| Author |
Message |
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
 Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sam N. wrote: | | I do agree that in fights where the weapons are of equal length and reasonably short (as opposed to polearm vs. polearm), I also believe that the majority of strikes would be to upper targets. I have thrown low strikes before using longsword and sword and shield and it seems that everytime I get cut or stabbed in the head due to the simple geometry of the situation. However, if one weapon far outranges the other, than this geometrical advantage of striking high is negated by length. |
I'm not sure what context this is--that is, are we talking SCA, historic medieval, or historic in general, or just in general? However, when considering 1400s and 1500s sword and shield (where shield is large, small, or buckler), then I don't think this is borne out by the 1500s texts. Well, I suppose if you added up the strikes, you might find that the majority aren't cuts to the leg--if you consider that the majority would be everything else: cuts to the weapon-arm, cuts to the head, thrusts to the face, thrusts to the body, etc. The point is, that for 1500s swordsmanship, leg attacks are a primary attack in the same way that attacks to the head are--unless we don't believe what is in the masters' treatises. Where leg attacks are not primary attacks is in situations where you only have a single-hand sword by itself. In that case, your head is in danger of being exposed (leg attacks still occur, just not nearly as often). However, in the case of Marozzo's Spada da Due Mani (sword for two hands--the huge sword about 5 and a half feet long), leg attacks are a primary attack--in fact, they are a foundational attack--and are made possible by the length of the blade and quillons allowing you to attack your opponent's legs while simultaneously defending your upper body and head.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
   |
 |
|
Sam N.
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven Reich wrote: | | Sam N. wrote: | | I do agree that in fights where the weapons are of equal length and reasonably short (as opposed to polearm vs. polearm), I also believe that the majority of strikes would be to upper targets. I have thrown low strikes before using longsword and sword and shield and it seems that everytime I get cut or stabbed in the head due to the simple geometry of the situation. However, if one weapon far outranges the other, than this geometrical advantage of striking high is negated by length. |
I'm not sure what context this is--that is, are we talking SCA, historic medieval, or historic in general, or just in general? However, when considering 1400s and 1500s sword and shield (where shield is large, small, or buckler), then I don't think this is borne out by the 1500s texts. Well, I suppose if you added up the strikes, you might find that the majority aren't cuts to the leg--if you consider that the majority would be everything else: cuts to the weapon-arm, cuts to the head, thrusts to the face, thrusts to the body, etc. The point is, that for 1500s swordsmanship, leg attacks are a primary attack in the same way that attacks to the head are--unless we don't believe what is in the masters' treatises. Where leg attacks are not primary attacks is in situations where you only have a single-hand sword by itself. In that case, your head is in danger of being exposed (leg attacks still occur, just not nearly as often). However, in the case of Marozzo's Spada da Due Mani (sword for two hands--the huge sword about 5 and a half feet long), leg attacks are a primary attack--in fact, they are a foundational attack--and are made possible by the length of the blade and quillons allowing you to attack your opponent's legs while simultaneously defending your upper body and head.
Steve |
Hmm, perhaps I was thinking to narrowly. It's just that from my own experience, what I have been told and what I have read, it seems that attacks to the legs using weapons that cannot cover the entire body (unlike the two handed swords you mentioned) are in general not a good idea, since the simple counter (as a believe the German school shows) is to slip the leg being attacked back and hit the opponent in his head. That being said, I still think they are a primary attack in the sense that they certainly exist within most systems, I just think they wouldn't be used often because they seem so dangerous (due to the ease of countering them or simply stepping back out of their range). However, I think more realistically it is how my rapier fencing instructor likes to say: "You shouldn't use it...except when you do." 
