Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > George Silver on the Relative Advantages of Various Weapons Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 
Author Message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Mon 15 Oct, 2007 6:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
It takes quite a lot of time to train a swordsman but you can give him a job with a pike fairly quickly.


Pikemen were swordsmen, at least according to 16th-century military writers. According to Smythe, after the first thrust or so, they dropped or threw their pikes and drew swords and daggers.
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Mon 15 Oct, 2007 7:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well, ány man with a sword can be called a swordsman.
I should have expressed myself more clearly: it takes YEARS of practice to devellop fine skílls with a sword.
A quick-n-dirty instruction of a guy normally working the field does not by far produce the same effect as with a pike. You can sure give him a sword. Better still, let him use his grosse messer with which he has had practice Wink

The póint is that ´the job´ is not the actual clash of axe versus sword.
Skill, circumstances, tactics, strategy, even tíme (both in hours ticking as in the moment of history) are part of it.

Relative effectiveness of one arm against others is therefor ... relative.
Look at law enforcement officers nowadays. They may opt for one gun for it´s superior fire-power or a different one for it´s accuracy. They could just as well choose for another still because it is easier to carry which makes thém more effective. Maybe a pepperspray is an even better idea; not because it is more effective but because it can be úsed. Etcetera.


hc
View user's profile
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Mon 15 Oct, 2007 11:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As he'd typically have both a pike and a sword, I still don't understand your point. If your saying fighting with a sword requires more skill, I don't agree. All weapons require skill. Masters typically taught many weapons.

Pikes weren't weapons for barely trained peasants. Professional soldiers carried pikes. Kings and nobles fought with the weapon. King James IV of Scotland died fighting on foot with a pike. Consider, for example, what di Grassi wrote about the weapon:

Therefore among renowned knightes and great Lords this weapon is highly eſteemed, becauſe it is as well voide of deceite, as alſo, for that in well handling thereof, there is required great ſtrength of bodie, accompanied with great valure and deepe iudgement: for there is required in the uſe thereof a moſt ſubtill & delicate knowledge and conſideration of times, and motions, and a readie reſolution to ſtrike.
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Bosman




Location: Andalucia
Joined: 22 May 2006

Posts: 598

PostPosted: Mon 15 Oct, 2007 12:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
As he'd typically have both a pike and a sword, I still don't understand your point.


That the relative effectiveness of weapons is more determained by the hand that is holding and the brain guiding it.

The job determains the tool and the wider meaning of 'job' the true effectiveness. Imprecise but forcefull weapons may very well be more effective than 'superior' weapons in actual fighting. Fighting by far not being 'just' a battle.

peter
View user's profile
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Mon 15 Oct, 2007 6:54 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alexander Hinman wrote:
What confuses me most about Silver's hierarchy is his placement of polearms therein. What's so great about the welsh hook? What makes it so much better than a partisan or a half-pike? Its versatility?

Is Silver the first to rank weapons? It all seems quite dubious to me.


The Welsh hook has a very light head, as far as I can tell. It is not meant to be able to crush or cleave armour, as is the case in some polearms, and it (presumably) was faster than a bill or halberd. In an unarmoured situation, speed would trump the heavier polearms. The staff is still faster and lighter, but has even less metal and consequently would lack any piercing or cutting ability.
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: Tue 16 Oct, 2007 2:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well, Slivers basically thinks the long polearms superior to all other weapons, and the welsh hook the best of the polearms.
Of course, this is most likely just his personal taste. (And possibly motivated by his nationalism as well)

"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
David Lohnes




Location: Greenville, South Carolina
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Reading list: 20 books

Posts: 42

PostPosted: Tue 16 Oct, 2007 4:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Just to clarify:

Silver doesn't speak with equal praise of all polearms.
He thinks that some are too long and thus too slow.
He speaks most highly of polearms of perfect length.

Quote:
Make this for a general rule, all long staves, Morris pikes, Forest bills, Javelins, or such like long weapons, of what sort soever, being above the true lengths, the shortest has the advantage, because they can cross and uncross in shorter time than can the longer.


