| Author |
Message |
Jean Thibodeau
|
 Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 10:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steven H wrote: | | Jean Thibodeau wrote: | [I sort of wonder about reaction time and speed of movement advantage as well as being very good at reading the movements of an opponent for any telegraphing: If a fighter has all of the above at a level much greater than average or normal would such a fighter need to be very knowledgeable of technique or could enough speed make sophisticated techniques superfluous ?
Nice to be a master of technique but if you are fast enough you almost don't need anything more than a direct attack too fast to see or stop ! Oh, I would add that being very accurate in the thrust of cut placement would also be advantageous i.e. being able to hit a very small vulnerable target ? If you are fast but can't hit where you want the speed is useless ! |
The thing to keep in mind, Jean, is that such speed is the result of tremendous practice. Swinging a sword well is not a 'natural' movement. You need to practice it, and that's how you end up fast. And just speed without technique could create a stupid double kill scenario. Easily.
-Steven |
Oh, not saying that a superior speed is all that one needs or that someone with superior speed might not be even scarier if he or she was also a master of technique: I'm just saying that with abnormally off the scale speed one could just move too fast to be easily stopped by a normal opponent. If one can move fast enough, with perfect timing, with great accuracy the " kill " will happen so fast and easily that no complex moves or counter moves need to be used.
And yes, this speed would be partially due to extensive training but might be also be just good genes. ( Almost superpowers   )
Purely as a thought exercise say that this super fast swordsman has a reaction time 50% faster than human normal and the ability to actually move his body at 2X the speed. I would think that such a person if trained at all would be a challenge to even the best swordsman ? ( Unrealistic fantasy initial conditions maybe ? )
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
  |
 |
|
Eric Myers
Location: Sacramento, CA Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: | | The quicker and dirtier the better. Why linger when you can kill or neutralize and move on? |
Um, to ensure your own survival, that would be the main reason. Of course, if you see a safe opening, you should take it, which may be what you meant.
I am not convinced that fights were so quick, except in the case of less experienced fighters. Isn't it Silver that says something to the effect that two people with good skill can fight for hours with neither taking a serious wound? There are several examples of this in the viking sagas too, IIRC. I've been in heavy sabre fights where we had quite a few exchanges before pulling back and trying again. Often this only ended when one of us accidentally slipped back into a sport fencing mode for a moment, *then* it ended quickly.
Eric Myers
Sacramento Sword School
ViaHup.com - Wiki di Scherma Italiana
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | | I have read historical anecdotes of 16th century(?) street fights which were posted on the ARMA forums a couple of years ago in which many swords were broken in the course of a fight. |
Not just in the 16th century; at a deed of arms at Vannes in the late 14th century Clarius de Savoye fought Jannequin Finchley with swords. The chronicle tells us that: "They then drew their swords, which were strong, and in six strokes, four of them were broken." So in six strokes they broke four swords.
That alone tells us that your notion of a fight in which the combatants hold back for fear of damaging their precious swords is clearly mistaken.
Moreover, look at the real fighting manuals: All of the primary techniques of German martial arts with the exception of the version of the Krumphau used against a novice (where you strike his hands) and the Scheitelhau (and its variant, the Uberlaufen) involve acting from the bind; in other words, they *require* you to bind steel on steel. Hardly the actions of an art designed to act without risking their swords, right?
Even the Japanese, who regarded their swords with far more reverence than I've ever seen in a European account, knew better than to hold back for fear of damaging their swords. In Katori Shinto Ryu: Warrior Tradition by Otake Risuke, current Shihan of Katori Shinto Ryu writes that: "...the practitioner's wooden swords strike each other powerfully, despite the fact that this undoubtedly would have resulted in damage to the swords' blades if real swords were used." (p.109) He elsewhere talks about how elaborate techniques designed to protect the swords are modern innovations created after the period when swords were used in life-or-death fights for real (pp. 53-54).