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam N. wrote: | | Hmm, perhaps I was thinking to narrowly. It's just that from my own experience, what I have been told and what I have read, it seems that attacks to the legs using weapons that cannot cover the entire body (unlike the two handed swords you mentioned) are in general not a good idea, since the simple counter (as a believe the German school shows) is to slip the leg being attacked back and hit the opponent in his head. That being said, I still think they are a primary attack in the sense that they certainly exist within most systems, I just think they wouldn't be used often because they seem so dangerous (due to the ease of countering them or simply stepping back out of their range). However, I think more realistically it is how my rapier fencing instructor likes to say: "You shouldn't use it...except when you do." |
I think we're "talking around the same tree" and we're really saying sort of the same thing. That is, an attack to the leg with a single handed sword used by itself is not generally a good idea for exactly the reason you give. Thus, it is not often used by the Bolognese to start an action and is much less common in actions--although there are plays where you attack the leg to induce precisely that expected response. However, once you have off-hand protection, then even starting an action with an attack to the legs is much more common. The counterattacks are not so hard to deal with if you have a buckler, targa, or rotella, and if your opponent steps back, then you can pursue with appropriate footwork and redoubled attack (understanding that such pursuit is more controlled then merely charging your opponent and swinging wildly).
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a survey of the initial technique from the actions of the Spada e Targa section out of the Anonymous Bolognese manuscript. Note that this is only the initial attack (the actions are often quite complex). I also didn't differentiate between attacks that start with a beat and those that don't (there aren't that many that have beats before the initial attack, but they aren't rare, either). I didn't get too pedantically granular, as I think this is informative as-is:
General thrusts (usually as a feint): 6
Attacks to Leg: 12
Attacks to Head: 11
Attacks to Sword-Hand/Arm: 12
Other: 12
Note that "Other" includes a wide variety of techniques, some of which are a little unusual (such as sticking your targa onto the point of your opponent's sword, so that you can control it long enough to strike him).
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Steve, so how many of the leg shot are LOWER leg shots? You have to remember that is the complaint...not no leg shots. Of course even then, targa aren't exactly the type of shields that we are talking about (at least I don't think so...cause if it is, I've been arguing everything wrong). I do believe that this discussion was for in general, and not so much in period anyways. Of course, that does make thing pretty difficult and muddles things up pretty badly.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P. Cha wrote: | | Steve, so how many of the leg shot are LOWER leg shots? You have to remember that is the complaint...not no leg shots. Of course even then, targa aren't exactly the type of shields that we are talking about (at least I don't think so...cause if it is, I've been arguing everything wrong). I do believe that this discussion was for in general, and not so much in period anyways. Of course, that does make thing pretty difficult and muddles things up pretty badly. |
As for lower leg shots, I don't know--it becomes much more difficult to analyze that information. However, I don't think there are many initial attacks to the leg that are to the lower leg, but a fair number of the leg attacks made after initial contact are. Numbers are difficult to come by as you generally don't know until you either try the action or at least analyze it step by step.
I gave numbers for the targa to respond to Sam N.'s general post; however, I realize that it is not the type of shield generally discussed--thus my information on the Rotella and Imbracciatura on the previous page. Note that the data are not exactly the same, the targa info was initial attack but the Rotella and Imbracciatura information was based on plays with any leg attack.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | I'd do the low shield block the other way around, using the sword in a hanging guard.
Against a block like that, I'd simply bend down and scarpe the ground with my glaive to get under the shield.
The best defense against a polearm High-low in my experience is intercepting the pole with your sword as it's going down, applying the shield edge, and closing in.
As long as you stay at pole length, he can try to kill you all day long without putting himself in danger. |
Agreed. I did not mean this as a guard to stand in. I meant it as a block to make as you are rushing in if you see the polearm going low. In my next step the shield come back up and I bind his weapon with it. The polearm I practiced against was 7.5 feet. Of course he was not holding it at the end. So there was about 4 feet of polearm between us when he makes his cut. He gets one shot only before I close the range.
Sword down is better, if you can stop it. With full power strikes from a polearm I found that my own sword was slammed into my leg. It may not cut, but the impact was enough that it hurt even through my greaves.
| Sam N. wrote: |
The picture Vassilis posted is good, but that only works if the polearm is in very close range. As Elling noted, the polearm would probably use low strikes from a range far greater than that. Why not use range when you have a polearm?
|
Range is key even for the polearm. If he as a 7' glaive and is holding it near the very end for maximum reach it is not likely he will be able generate the force for a good cut. He might me able to hold a halberd vertical near the end and use the assistance of gravity to make a downward cut at maximum range, but the shieldman will know the direction of the blow well in advance and block high. If he holds the glaive with his hands 3 feet apart he get a range or 4 feet. He has given up some range but he has the advantage that he can thrust or cut. That is where the block I posted is most useful when closing.