With the exception of certain situations, like at night.

Quote:
These [overly long pole] weapons in the night are the best weapons of all others, and have great advantage against the Forest bill, short staff, or any manner of short weapons whatsoever, for these causes: they boldly make home their fights, and if need be against desperate men, that will venture themselves to run in, they redeem their lost times. But the other with shorter weapons for lack of light, can make no true defence.
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: Tue 16 Oct, 2007 6:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

But then, Silver does not take armour into account, nor "Propper" shields.

The target is what we in skirmish fighting reffer to as a Silly Shield. It is just large enough to give the illusion of safety, yet to small to offer real defense against a foe not directly in front of you.
The glaive-men in our group proposes a highly traditional and gleeful toast to the users of these at each Christmas banquet, as a quick high-low is all that is needed to dispatch one. Pulling the same trick against a full size heater or kite, however, is futile.

If you are wearing heavy armour, you can make do with a smaller shield. That high-low isn't going to hurt you anyhow. Unarmored fighters, however, have a problem. Which is why Silver places the sword and buckler as superior to the sword and target.

I've done quite a lot of fighting with polearms, and my experience is that in a single fight, you get one or two shots at taking down a sword and buckler/small shield fighter (Typically a stab and a high low.) before he rushes you, in which case you Drop It Like It's Hot, and go for your dagger, or throw the pole at him and bolt while pulling your sword.

Against a man with a Propper shield, your best bet is to keep him at bay, and hope he overextends when charges you, at which point you shank him.

Poelarms are also not very good in loose battles, as they have a quite long "turning time"; If you get flanked, chances are you will not have the time to turn and strike, and even if you do, the guy you where originally facing will probably charge you.

"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: Tue 16 Oct, 2007 10:47 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Of course, this is most likely just his personal taste.


I seriously doubt it. There's a lot of evidence that staff weapons beat shorter ones in open combat. Various other English sources support this view. Swetnam, for example, gave the skilled man with a staff great odds. A play written around the same time made it clear that the bill had the advantage against the sword. Smythe wrote that armored men with swords and daggers could not resist armored halberdiers.

You can find at least hints of the staff's advantage in other manuals. Manciolino seems to have had a hierarchy similar to Silver's, based on length. Lance before spiedo, partisan before two-handed sword. Fabris put sword against polearm at the end of his work, after discussing unarmed versus dagger. This suggests he thought the polearm had the odds, though they could of course be overcome by skill.

Parts of Silver's hierarchy are debatable, but I don't think you can make a reasonable argument against staff weapons having odds against the single sword or longsword.

Quote:
But then, Silver does not take armour into account, nor "Propper" shields.


Kite shields and the like weren't common in Silver's day.

Quote:
Poelarms are also not very good in loose battles, as they have a quite long "turning time"; If you get flanked, chances are you will not have the time to turn and strike, and even if you do, the guy you where originally facing will probably charge you.


That contradicts Silver's description of the fight between two swords & daggers and the staff. Various other writers similarly note how effective long weapons are against multiple foes. Di Grassi wrote that two-handed swords were used specifically for this purpose. John Smythe wanted lightly armored halberdiers with longer halberds to defend the shot during skirmishing. He thought they would need the extra length because they often had to fight against multiple enemies.
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Mele
Industry Professional



Location: Chicago, IL USA
Joined: 20 Mar 2006

Posts: 356

PostPosted: Wed 17 Oct, 2007 1:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Elling Polden wrote:
The target is what we in skirmish fighting reffer to as a Silly Shield. It is just large enough to give the illusion of safety, yet to small to offer real defense against a foe not directly in front of you.
The glaive-men in our group proposes a highly traditional and gleeful toast to the users of these at each Christmas banquet, as a quick high-low is all that is needed to dispatch one. Pulling the same trick against a full size heater or kite, however, is futile.


The target Silver is referring to is not a Scottish targe, it is equivalent to the Italian rotella, and can be anywhere from 24 - 36" in size. It's a war-shield, of a size that worked well in the field from the Germanic migrations through the Renaissance, and is a lot more maneuverable in single combat than a kite or long heater. (It's also bigger than most late-medieval heaters.)