The notion of fighting a hesitant fight where you sought desparately to avoid hitting sword on sword is a purely modern notion thought up by people with kittle knowledge of primary-source material trying to intuit how a fight must have gone. They read that swords were considered high-status items or were treated with great reverence and misconstrue how they were used from this. This is, in my experience, especially true among modern sword collectors for whom the purchase of a decent sword is a major investment: Such folks see their swords as wonderful, almost magical, things, and when they discover how fragile they can be under the wrong circumstances they're more than ready to believe medieval men wouldn't have wanted to allow them to come to harm, either.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
  |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | Purely as a thought exercise say that this super fast swordsman has a reaction time 50% faster than human normal and the ability to actually move his body at 2X the speed. I would think that such a person if
trained at all would be a challenge to even the best swordsman ? ( Unrealistic fantasy initial conditions maybe ? ) |
Such a person would be a challenge, true, but that's what art is about: Using strategy to overcome speed with technique. I think you focus on technique as "moves", so when someone says that proper technique negates your opponent's speed that doesn't make sense to you. Instead, think of technique as being the control of the distance and timing of a fight. for example, standing in such a place that if your attacker strikes at you he must do so in the time of the hand, body and foot while you close enough that you can counter such a movement in the time of the hand--that's a big part of Silver's approach to swordsmanship, and he comes right out and says this is because you can't rely on being faster than your opponent. I strongly urge you to read Stephen Hand's superb book English Swordsmanship: The True Fight of George Silver, Vol. 1 for more on this brilliant approach.
Liechtenauer teaches that concept (although not nearly as explicitly, nor in exactly the same way) and adds another: Controlling your opponent by placing him in the "Nach", in other words, by preventing him from having the initiative of a fight. You attack in such a way that he *must* defend against your attack before he can attack you (this is achieved by a principle called "Following the Blow") then you act from the bind instantly ("Indes") before he can do anything else, and you maintain pressure--psychological pressure--throughout the engagement by using techniques from the bind that out-time your opponent. For example, once you've bound you always maintain your point in a thrusting position aimed at your opponent. If he leaves the bind to strike you, you simply thrust into him, and the thrust from that position is faster than any cut. If he stays in the bind you wind your sword onto the weak of his sword so that you have a powerful mechanical advantage and thrust at him while still bound (and he can't resist because of your wind). Once again, if he leaves the bind he's making a slower action, so you just thrust. It goes on and on.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Myers
Location: Sacramento, CA Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 214
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a quote from Thomas Luiz, of Lisbon, taken from his "Tratado das liçoens da espada preta, e destreza, que haõ de usar os jogadores della", published in 1685. (My own translation.)
| Quote: | | The thrusts which the skilled refer to as ”free”, are those performed without touching the blade of the opponent. However, these rarely occur, and when they do, it is through great skill on the part of the attacker, and great lack of caution by the one who is hit. |
Eric Myers
Sacramento Sword School
ViaHup.com - Wiki di Scherma Italiana
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A fast attack is not the same as a sloppy attack.
Nor is good counter technique in any way sure to save your life.
In order to win you need to 1) stay alive and 2) disable the enemy, with the later being optional.
To do this, you need to hit him, while he is not hitting you. You can do this in a number of ways.
From behind is best.
Failing this, make sure he is not attacking YOU. This can be achieved by making sure he's so scared he's only defending himself, or failing that, forcing him to defend himself by making attacks or feints.
The best thing you can hope for is that he's not only not attacking, but also not defending, which can be temporarily be achieved by feints or intimidation.
Failing all these, you have to rely on technique.
Which is your least favorite option, because it is vulnerable to all the above.
"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
|
|
 |
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | That alone tells us that your notion of a fight in which the combatants hold back for fear of damaging their precious swords is clearly mistaken.(snip)
The notion of fighting a hesitant fight where you sought desparately to avoid hitting sword on sword is a purely modern notion thought up by people with kittle knowledge of primary-source material trying to intuit how a fight must have gone. |
Hugh, you completely misconstrued what I said, hopefully by accident. I have no such 'theory'.
I never claimed anyone fought in a cautious manner to preserve their swords. I believe that more experienced people fight in a somewhat cautious manner to preserve their flesh. I.e. to avoid being injured or killed. .Just based on the evolution in HEMA sparring I've witnessed in the last 8 years primarily, though I'm by no means unfamiliar with primary sources. This may have had the side effect of preserving swords depending on the type of swords in question and the particular fighting style. Rapiers I believe would break more easily than cinqueda for example
You seem to have confused me with some newby sword collector. As for the attitude toward swords in period it varied quite a bit over time. The Viking attitude toward swords was different than that of the late Renaissance, but the Vikings did most of their parrying with shields
As for the various techniques from the bind, I believe counters at the bind, winding, halfswording, ringen etc. are emphasized in the fechtbuchs because they are these are the most complex parts of the fight. I don't think all fencing bouts were done 90% at the bind, winding etc. You certainly don't see that in tournaments with un-restricted sparring. All those skills are important to have when and if you come to a bind, but that does not happen in every fight.