I'm not trying to state that the pole arm has no chance. Not at all. I have been beaten by polearms plenty of times. Its that you just have to be a lot more skilled to win with a polearm against a shield.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
Last edited by Bill Tsafa on Mon 10 Mar, 2008 2:38 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
 |
|
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven Reich wrote: | | P. Cha wrote: | | Steve, so how many of the leg shot are LOWER leg shots? You have to remember that is the complaint...not no leg shots. Of course even then, targa aren't exactly the type of shields that we are talking about (at least I don't think so...cause if it is, I've been arguing everything wrong). I do believe that this discussion was for in general, and not so much in period anyways. Of course, that does make thing pretty difficult and muddles things up pretty badly. |
As for lower leg shots, I don't know--it becomes much more difficult to analyze that information. However, I don't think there are many initial attacks to the leg that are to the lower leg, but a fair number of the leg attacks made after initial contact are. Numbers are difficult to come by as you generally don't know until you either try the action or at least analyze it step by step.
I gave numbers for the targa to respond to Sam N.'s general post; however, I realize that it is not the type of shield generally discussed--thus my information on the Rotella and Imbracciatura on the previous page. Note that the data are not exactly the same, the targa info was initial attack but the Rotella and Imbracciatura information was based on plays with any leg attack.
Steve |
Okay, so even the master don't think an initial low leg attack is a good idea. I mean if a combination of moves goes just right and the lower leg is open with their weapon out of position, by all means, any good fighter will take it...but as an opening move, it's not a good idea. This is what me and Tsafa have been saying. Everyone who keeps riling against the SCA no lower leg shot says the polearm user can just open with a lower leg attack. They can't. It gets them killed...and from what you just said, the masters seems to agree with that to some degree.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P. Cha wrote: | | Okay, so even the master don't think an initial low leg attack is a good idea. I mean if a combination of moves goes just right and the lower leg is open with their weapon out of position, by all means, any good fighter will take it...but as an opening move, it's not a good idea. This is what me and Tsafa have been saying. Everyone who keeps riling against the SCA no lower leg shot says the polearm user can just open with a lower leg attack. They can't. It gets them killed...and from what you just said, the masters seems to agree with that to some degree. |
Well, we can't say that exactly, either as I haven't looked at any historic Polearm vs. Sword and Shield actions from treatises (I'm not sure if there are any or not--perhaps in Pagano). Spada da Due Mani vs. Spada da Due Mani does have lower leg strikes as opening attacks.
I would rile against the lack of lower leg strikes, as they are very important in general sword-and-shield vs. sword-and-shield, but not necessarily in the first attack. They also figure in to Single-hand Sword-alone, but usually only after an initial strike that allows you to grab your opponent's sword-hand/hilt for control (this doesn't have to result in "on-the-ground" grappling, just 1 second of control). Also, with a feint high, strike-low against a sword-and-shield, can open up the lower leg quite nicely--not a guaranteed hit, of course, but that's what fencing is all about... 
Frankly, I think that finding a way to realistically simulate fencing with polearms is rather problematic. There are various attacks (especially certain types of thrusts) which are foundational techniques that, should they land, pose a serious risk of injury regardless of the protective equipment.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | Its that you just have to be a lot more skilled to win with a polearm against a shield. |
Well this is definitely true. Adding a full-size shield to the swordsman's equipment would significantly change things. Single-hand Sword-Alone vs. Polearm is a big advantage to the polearm. Things are definitely different with a shield.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
Last edited by Steven Reich on Mon 10 Mar, 2008 12:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Again, is there any historical evidence for the sword & shield having odds against the polearm? Did any master claim this? We know Silver gave the advantage to polearms over the sword & target. Larger shields would be somewhat different, but I doubt they would have turned Silver's hierarchy on its head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam N.
