[Rodolfo Martínez]

Hello guys!
Take a look at this videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G_d98ewZmM&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg&feature=related

Do you think that a dismounted XVI century man-at-arms can really find this techniques useful?
Or they are more for duels?

I mean, when we talk about Renaissance most people think in the German mercs with funny throusers (And i mean mostly Dopplesoldners) But what about a man-at-arms or knight? Aren´t this guys supposed to be better trained even?
DOn´t you thinbk that some of this techniques cannot be so useful in a thight melee?

Thanks

[Bill Grandy]

Rodolfo,
These videos are demonstrations of unarmoured combat, not armoured, though some of the principles and techniques overlap. The major difference being that armoured combat with the sword was focused on attacking at the small openings, predominantly with thrusts, whereas unarmoured combat involves far more strikes with the edge, as seen in these videos.

Regarding the duel/battle issue, I think sometimes people make a larger deal of this than our historical ancestors did. Martial arts are martial arts, and while some techniques are geared more towards a certain form of fighting, the general skills and principles worked in whatever situation. Sure, some techniques are less useful in tight melee, but who says battles are only ever in tight melee?

Truthfully, longsword vs. longsword is probably not the best representation of typical battlefield combat, but it at least demonstrates the principles of fighting with the vast majority of weapons.

[James R.Fox]

Sirs-my sScotts ancestors favorite technique was to find an Englishman with money and stick him between the shoulderblades.(being bandits and all)

[James Barker]

Bill hit the nail on the head. The other thing to think about pole arms are much more common on foot and swords were secondary weapons.

[Rodolfo Martínez]

Wep, he nailed it.
Thanks for the replies guys.

Don´t you think that a dagger can be a more effective weapon in a tight melee, fighting against not so well armored foot mercenaries? (Being an unhorsed man-ar-arms)

[Randall Pleasant]

Rodolfo

The dagger was hightly effective and greatly feared in close-quarter fighting against both armoured and un-armoured adversaries. For a look at the use of dagger in armoured fighting check out the Gladiatoria (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Gladiatoria/Gladiatoria.htm) manual.


Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW

[Adam Bodorics]

A dagger is just as long as it is, and that tight meele might loosen up. Halfswording shortens the weapon enough to use in a tight situation and if the area gets less packed, you can change your grip back to "normal".
This is absolutely not saying that a dagger is a bad weapon, I love them.

[Rodolfo Martínez]

[Doug Lester]

I admit that I'm not a student of western martial arts but every time a see a video of sword play I think back to Reinhardt and Oakeshott and their statements to parrying with broadswords, at least edge to edge, was generally avoided. It seem, though, that all these videos show it. Is it just the edge to edge parry that's avoided and the blocks are done flat to flat, flat to edge, or edge to flat. What's the story here?

As a side comment, it was interesting to see in the Youtube production that many of the grappling techniques shown are move that I can identify from when I took jujitsu. Nice illustration of parallel developement.

[Bill Grandy]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[James Barker]

I am not sure there is that much edge to edge contact. Reinhardt made a big deal out of the issue when his swords kept breaking on people also he exaggerated the blocking with the side in his video. I think most of the sword parries you see in these videos are the blade striking more on the sides than the edge but at slight angles versus the 90 degree angle in Reinhardt's old videos.

[Rodolfo Martínez]

Hello,
I never wielded a sword, so excuse my ignorance if this question is a bit silly. DO you know if edge-flat parrying is safe? Aren´t swords flexible? If so, Don´t you have more control of the foe´s sword if blocking with the edge or the hilt?

[Sean Flynt]

The Katzbalger and similar infantry swords/messers, etc. are short for good reason. You'll generally see those worn by men carrying polearms--they're the one's who will be in the middle of the tight-packed chaos. Longswords seem to have been favored by individuals of higher status, as far as I can tell from contemporary artwork. I wonder if carrying them may have indicated status, formal education in their use and possibly even the owner's likely position on the battlefield (commanding rather than wading into the meat grinder).

[Mark Millman]

Dear Rodolfo,

[Rodolfo Martínez]

Thank you Mark.
Should the flat, instead of being used to block, be used to deflect? I mean, used to make the foe´s edge slide away while you prepare yourself for a counter-attack?

Sean
I agree with you about longswords, but i would think that a man-at-arms would prefer to command instead of fighting if he carries a rapier into the battlefield. I don´t think that longswords are 100% symbolical even being a last resource weapon, if i´m not wrong most infantry soldiers don´t have their hands and arms (Or face) totally covered and i guess that a skilled longsword fencer would not find very difficult to stab or cut those spots.
About Katzbalgers, i don´t think they are very well suitted to face a well armored foe, since they look like better cutters than stabbers.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Well, Jean, even if you're only going from memory, there's much to agree with in your post. Deflection (as opposed to static interposition blocks) did seem to have been the rule in medieval techniques, and even static blocks seem to be mostly used when the energy received in the block can be somehow used to propel the counterattack into motion and/or drive the attacker out of balance. Fiore's manuscript has many delightful examples of these "aiki" techniques, and the German manuscripts aren't short of them either; the example of Schwertnehmen springs immediately to mind.

[Mark Millman]

Dear Rodolfo,