| Author |
Message |
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
 Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 2:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | If I understand correctly, you and Alex are implying that the choice of weapon type to be used in single combats would be considered unimportant by a professional instructor, is that correct? Upon what do you base that opinion? |
I think what they meant (and I agree with it) is that a professional instructor would have had no problem teaching the use of either type according to the same principles. I guess the instruction had to be generic enough to not fall to pieces in case one of the participants picks a relatively unusual design and you have to fight with the same weapon.
Contrary to matters of self-defense or war, judicial duel is more about equality among participants than absolute efficiency of the weapon for the context. So the performance of either type is not really relevant to the discussion.
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
   |
 |
Alex Spreier
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Felix R. wrote: | | Alex Spreier wrote: | | ..... The Old Man (whether it be Fiore or Liechtenauer or whomever) would give a darn about whether you used an axe/hammer or hammer/spike pollaxe. They would care more about whether you can effectively use the principles of the system they espouse. |
Very well said. |
If I understand correctly, you and Alex are implying that the choice of weapon type to be used in single combats would be considered unimportant by a professional instructor, is that correct? Upon what do you base that opinion? |
Hugh,
I said what exactly what I meant to say. To put this analogy to a different weapon, I prefer to use either one of the Hanwei/Tinker longswords or an A&A Fechterspiels when I practice and teach. However, I have used Purpleheart wasters, a Swordcrafts aluminum waster, and Hanwei's Practical Hand-and-a-half. I think we can agree that these are all variations upon the theme of "longsword". In fact, I enjoy that fact that on any given training night I will use 2 or 3 different trainers because they are all different and the teach me to adapt.
Would the choice of weapon be important to the professional instructor? Probably, depends on the instructor.
Would he have cried foul and run home because he was used to training with a hammer/axe and his opponent demanded he use a hammer/spike? I seriously doubt it.
Compagno, Northwest Fencing Academy
http://bunkaijuju.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Spreier
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
I think what they meant (and I agree with it) is that a professional instructor would have had no problem teaching the use of either type according to the same principles. I guess the instruction had to be generic enough to not fall to pieces in case one of the participants picks a relatively unusual design and you have to fight with the same weapon.
Contrary to matters of self-defense or war, judicial duel is more about equality among participants than absolute efficiency of the weapon for the context. So the performance of either type is not really relevant to the discussion.
Regards, |
Precisely. Thank you for being far more eloquent then I could ever hope to be!
Compagno, Northwest Fencing Academy
http://bunkaijuju.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex Spreier wrote: | | Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
I think what they meant (and I agree with it) is that a professional instructor would have had no problem teaching the use of either type according to the same principles. I guess the instruction had to be generic enough to not fall to pieces in case one of the participants picks a relatively unusual design and you have to fight with the same weapon.
Contrary to matters of self-defense or war, judicial duel is more about equality among participants than absolute efficiency of the weapon for the context. So the performance of either type is not really relevant to the discussion.
Regards, |
Precisely. Thank you for being far more eloquent then I could ever hope to be! |
If that were the case, then there would be more variation shown in our source documents. For example, In Talhoffer's 1459 Fechtbuch we see several variations of spikes and hooks on the queue-end of the axes, but all of the axes are of the hammer/spike variety at the head, and that is the only sort of head shown in any of his books. Doesn't that indicate that he preferred that head for some reason? In other kinds of combat he showed more variation: We see sword and buckler techniques with both arming swords and messers and we see Langenschilt fighting done with sword, mace and with neither (according to the specific form of duel), but we see only one kind of pollaxe head in any of his books.
The question is not whether the techniques of this art can be done with different types of axes, it's what do the majority of sources show to be the best choice for this very specific form of combat? With sincere respect, I believe you gentlemen are confusing the idea that you *can* do any of these techniques with either type of axe with the idea that, for some reason, the majority of sources we have *preferred* one type for a specific type of combat. We can argue for days over why that type was generally preferred, but we can't argue that it was. I think whoever said that any specific master would *prefer* that you understand the principles of the art than that you had the axe he thought best was spot on, but that doesn't deny that he found a specific sort of axe best for the purpose.