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | I'm not trying to state that the pole arm has no chance. Not at all. I have been beaten by polearms plenty of times. Its that you just have to be a lot more skilled to win with a polearm against a shield. |
Oh don't worry, I know you aren't saying polearms are useless. The thing I disagree with you on is your opinion on which one has the advantage. I am not sure about armoured or semi-armoured combat, but in unarmoured combat, I believe that it is the polearm that has the major advantage over sword and shield, an opinion that George Silver seems to have as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven Reich wrote: | | Well, we can't say that exactly, either as I haven't looked at any historic Polearm vs. Sword and Shield actions from treatises (I'm not sure if there are any or not--perhaps in Pagano). Spada da Due Mani vs. Spada da Due Mani does have lower leg strikes as opening attacks. |
Umm does that even exists anymore? I don't think I have seen anything for a polearm vs sword and shield.
| Quote: | | I would rile against the lack of lower leg strikes, as they are very important in general sword-and-shield vs. sword-and-shield, but not necessarily in the first attack. They also figure in to Single-hand Sword-alone, but usually only after an initial strike that allows you to grab your opponent's sword-hand/hilt for control (this doesn't have to result in "on-the-ground" grappling, just 1 second of control). Also, with a feint high, strike-low against a sword-and-shield, can open up the lower leg quite nicely--not a guaranteed hit, of course, but that's what fencing is all about... |
I will admit that sometimes I will see an opening for the lower leg in SCA combat. However, those chances that I see happen rare enough that I don't see the need for including the lower leg as targets and adding to the armor requirements. This does happen MUCH more often with longsword vs longsword or single sword vs single sword. When you toss in a shield however, it's almost never a good option. Since SCA heavy combat is based on shielded combat, it's not really a big deal. The SCA light combat however doesn't use shields(or at least as much)...but the entire body is a target in those matches.
| Quote: | Frankly, I think that finding a way to realistically simulate fencing with polearms is rather problematic. There are various attacks (especially certain types of thrusts) which are foundational techniques that, should they land, pose a serious risk of injury regardless of the protective equipment.
Steve |
That is very true. You can get a LOT of power from holding a pole weapon 18+ inches apart.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam N. wrote: | | Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | I'm not trying to state that the pole arm has no chance. Not at all. I have been beaten by polearms plenty of times. Its that you just have to be a lot more skilled to win with a polearm against a shield. |
Oh don't worry, I know you aren't saying polearms are useless. The thing I disagree with you on is your opinion on which one has the advantage. I am not sure about armoured or semi-armoured combat, but in unarmoured combat, I believe that it is the polearm that has the major advantage over sword and shield, an opinion that George Silver seems to have as well. |
Well here is how I am picturing that case or armored vs semi armored. Lets give the shield the benefit that he effectively closes the range and now has his shield up against the polearm. It is unlikely that the polearm will be able backpeddle faster in full armor then the shield is able to run forward. So they find themselves bound with the shield against the polearm. What options does each one have? The shield has his sword-arm free to pound on the helmet of a polearm. If the polearm has anything less then a 10 lb greathelm, he is going to start getting dizzy at some point if he does not find a way to strike back. If he does have a greathelm, the shield better have a mace or hammer in his other hand.
Most historical sallets are about 3 lbs. My SCA helm weighs 9 lbs and has half an inch of padding. I almost never have a problem with a single hit, but consecutive hits to the head are another issue. I was in a tournament 2 months ago fighting a two-sword man. He hit me hard with wrap to the head and did not hear me call "good" and hit me immediately with a second wrap to the head. I had to sit down after that. Consecutive hits to the head are very effective vs single hits. If he had hit me a few more times like that, I would have been out cold. People in the SCA have gotten concussions through their helmets because of these.
Back to the polearm now. What can he do when he is bound against the shield? Well for one thing he must defend himself against incoming sword strikes to his head. He only has one weapon for offense and defense. The shield is both blocking the shieldman and resisting the movement of the polearm with his shield placement. So the polearm most fight the additional resistance of the shield in order to move it from side to side as the shieldman strikes back and forth. In that close range, he can only really make horizontal shot across the top of the shield to the shieldmans head. Of course the shieldman will follow the polearm while keeping pressure on it. The polearms best bet is to try to push off the shield and make that strike across the top... or throw himself into the shield and cut back with the polearm over the top. Both these techniques have been done to me and work but are not easy to execute. For one thing, the polearm has to have the strength to push me back and give himself the room. The polearm has the advantage that he probably only needs to make contact once with the shieldmans head. Its a sweet shot if he can get it.