Also, Silver seems quite aware of armour - to the degree it was being worn c.1600 - an periodically makes mention of it. Indeed, part of the virtue of his downright blows and his stout short sword, it its ability to rend corselets. What's he's not addressing are all of the different permutations of armour that were found on an Elizabethan battlefield.

Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com

www.freelanceacademypress.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Wed 17 Oct, 2007 2:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I'm not so sure Silver thought a short sword could rend a corselet. He considered the rapier ineffective against armor, but it's unclear exactly what he could the short could would do.

Cutting torso armor with a single-handed sword strikes me as fairly ridiculous. Fourquevaux instructed swordsmen to only thrust at unarmed parts, such as the face or legs. John Smythe wanted pikemen, once they'd drawn their swords and daggers, to "giue a blow and thruft (tearmed a half reuerfe, & thruft) at all, and in one time at their faces: And therewithall muft prefentlie in an inftant, with their daggers in their left hands, thruft at the bottome of their enemies bellies vnder the lammes of their Cuyraffes, or at any other difarmed parts."

By the way, know anyone know what this half reverse and thrust would be?
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Mele
Industry Professional



Location: Chicago, IL USA
Joined: 20 Mar 2006

Posts: 356

PostPosted: Wed 17 Oct, 2007 8:34 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
I'm not so sure Silver thought a short sword could rend a corselet.


Hard to treat the term "by which corselets are rent" as meaning much else; regardless of what *I* might think of the likelihood. Wink He may just have meant that it had the force to break what was beneath, or he may simply mean that the point could break through the armour. Regardless, the point was that he felt it could be used in combat against the sorts of armours a footsoldier of c.1600 was wearing - he's not just talking about unarmoured dueling. Indeed, the entire point of his sword vs. rapier argument centers around the usefulness of the sword - and its one art - in all forms of combat, vs. the rapier's suitablity for the duel.

He considered the rapier ineffective against armor, but it's unclear exactly what he could the short could would do.

Quote:
Cutting torso armor with a single-handed sword strikes me as fairly ridiculous. Fourquevaux instructed swordsmen to only thrust at unarmed parts, such as the face or legs.


Sure, although Viggiani, a generation earlier than Silver and teaching the use of a similar weapon, was quite clear that the point of the sword could break joints in armour and wound through the mail. Essentially the same advice given to half-swording with the longsword by 15th c masters.

Quote:
By the way, know anyone know what this half reverse and thrust would be?


A "reverse" is a backhand blow in the 15th century English texts...

Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com

www.freelanceacademypress.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Wed 17 Oct, 2007 9:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Hard to treat the term "by which corselets are rent" as meaning much else; regardless of what *I* might think of the likelihood.


What part of Silver is that from? I don't remember seeing it, and haven't been able to find it with quick searches.

Quote:
Sure, although Viggiani, a generation earlier than Silver and teaching the use of a similar weapon, was quite clear that the point of the sword could break joints in armour and wound through the mail. Essentially the same advice given to half-swording with the longsword by 15th c masters.


I'm sure certain types of swords could easily wound through mail, but I think it's rather telling that both Fourquevaux and Smythe suggested attack the unarmored parts in battle. And Fourquevaux thought single-handed swords could hack up pikes, so he obviously had some respect for the power of the blow.

Quote:
A "reverse" is a backhand blow in the 15th century English texts...


That would make some sense. I could see a horizontal backhand blow being a decent choice against a man wearing a morion.
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Mele
Industry Professional



Location: Chicago, IL USA
Joined: 20 Mar 2006

Posts: 356

PostPosted: Thu 18 Oct, 2007 12:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
[What part of Silver is that from? I don't remember seeing it, and haven't been able to find it with quick searches.


I'll pull it for you in a day or so, when I can sit down with my scribbled on copy!