I'm not alone in this 'theory' incidentally.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
Last edited by Jean Henri Chandler on Tue 18 Dec, 2007 1:53 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | A fast attack is not the same as a sloppy attack.
Nor is good counter technique in any way sure to save your life.
In order to win you need to 1) stay alive and 2) disable the enemy, with the later being optional.
To do this, you need to hit him, while he is not hitting you. You can do this in a number of ways.
From behind is best.
Failing this, make sure he is not attacking YOU. This can be achieved by making sure he's so scared he's only defending himself, or failing that, forcing him to defend himself by making attacks or feints.
The best thing you can hope for is that he's not only not attacking, but also not defending, which can be temporarily be achieved by feints or intimidation.
Failing all these, you have to rely on technique.
Which is your least favorite option, because it is vulnerable to all the above. |
Well put, all round. I agree completely. In fact I'd put winding, halfswording and then ringen in the diminishing subset of technique per the above.
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Gary A. Chelette
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Gary A. Chelette wrote: | I would say it could be longer in time for a good fight. Remember, this is not a stage fight that would have steel hitting steel over and over again. These guys would maneuver and wait for a good shot so as to save their blade damage as much as possible.
Fencing with these blades would shorten their life span and could fail at a critical time. Also, if the fighters were unmatched in skills, it would not go very long and the swords would not have a chance to "clang" on each other and make a nice movie.
I have seen what sharp blades looked like after some ID 10 T's have at it thinking that is the way they did it in the movies.
Nice blades ruined. I wanted to cry.  |
Can you document this idea with any primary-source material? |
Medieval Combat: A Fifteenth-century Manual of Swordfighting and Close-quarter Combat
by Hans Talhoffer
As described on Amazon.com
Medieval sword-fighting was not the hacking, blade-on-blade, ring of steel affair represented in films and on the stage. Combatants in the Middle Ages used footwork, avoidance, and the ability to judge and manipulate timing and distance to exploit and enhance the sword's inherent cutting and thrusting capabilities. These skills were supplemented with techniques for grappling, wrestling, kicking and throwing the opponent, as well as disarming him by seizing his weapon. Every attack contained a defence and every defence a counter-attack.
I have not read the book, I am sure many here have, but this is very close to what I was trying to say.
I have seen good blades distroyed by banging them together and playing Errol Flynn. I don't need a book to tell me that it's very bad to lose your wepond in a battle. I am not referring to fencing, but real war on a battlefield.
Not to say it wasn't done! I am sure two, really pissed off guys could go through 4 swords in (how many strokes???). Six??? Lucky guys to have so many spares.
Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary A. Chelette wrote: |
Medieval Combat: A Fifteenth-century Manual of Swordfighting and Close-quarter Combat
by Hans Talhoffer
As described on Amazon.com
Medieval sword-fighting was not the hacking, blade-on-blade, ring of steel affair represented in films and on the stage. Combatants in the Middle Ages used footwork, avoidance, and the ability to judge and manipulate timing and distance to exploit and enhance the sword's inherent cutting and thrusting capabilities. These skills were supplemented with techniques for grappling, wrestling, kicking and throwing the opponent, as well as disarming him by seizing his weapon. Every attack contained a defence and every defence a counter-attack.
I have not read the book, I am sure many here have, but this is very close to what I was trying to say.
I have seen good blades distroyed by banging them together and playing Errol Flynn. I don't need a book to tell me that it's very bad to lose your wepond in a battle. I am not referring to fencing, but real war on a battlefield.
Not to say it wasn't done! I am sure two, really pissed off guys could go through 4 swords in (how many strokes???). Six??? Lucky guys to have so many spares. |
Sorry, that's not even close to being a primary source. Moreover, it doesn't support the implication of your claim that fencing was done by holding back to avoid damaging your blade.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes Eric that's what I meant. I'm a very aggressive fighter, but certainly no berserker. I just don't see any advantage to dragging a fight out. From what I gather, many of our fellow forumites lean heavily towards single combat when they picture fighting. A few don't consider melee at all. In a melee, every moment you spend engaging a foe is a moment his comrades could be flanking you.