I touched on something before that I will comeback to now. Why are we assuming that a shieldman will fight a polearm in full platearmor with a sword? Why not a single handed mace, hammer or axe? I have fought many SCA melees with shield and axe. Most of the sword techniques transfer over just fine. Just a little slower and requires more windup. Here is a picture of the axe I used at Pennsic.
http://mysite.verizon.net/tsafa1/GreecePennsi...xe_JPG.htm
| Steven Reich wrote: |
Frankly, I think that finding a way to realistically simulate fencing with polearms is rather problematic. There are various attacks (especially certain types of thrusts) which are foundational techniques that, should they land, pose a serious risk of injury regardless of the protective equipment.
Steve |
Agreed, but I can't stand the idea of doing nothing at all. I would rather work with some safety limitations and do the best I can with it. I have come to believe that it is best to rotate the safety limits. By that I mean, practice in some circumstances with slower, controlled hits where the whole body is a target with grappling allowed... and also practice in other conditions where full power is allowed but some strikes are limited. By doing so, I believe, will smooth out the limits of each.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
Agreed. I did not mean this as a guard to stand in. I meant it as a block to make as you are rushing in if you see the polearm going low. In my next step the shield come back up and I bind his weapon with it. The polearm I practiced against was 7.5 feet. Of course he was not holding it at the end. So there was about 4 feet of polearm between us when he makes his cut. He gets one shot only before I close the range.
|
Uhm, why was he not holding the pole at the end? Range is the main advantage of a polearm, and not using it means you will get killed very quickly. I hold my (metal...) glaive in the rear quarter at almost all times. If he gets past that, I drop the thing and go to backup.
Against a round shield of modertate size, I have a pretty good chance of slipping under the shield. Kites or heaters are a lot harder. If your weapon gets pined down, however, you have about 0.3 seconds to get away before the swordsman whacks you.
By keeping range, you do as mentioned above, get to make unopposed attacks, without endangering yourself. As such, longer weapons are always superior as they let you stay safe.
"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
|
|
 |
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | He might me able to hold a halberd vertical near the end and use the assistance of gravity to make a downward cut at maximum range, but the shieldman will know the direction of the blow well in advance and block high. |
Static block that blow from a real Halberd and I'm fairly confident your shield will be in poor shape. Most likely along with your arm and possibly your shoulder. I think you would be much better off not to be under the Halberd blow from vertical than trying to block it. Besides, once that strike is committed, its going until it lands on something (it won't be pulled).
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam N.
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | Sam N. wrote: | | Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | I'm not trying to state that the pole arm has no chance. Not at all. I have been beaten by polearms plenty of times. Its that you just have to be a lot more skilled to win with a polearm against a shield. |
Oh don't worry, I know you aren't saying polearms are useless. The thing I disagree with you on is your opinion on which one has the advantage. I am not sure about armoured or semi-armoured combat, but in unarmoured combat, I believe that it is the polearm that has the major advantage over sword and shield, an opinion that George Silver seems to have as well. |
Well here is how I am picturing that case or armored vs semi armored. Lets give the shield the benefit that he effectively closes the range and now has his shield up against the polearm. It is unlikely that the polearm will be able backpeddle faster in full armor then the shield is able to run forward. So they find themselves bound with the shield against the polearm. What options does each one have? The shield has his sword-arm free to pound on the helmet of a polearm. If the polearm has anything less then a 10 lb greathelm, he is going to start getting dizzy at some point if he does not find a way to strike back. If he does have a greathelm, the shield better have a mace or hammer in his other hand.
Most historical sallets are about 3 lbs. My SCA helm weighs 9 lbs and has half an inch of padding. I almost never have a problem with a single hit, but consecutive hits to the head are another issue. I was in a tournament 2 months ago fighting a two-sword man. He hit me hard with wrap to the head and did not hear me call "good" and hit me immediately with a second wrap to the head. I had to sit down after that. Consecutive hits to the head are very effective vs single hits. If he had hit me a few more times like that, I would have been out cold. People in the SCA have gotten concussions through their helmets because of these.