Quote:
I'm sure certain types of swords could easily wound through mail, but I think it's rather telling that both Fourquevaux and Smythe suggested attack the unarmored parts in battle. And Fourquevaux thought single-handed swords could hack up pikes, so he obviously had some respect for the power of the blow.


That's my point - it's the same weapon. And *all* masters suggest first and foremost that you go for where there isn't armour; the point is whether or not you cn get through it if you must. (Also, remember that the Fourquevaux and Smyth are military authors, writing general observations, not authors of fencing texts.)

Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com

www.freelanceacademypress.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
David Evans




Location: Rotherham, West Riding
Joined: 09 Sep 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Thu 18 Oct, 2007 8:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
As he'd typically have both a pike and a sword, I still don't understand your point. If your saying fighting with a sword requires more skill, I don't agree. All weapons require skill. Masters typically taught many weapons.

Pikes weren't weapons for barely trained peasants. Professional soldiers carried pikes. Kings and nobles fought with the weapon. King James IV of Scotland died fighting on foot with a pike. Consider, for example, what di Grassi wrote about the weapon:

Therefore among renowned knightes and great Lords this weapon is highly eſteemed, becauſe it is as well voide of deceite, as alſo, for that in well handling thereof, there is required great ſtrength of bodie, accompanied with great valure and deepe iudgement: for there is required in the uſe thereof a moſt ſubtill & delicate knowledge and conſideration of times, and motions, and a readie reſolution to ſtrike.


During the early 17th Century the pike were known as the Gentleman of the Pike. The pike were seen as more honourable than the rude mechianicals in the musket. At Edgehill in 1642 once Robert, Earl of Essex had issued his orders he took his place in the front rank of his regiement's lead battalia, armed with a half pike (12' long). If I remember rightly in Shakespear's Henry V, the king, walking thro his army the night before the battle, is asked "Trail'st thou the puissant pike?"

I'd suggest that our view is of 16th Century is tainted by the surviving pieces, which tend to be the better quality material, apart from the massive Graz armoury. I'd also point out that the urge to bin armour worn by the foot is kicking in by the 1580's, if not earlier. I would not be surprised if some of the cheaper, poorer quality armour isn't sword proof!
View user's profile Send private message
Alexander Hinman




Location: washington, dc
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Reading list: 50 books

Posts: 180

PostPosted: Thu 18 Oct, 2007 6:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Evans wrote:

If I remember rightly in Shakespear's Henry V, the king, walking thro his army the night before the battle, is asked "Trail'st thou the puissant pike?"


From the translations I've read, in that context it means 'are you a common soldier [or mercenary]?' as opposed to being a knight, as Henry was going in disguise at this time, and Pistol was on watch.

Felix Wang wrote:

The Welsh hook has a very light head, as far as I can tell. It is not meant to be able to crush or cleave armour, as is the case in some polearms, and it (presumably) was faster than a bill or halberd. In an unarmoured situation, speed would trump the heavier polearms. The staff is still faster and lighter, but has even less metal and consequently would lack any piercing or cutting ability.


I understand that much, but this still doesn't explain its priority over the similarly light and fast partisan and half-pike.

I also still don't buy the inherent superiority of polearms, given Talhoffer's apparent preference for swords and Marozzo's depiction of, an apparently very effective, guard against polearms, and one which Liberi describes thus, 'I am a good guard in armour and without, and against spear and sword thrown by hand, which I know how to beat back and avoid. But I assure myself that they cannot harm me.'
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Mele
Industry Professional



Location: Chicago, IL USA
Joined: 20 Mar 2006

Posts: 356

PostPosted: Thu 18 Oct, 2007 6:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[quote="Alexander Hinman"]
David Evans wrote:

I also still don't buy the inherent superiority of polearms, given Talhoffer's apparent preference for swords and Marozzo's depiction of, an apparently very effective, guard against polearms, and one which Liberi describes thus, 'I am a good guard in armour and without, and against spear and sword thrown by hand, which I know how to beat back and avoid. But I assure myself that they cannot harm me.'