Out of all the medieval sources we have, only two show the blade/hammer head, 11093 and Falkner. And I just looked at the text of Falkner, and of the six plays, only a single one even mentions the "streitaxt" or pollaxe; all the other plays mention ony the halberd or mordaxt. To me, that's very telling; I just can't see how it can be argued. That's not me just pulling an opinion out of the air (as has been suggested), that's a careful analysis of the way the material is presented. That's my last word on the subject.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
Last edited by Hugh Knight on Fri 08 Jan, 2010 8:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
 |
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Putting aside all of this issue of which is the best pollaxe type to use the point of this Topic is the book and in my opinion that it's a very useful and valuable aide in training even if one agrees or doesn't agree with everything in it or Hugh's opinions in every case.
In any case you can't go really wrong training with a pollaxe with a maul & bec de corbin as suggested by Hugh as being the one used in most of the relevant sources. if one wants to explore what differences one would have to make to techniques due to the use of a bladed axe/maul pollaxe it would probably be good to first master some or all the techniques first !
Some things like hooking might be different in subtle or not so subtle ways, one might find some uses for the axe blade not immediately obvious ??? Just saying that there is no point in getting too dogmatic about it and one should have an open minds about different opinions here.   ( How about the axe cutting edge being useful in chopping at the hands/fingers or sliding along the haft until one slices into the fingers ? In war if not everyone was wearing gauntlets naked fingers would be very vulnerable ..... sorry, possible new side track and " just " a random idea that I don't think has been mentioned so far ).
In any case even the disagreements or conflicting opinions are worth thinking about !
So after all the " distractions " of getting side tracked by hard to prove opinion I recommend that those who need a good training book about the Pollaxe seriously consider buying the book. 
( Hard to prove: I mean by this that noting here is 100% certain even though one can make a good case supported by original sources to arrive at highly probable conclusions ..... except that not all will arrive at the same conclusions from reading the same sources .... ).
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
Last edited by Jean Thibodeau on Fri 08 Jan, 2010 7:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
No - it's not a careful analysis at all, because *all* 6 plays belong to the same section - the polearms section - filed in association with the same sectional prologue. That means they all apply to that set of weapons. It's not a series of techniques, each tailored to a specific weapoin, by any stretch.
This is further supported by the fact that in the play where he uses the word 'streitaxt' (the 5th one), that play doesn't show one! The illustration shows a form of bill pitted against a halberd. Why? Because it just doesn't matter and he's using terminology loosely. The only place a proper streitaxt is illustrated is in the hands of the loser of the 1st technique, which doesn't mention the word at all: "if you have a murder axe or halberd in the hands and he has one also [...]".
If Falkner meant to have separate plays for the different configurations, he a) wouldn't show them pitted against each other without anything explaining that one is facing another and, more importantly, b) would have different preamble text for each.
Instead, Falkner simply shows we should 'get over it' and learn that most striking polearms behave interchangeably, save for some minor tweaks: obviously, you don't focus on hooking if your weapon doesn't have a hook, etc. His section applies to *all* those weapons. Those same tweaks apply even to relatively similar configurations - for instance, one of the short azzas that Fiore shows has some different properties in the fight when compared to the 7 footers in some German illustrations. Nevertheless, they're both still axes. This is just like what Marozzo (I think - it's one of the Bolognese master...I need to double-check if it's Marozzo) says - that these things are pretty much interchangeable.
Anyone who's handled various historic polearms knows this: there's just as likely to be significantly differing usage demands within the same morphology as between differing morphologies. There are bladed axes that are light in the hand, and there are hammer types that are unwieldy tanks. And there's everything in between.