Back to the polearm now. What can he do when he is bound against the shield? Well for one thing he must defend himself against incoming sword strikes to his head. He only has one weapon for offense and defense. The shield is both blocking the shieldman and resisting the movement of the polearm with his shield placement. So the polearm most fight the additional resistance of the shield in order to move it from side to side as the shieldman strikes back and forth. In that close range, he can only really make horizontal shot across the top of the shield to the shieldmans head. Of course the shieldman will follow the polearm while keeping pressure on it. The polearms best bet is to try to push off the shield and make that strike across the top... or throw himself into the shield and cut back with the polearm over the top. Both these techniques have been done to me and work but are not easy to execute. For one thing, the polearm has to have the strength to push me back and give himself the room. The polearm has the advantage that he probably only needs to make contact once with the shieldmans head. Its a sweet shot if he can get it.
I touched on something before that I will comeback to now. Why are we assuming that a shieldman will fight a polearm in full platearmor with a sword? Why not a single handed mace, hammer or axe? I have fought many SCA melees with shield and axe. Most of the sword techniques transfer over just fine. Just a little slower and requires more windup. Here is a picture of the axe I used at Pennsic.
http://mysite.verizon.net/tsafa1/GreecePennsi...xe_JPG.htm
| Steven Reich wrote: |
Frankly, I think that finding a way to realistically simulate fencing with polearms is rather problematic. There are various attacks (especially certain types of thrusts) which are foundational techniques that, should they land, pose a serious risk of injury regardless of the protective equipment.
Steve |
Agreed, but I can't stand the idea of doing nothing at all. I would rather work with some safety limitations and do the best I can with it. I have come to believe that it is best to rotate the safety limits. By that I mean, practice in some circumstances with slower, controlled hits where the whole body is a target with grappling allowed... and also practice in other conditions where full power is allowed but some strikes are limited. By doing so, I believe, will smooth out the limits of each. |
Well, if the shieldman closes the distance, then yes, the polearm is at a disadvantage. In that situation, I would move back while pulling back my polearm to keep the killing "head" in range. The interesting thing is that I have never actually seen a shieldman successfully rush a polearm before. Everytime I have seen a shieldman try and rush a polearm, the polearm usually simply cuts the shieldman in his lower leg and that's it. The hands of the polearm wielder can usually work far faster than the feet of the shieldman (the time of the hand is faster than the time of the foot as Silver would say). I have personally found that when I am handling a polearm, I can pull it back and get the head back into the killing zone far less time than any shieldman can rush me. Why this is different for SCA combat, I don't know. But than again, SCA combat seems to be unique in some aspects. To me, SCA fights seem to be quite reminiscent of boxing matches, since both combatants fight in the time of the hand (meaning they stay within a distance where you need not step in order to attack). On the other hand, most of the fighting that I see WMA groups doing (which is understandably is later period than SCA heavy combat and deals with only unarmoured or completely armoured combat, but not semi armoured like SCA combat.) takes place within the time of the foot (meaning each attack first requires stepping into range). Fighters also seem to "hug" against each-others shields quite often in SCA heavy combat and fight from around there. Whether this actually happened with swords and shields, we don't know, since we don't have any manuals from the period that the SCA replicates in its heavy combat. SCA combat also uses blows that are harder than what unarmoured combat would use (due to the need to "feel" the blows through the armour) and are different than what fully armoured combat would use, but presumably, are the sort of blows that would be needed to damage through mail armour (semi-armoured).
Hope that block of text made sense  , it just seems to me that we are dealing with multiple styles of fighting here, in one (unarmoured), range seems to matter a lot, in the other (armoured), not really. As for semi-armoured combat (in mail with a bit of plate), I think that if lower legs were allowed to be targeted, polearms would be far more effective. (That being said, I understand why full targeting isn't allowed, since a full blow with even a staff to your lower legs would easily break at least one of your shins, even with greaves.)
I also think we should heed Stephan Hand's warning about using our own experiences as the ultimate answer in this case. None of us has ever been in actual combat with these weapons, only approximations. In some approximations, certain things are true, in others, other things are true. I still think if someone could find a contemporary account from the period that SCA combat replicates, than we could shed more light on the issue of whether it is polearms or the sword and shield combo that has the advantage in combat with light armour.
