing shafts and swords. This is useful for murdering pikemen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | [What's your basis for this? Multiple sources suggest polearm blows to the head can kill instantly through a helmet. With an edged polearm, blows can sunder opposing shafts and swords. This is useful for murdering pikemen. |
Perhaps, but I was writing about blows with the mail of the pollaxe. I've read stories of halberds cleaving helmets, but then I've read accounts of all kinds of unlikely things that turn out not to be true--since I haven't seen the primary evidence I don't comment about that. When you read primary-source accounts of pollaxe bouts you don't read about cleaving armor (nor have I read of that in *any* reliable primary source with any weapon); instead, you read about men being stunned and then getting up. Regardless, even if there is a weapon so horrifgic it can kill through armor with a single blow, the effort to do so will be much greater than that required to simply place the point of your weapon and shove it home through an open face or a gap in the armor. *That* makes the thrust a much deadlier, surer attack in battle.
As for sundering pikes, that's entirely possible--I was speaking about the effects on a person.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Perhaps, but I was writing about blows with the mail of the pollaxe. |
A French source on Agincourt claimed English hammers could kill with a single blow. Fiore wrote the same about a pollaxe strike.
| Quote: | | *That* makes the thrust a much deadlier, surer attack in battle. |
Do you know of a period source suggesting the blow over the thrust in battle? Smythe, as I've shown, considered both effective.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
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.
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."
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. 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:
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."
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
|
|
|
|
|
James Barker
Location: Ashburn VA Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 365
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2007 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James Barker wrote: | Greg
Excellent reply to my earlier post; thank you. |
Hi James,
Thanks for taking it as it was meant! I just think we all have to keep in mind that, when we approach this from a living history angle, a)the better we are at that, means the more focused we are on a time and place, and Europe was a BIG place, b)class and status, particularly in the military classes is a lot more fluid and variable in the late Middle Ages and it's too easy to stereotype, and c) however a weapon may seem to us when we handle a survivor (and polearms are really tricky because they've often been re-hafted), the professionals seem to have felt that they came down to three categories: mostly thrust(spear, pike and spetum), thrust-cut(partizan and glaive), and thrust-cut-hook-smash (poleaxe, halberd, bill), with little to differentiate them within those categories.
Cheers!
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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