Best regards,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
 |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Some things like hooking might be different in subtle or not so subtle ways, one might find some uses for the axe blade not immediately obvious ??? Just saying that there is no point in getting too dogmatic about it and one should have an open minds about different opinions here. ( How about the axe cutting edge being useful in chopping at the hands/fingers or sliding along the haft until one slices into the fingers ? In war if not everyone was wearing gauntlets naked fingers would be very vulnerable ..... sorry, possible new side track and " just " a random idea that I don't think has been mentioned so far ). |
Actually, I've messed around with some of this. As for hitting fingers, that's in the Le Petit Jehan de Saintre citation I gave, and it's pretty fascinating, although be advised that many axes had roundels that would help minimize the sliding you mention. One thing I wish I had done differently with my pollaxe book was to include more accounts of specific duels in the non-Fechtbuch literature, such as Petit Jehan and Tirant Lo Blanc and Jacques de Lalaing (although he does get mentioned). As for hooking with the taillent, that's a wicked thing, believe me. Most blades have very sharp tips, and hooking knees with them is incredibly painful. I was demonstrating a knee hook with my steel axe (blade/hammer style) and accidentally pulled harder than I meant to, and while I didn't actually rip my friend open (I wasn't that clumsy, fortunately), he did get quite a painful experience out of it.
| Quote: | | So after all the " distractions " of getting side tracked by hard to prove opinion I recommend that those who need a good training book about the Pollaxe seriously consider buying the book. |
Thank you, I really appreciate your kind words. I put a lot into this book, and it's important to me because this is the form I know best, having worked with Le Jeu since the mid 1990s and having been in many, many full-speed fights with it. I've written quite a few technique books, but I put this one off until last (well, not quite last, it turns out, but that was the plan, anyway) because I wanted to learn more about doing this sort of book before attempting to write this one. As a result, I care more about this book than any of the others. Because of that, it really pleases me to find someone enjoying it so much.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh as a side note I have the A&A Knightly Pollaxe and the A&A Italian Pole Hammer ( One of the original prototypes: I think there where only 2 or 3 and they where up for sale some months ago on the muster page .... mine has a bigger/longer bec by a subtle amount than the standard model now offered ..... Oh, I also got a queue spike from A&A that I added to it ).
As for the bec although it's main use is hooking in armoured use I can't help thinking that against a lightly armoured or unarmoured opponent the very long and wide and thick spike would do incredible damage ..... again this would be more battlefield use and more a question of using it this way against a distracted by others opponent as a target of opportunity and wouldn't need much " technique " and be so obvious as to not get any mention in any training sources i.e. if a guy has his back to you, no need to get very subtle with it, hit anyone on the battlefield in any way you can when they are not aware that you are there !
( Edited/added: Question, against maille would the bec have a chance of penetrating the maille or at least it would focus the blow on one small spot ? The maul/hammer can be concussive against plate but the bec in addition to hooking might be more effective against a maille voider ? Well the maul would still be dangerous against any body part armoured or not in plate or mail or just a padded arming garment, jack or brigantine ? )
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | Hugh as a side note I have the A&A Knightly Pollaxe and the A&A Italian Pole Hammer ( One of the original prototypes: I think there where only 2 or 3 and they where up for sale some months ago on the muster page .... mine has a bigger/longer bec by a subtle amount than the standard model now offered ..... Oh, I also got a queue spike from A&A that I added to it ). |
I think *all* their pollaxes are lovely, especially the new Burgundian model. I like the new pollaxe a lot "the Italian pole (sic) hammer", but I wish it were slightly bigger (as a matter of personal taste only). I'm really in the market for a good pollaxe of the hammer/spike variety, but I want one that looks more like the ones in Talhoffer. But if I was just going to buy any axe, the "Burgundian poleaxe (sic)" would be my first choice; sadly, I already have an axe/hammer pollaxe, so I just can't justify it.
| Quote: | As for the bec although it's main use is hooking in armoured use I can't help thinking that against a lightly armoured or unarmoured opponent the very long and wide and thick spike would do incredible damage ..... again this would be more battlefield use and more a question of using it this way against a distracted by others opponent as a target of opportunity and wouldn't need much " technique " and be so obvious as to not get any mention in any training sources i.e. if a guy has his back to you, no need to get very subtle with it, hit anyone on the battlefield in any way you can when they are not aware that you are there !