I was also referring to the "dirty" aspect. No flourishes or theatrics, and as many dirty tricks as possible. I guess that makes me more of an assassin than a warrior, but I can live with that.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary A. Chelette wrote: |
Medieval Combat: A Fifteenth-century Manual of Swordfighting and Close-quarter Combat
by Hans Talhoffer
As described on Amazon.com
| Quote: |
Medieval sword-fighting was not the hacking, blade-on-blade, ring of steel affair represented in films and on the stage. Combatants in the Middle Ages used footwork, avoidance, and the ability to judge and manipulate timing and distance to exploit and enhance the sword's inherent cutting and thrusting capabilities. These skills were supplemented with techniques for grappling, wrestling, kicking and throwing the opponent, as well as disarming him by seizing his weapon. Every attack contained a defence and every defence a counter-attack. |
I have not read the book, I am sure many here have, but this is very close to what I was trying to say.
I have seen good blades distroyed by banging them together and playing Errol Flynn. I don't need a book to tell me that it's very bad to lose your wepond in a battle. I am not referring to fencing, but real war on a battlefield.
Not to say it wasn't done! I am sure two, really pissed off guys could go through 4 swords in (how many strokes???). Six??? Lucky guys to have so many spares. |
Gary,
There is an image in the public consciousness of sword combat as it is depicted on stage and screen. This image is of swords swung in wide circles and parries being done the same way. It is common if a fighter swings a horizontal stroke from his right for the opponent to "counter" with the same action. The result is a sword collision like a head-on crash. The stroke is delivered with no footwork or linear movement. This idea of swordfighting is so pervasive in stagefighting that it shows up in rapier and smallsword depictions.
That idea of combat is, I believe, what Mark Rector was seeking to disprove with the paragraph you quote. I however, have never encountered a member of the WMA community who thinks that such was good technique. The closest to it is UK backsword/broadsword and even that has important differences. There is a middle ground between theatrical combat and protecting ones blade and therein lies true sword skill and the art that Mark Rector describes.
As to having spare swords: Swords did not cost that much relative to the income of their users. In a paper by Jeffrey Hull he calculates a the cost of a sword to be equivalent to about a $1000 dollars today. The vast majority of fighting, and tournamenting was done by the middle class and higher in Medieval society. A middle class independent contractor today may have several thousand dollars in durable goods that he expects to last 3-5 years with good maintenance as well as use thousands of dollars a year in supplies. Compare that similar relative values of durable goods like horse and armour and expendables like swords. Then not protecting the blade makes more sense. Especially if that 'expendable' blade is used to win a tournament with a big payoff.
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pierre T.
Location: Ottawa, Canada Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Posts: 63
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Dec, 2007 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
The notion of fighting a hesitant fight where you sought desparately to avoid hitting sword on sword is a purely modern notion thought up by people with kittle knowledge of primary-source material trying to intuit how a fight must have gone. They read that swords were considered high-status items or were treated with great reverence and misconstrue how they were used from this. This is, in my experience, especially true among modern sword collectors for whom the purchase of a decent sword is a major investment: Such folks see their swords as wonderful, almost magical, things, and when they discover how fragile they can be under the wrong circumstances they're more than ready to believe medieval men wouldn't have wanted to allow them to come to harm, either. |
I think this above is a really good argument to the value and utility of decently priced steel blunts. Sure the balance isn't as nice, but if you aren't terrified of breaking it, you can use it with more spirit 
To comment on something else that was said: I am not an experienced swordsman - I only have 3-4 months of training under my belt. But I can tell you from personal experience that with two opponents who are aggressive and only somewhat skilled, a double kill scenario is very likely. I think it's a part of the learning process - you need it to happen to you a few times before it sinks in that "even if you take him down with you, you're still dead". Trying to go for the "move that will make me win without getting hit" probably makes an experienced sword fighter much more cautious than an aggressive novice student of the art.
Ancalagon
|
|
|
|
|
Gary A. Chelette
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Dec, 2007 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
Sorry, that's not even close to being a primary source. Moreover, it doesn't support the implication of your claim that fencing was done by holding back to avoid damaging your blade. |
Sorry,
That's all I can give at this time. After 34 years of experience in both Eastern and Western Martial Arts (I have the documentation to show this) I know first hand what misuse of a weapon can do.
I don't cut pool noodles or plastic jugs of water, I have hit things much harder than that. I don't know if you ever had a Katana go clean through your leg as I Have, (did it to myself and I did a good job too! Funny story I'll tell one day.) and it's not pretty.