Well, the history of warfare is against you. For single combat, preeminence has lain in the sword, which is a long weapon, but yet short enough to be worn and carried about, but for all of the focus spent on it, the sword - be it European, Chinese or Japanese, has always served the role of a sidearm, taking second place to the spear and its manifestations (lance, pike, partizan, etc).

Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com

www.freelanceacademypress.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Thu 18 Oct, 2007 6:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
I understand that much, but this still doesn't explain its priority over the similarly light and fast partisan and half-pike.


According to Silver, the hook gives it that advantage. The forest bill was an odd weapon apparently designed to catch a staff. Silver noted that the advantage was minor.

Those illustrations don't prove or even really suggest that Talhoffer gave the advantage to the sword. He also has hat and dagger beating spear. Like many many other manuals, Talhoffer's shows how to defeat the dagger or sword while unarmed. Nobody could seriously argue an unarmed man has the advantage against a man with a dagger or sword. By themselves, such techniques for unmatched weapons don't tell anything about which weapon has the advantage.

As I wrote earlier, there's a lot of evidence for the idea that staff weapons have odds against longswords and single-handed swords in open combat.
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 19 Oct, 2007 6:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well, while it's quite posible to take out a polearm with a sword, if you gain the initiative, the polarm has the first shot at trying to take you out or hold you at bay.
So, you will only get to close if he messes up. If you catch him of guard, and get past the point before he can react, however, he's in touble.
If both combatants are fully kitted, (polearm, sword, dagger) this would often take the form of deflecting or binding with the polearm, dropping it, and closing (As can be seen in Gladitorial, where the combatants have spear, sword, dagger and target...)

So, the bottom line is that a efficient warrior needs to carry weapons in all categories, and use the as according to context.
Personally, my standard combat loadout consists of glaive, sword, long dagger, knife, and shield, all of which are very usefull.

On a sidenote, does anyone know of a translation of marozzo?
I would very much like to read what he has to say bout shields, in particular the one picture of the kite, since the guard shown has never made much sense to me.

"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
David Lohnes




Location: Greenville, South Carolina
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Reading list: 20 books

Posts: 42

PostPosted: Fri 19 Oct, 2007 2:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Alexander Hinman wrote:
David Evans wrote:

If I remember rightly in Shakespear's Henry V, the king, walking thro his army the night before the battle, is asked "Trail'st thou the puissant pike?"


From the translations I've read, in that context it means 'are you a common soldier [or mercenary]?' as opposed to being a knight, as Henry was going in disguise at this time, and Pistol was on watch.


I've appened the relevant passage in full, as neither of the mentions above have it quite right. The King is in disguise and not speaking as the monarch, but Pistol's question doesn't mean "are you a common soldier." Henry has just identified himself as a "gentleman in a company." Pistol resulting assumption is that he's with the pike.

Quote:
PISTOL
Qui va la?

KING HENRY V
A friend.

PISTOL
Discuss unto me; art thou officer?
Or art thou base, common and popular?

KING HENRY V
I am a gentleman of a company.

PISTOL
Trail'st thou the puissant pike?

KING HENRY V
Even so. What are you?

PISTOL
As good a gentleman as the emperor.

Henry V IV.i


For further clarification I've supplied a couple of relevant historical definitions of "gentleman" from the OED along with two illustrative quotations from period writings.

Quote:
1. a. A man of gentle birth, or having the same heraldic status as those of gentle birth; properly, one who is entitled to bear arms, though not ranking among the nobility . . ., but also applied to a person of distinction without precise definition of rank. Now chiefly Hist.

1. c. Used (with more or less of its literal meaning) as a complimentary designation of a member of certain societies or professions.

1581 W. BLANDY Cast. Policy 18b, Captayne, Lieutenent, Auncient, Serieant of a Company, gentleman in a company or of the Rounde, Lance passado. These are speciall; the other that remaine, priuate or common Souldiars. 1670-1 SIR J. TURNER Pallas Armata (1683) 218 A Gentleman of the company is he who is something more than an ordinary Souldier, hath a little more pay, and doth not stand Centinel.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > George Silver on the Relative Advantages of Various Weapons
Page 3 of 3 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 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