We have already established that in full armour the range advantage of the polearm doesn't matter as much, and in unarmoured it counts for quite a bit. The only thing left is what is true for semi-armoured combat.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Why are we assuming that a shieldman will fight a polearm in full platearmor with a sword? Why not a single handed mace, hammer or axe? |
Again, where's the historical evidence for fully armored infantry using impact weapon and shield? Single-handed maces rarely appear in the hands of infantry, much less with shields. This doesn't mean it's a poor combination, but it makes me wonder.
Secondly, Fourquevaux instructed his plate-armored targetiers to only thrust as the legs and other unarmored parts. Smythe has a blow to the head or face, but it's followed up by thrusting under the armor with an off-hand dagger. I don't think trying to beat your opponent unconscious through a helm is appropriate for 16th-century combat. There's more evidence for that tactic in earlier times.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Fults wrote: | | Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | He might me able to hold a halberd vertical near the end and use the assistance of gravity to make a downward cut at maximum range, but the shieldman will know the direction of the blow well in advance and block high. |
Static block that blow from a real Halberd and I'm fairly confident your shield will be in poor shape. Most likely along with your arm and possibly your shoulder. I think you would be much better off not to be under the Halberd blow from vertical than trying to block it. Besides, once that strike is committed, its going until it lands on something (it won't be pulled). |
It is not hard to guess what a halberd is going to do next when it goes vertical. Against a vertical attack for a halberd I would not block it with the face of a shield. I would prefer to step back, as I think you suggested, and let it hit the ground. If it does hit the ground its not going to get up that fast either. I can close the distance before he is ready to strike again.
If stepping back is not an option, perhaps there is another shieldman behind me in formation or a cliff, stepping forward is. In stepping forward I would raise my top shield-edge up and try to have the staff of the halberd strike that. Of course I would have to raise the edge high enough so that the blade does not hit my head. The halberds next move might be to try to hook my shield try a thrust my face since he is set up perfectly for that. Works great if I am staying in formation or moving back, not if in rushing forward to close the distance.
Will this work every single time, no. The shieldman can make a mistake... perhaps he is under orders to stay in formation...or just clueless. If the polearm is a light gaive rather then a halberd, he might fake a high vertical blow so the shieldman blinds himself and then strike the leg with a horizontal blow. That has happened to me plenty of times. Sometimes I manage to block it sometimes I get hit. There is no question that the polearm has the advantage as I am closing in. I can't hit him, he can hit me. When I get in on him the advantage is mine.
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
Again, where's the historical evidence for fully armored infantry using impact weapon and shield? Single-handed maces rarely appear in the hands of infantry, much less with shields. This doesn't mean it's a poor combination, but it makes me wonder.
|
I don't remember if I have seen any artwork with it. I will keep a look out for that going forward. I kind of took it for granted that if you had a single handed mace in one hand, you had something in the other hand too. I have certainly seen single handed maces and axes in museums.
As a shield man with any single handed weapon, if my shield broke and I could not find a replacement laying around, I would logically pick up another weapon of the ground. Even if you are not trained as as two-swordman, you can still try to block some incoming cuts. So a second weapon can function as a shield too. It may not be ideal, but it is better then an empty hand. Sorry I don't have anything more historical to offer.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Mar, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | It is not hard to guess what a halberd is going to do next when it goes vertical. Against a vertical attack for a halberd I would not block it with the face of a shield. I would prefer to step back, as I think you suggested, and let it hit the ground. If it does hit the ground its not going to get up that fast either. I can close the distance before he is ready to strike again. |
Actually, against a skilled user, a halberd that goes vertical has quite a few options (although not as many as a sword), the wielder, from that position can make a vertical cut, a diagonal cut on either side (changing hands if necessary), or an ascending cut on either side; or he can feint any one of those and deliver a thrust. Additionally, he could hook your shield or sword (if he can get you to parry with your sword), or even make a thrust a little wide at your leg and hook it to pull your foot out from under you on the way back. Of course all of these can be countered (and some might not be legal under some sparring rules)...
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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