I know what blades can do and I guess any explanation I give may not satisfy you. So I'll drop it right here.
I enjoy this forum a lot. I have learned many new things in my short time here. Good exchange of views and ideas. That is the way we all learn.
With respect, Sir.
Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Dec, 2007 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary A. Chelette wrote: | I would say it could be longer in time for a good fight. Remember, this is not a stage fight that would have steel hitting steel over and over again. These guys would maneuver and wait for a good shot so as to save their blade damage as much as possible.
Fencing with these blades would shorten their life span and could fail at a critical time. Also, if the fighters were unmatched in skills, it would not go very long and the swords would not have a chance to "clang" on each other and make a nice movie.
I have seen what sharp blades looked like after some ID 10 T's have at it thinking that is the way they did it in the movies.
Nice blades ruined. I wanted to cry. |
Using proper longsword techniques as described by the historical masters, rather than stage fighting techniques with its heavy edge-on-edge hacking, edge damage is not a serious issue. I think most historical unarmoured swordfights were fast & brutal and over very quickly.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Dec, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
Not just in the 16th century; at a deed of arms at Vannes in the late 14th century Clarius de Savoye fought Jannequin Finchley with swords. The chronicle tells us that: "They then drew their swords, which were strong, and in six strokes, four of them were broken." So in six strokes they broke four swords.
That alone tells us that your notion of a fight in which the combatants hold back for fear of damaging their precious swords is clearly mistaken. |
I always had a different perspective of this account. At least one period historian author has mentioned this as well. I am not saying that I am right, just pointing out a different possibility.
This account is told in the middle of a series of other individual matches which do not seem to share this repeated breakage of weapons, or anything other than a lance breaking in another match during the entire day. Finchley was an "esquire", opposing a Knight in a region and period where the title meant something. He subsequently was denied the opportunity, by his Lord, to fight with axes against his opponent. Finchley's denial to fight further with other weapons also contrasts to other duels that progressed through a series of weapons, and eventually led up to an account where a spear ran through one opponent's leg, with subsequent death. One implication here is that Finchley may have been fighting with a waster or bone sword. The practice of relegating esquires to tyrocinium style tournament had been considered common in the previous century. All of the conspicuous aspects (breakage, rank, denial of proceeding to a different brutal weapon) of Finchley's match need to be considered together before making conclusions about the conspicuous sword breakage.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Gary A. Chelette
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Dec, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | Gary A. Chelette wrote: | I would say it could be longer in time for a good fight. Remember, this is not a stage fight that would have steel hitting steel over and over again. These guys would maneuver and wait for a good shot so as to save their blade damage as much as possible.
Fencing with these blades would shorten their life span and could fail at a critical time. Also, if the fighters were unmatched in skills, it would not go very long and the swords would not have a chance to "clang" on each other and make a nice movie.
I have seen what sharp blades looked like after some ID 10 T's have at it thinking that is the way they did it in the movies.
Nice blades ruined. I wanted to cry. |
Using proper longsword techniques as described by the historical masters, rather than stage fighting techniques with its heavy edge-on-edge hacking, edge damage is not a serious issue. I think most historical unarmoured swordfights were fast & brutal and over very quickly.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW |
I fully agree.
Are you scared, Connor?
No, Cousin Dugal. I'm not!
Don't talk nonsense, man. I peed my kilt the first time I went into battle.
Oh, aye. Angus pees his kilt all the time!
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hand
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Dec, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've fought thousands of bouts using Silver's system. Last night I fought about a dozen bouts to the first substantive hit and saw about thirty more such bouts. The quickest bout was over in about three seconds with a single attack and a single counterattack. The longest bout took over ten minutes with dozens of individual fencing phrases. If people don't want to get hit and don't make mistakes then bouts can go for an exceptionally long time (and Silver states this explicitly). If someone is overmatched or makes a mistake a bout can be over in a second.
In general the better you know someone the more likely it is that your bout will go for an extended period of time, but I've fought bouts with people I'd never met and gone for quite some time with neither of us getting a hit. I remember fencing Craig Gemeiner, one of the other Australian instructors for the first time and getting two hits (one each) in a bout that lasted over ten minutes.
So, in short, I don't think you can generalise.
Cheers
Stephen
Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield
Stoccata School of Defence
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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