( Edited/added: Question, against maille would the bec have a chance of penetrating the maille or at least it would focus the blow on one small spot ? The maul/hammer can be concussive against plate but the bec in addition to hooking might be more effective against a maille voider ? Well the maul would still be dangerous against any body part armoured or not in plate or mail or just a padded arming garment, jack or brigantine ? ) |
Well, the simple fact is that we can only go by what the Fechtbücher and the chronicles tell us, and they just don't speak to that subject, at least not anywhere I've read. That could also be why the blade/hammer style of axe was so popular in war: The axe blade would be brutally effective against lightly armored combatants. As I said to Christopher, I don't know why there isn't any use of the bec as a striking weapon. As for striking mail with it, I don't think so, because we don't have any instructions for hitting mail in our books, either.
I have to say, however, that I have a theory, or perhaps that's to strong a word for it, a guess, that people are too focused on hitting with the pollaxe. Oh, it can and should be used for hitting, there's just no doubt, and that it was *heavily* used for hitting we can't doubt, either, considering how many techniques we have designed to counter blows. But in many cases, and especially in war (and I've used a pollaxe in full-contact reenactments for many years), I think of the pollaxe as a "spear with benefits". That is to say, I can hit with it, but the thrust seems like a more useful idea. And that's especially true in battle, because a thrust can be re-chambered far faster than a hit. I won't try to argue this point because there's no evidence for it, and it's just a gut feeling on my part, but I get it from really playing with these things for a long time. And if I'm right, it's the dague, not the bec, that is the tool for punching mail. Believe me, a well-made, slender dague will go right through a lot of mail.
But, as a very wise man on this list once said, there's so much out there in the material we *do* have that it will keep us completely occupied for more than our lifetimes, so I'm sticking with that. <grin>
By the way, have you seen this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omJSE9VLv60
I think it's particularly interesting because a.) he hits with the correct part of the axe--the hammer, b.) you can see the axe deforming with the hit, and c.) you can really see the shock waves in the gelatin. I don't think this proves anything that isn't already widely known, and I doubt anyone in real combat would be foolish enough to hit with such a wide swing, but it's cool to watch. I wish he'd not chosen to hit a breastplate because that will make people think the breastplate is a good target, but I know they had that one made special for various weapons tests, so it's not surprising.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Marechal
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Jan, 2010 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | I'd encourage people to make a separate topic to deal with foreign language pronunciation, as it is relevant and important. Continuing to take this thread off-topic is not the best solution as it will dilute the original topic and the pronunciation stuff will be hard to find as a resource later. Thank you. |
I have made a new thread for it. It includes the list of recordings.
|
|
 |
|
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2010 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh Knight,
I would like to apologize if I came across in a bad way through the thread. Yyour book is an invaluable source of great material, of which I am learning alot. Seeing as I have a full suit of armor (pending helm, gauntlets, and bevor, which are being made right now) The ability to train in a suit of armor adds to the realism of training.
I have been carrying out the techinques just as you mention in your book, I am early in my stages of learning and I came to the Unterschlag a second time and noticed that I could not see, exactly where the final strike should be placed upon the opponet. Looks like the unterschlag could be hit upon hand. Or even the chin, though if it is the chin, then... well thats why I have decided to petition your answer.
I will be able to apply that art of the pollaxe to my future students (I hope to start a Medieval historical group in San Antonio, Texas) the entire discussion through this thread, will allow me to show, how true to the art one can be and be able to bring out details that you brought forth. As I mentioned, I like to see both sides of the coin, that way I can discuss either case.
P.S. I would like to give a large amount of thanks Mr. Tobler and Mr. Knight. Truly we all strive to learn more every day. No doubt the previous discussion is a wealth of knowledge to anyone seeking to learn about history.
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2010 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christopher VaughnStrever wrote: | | I would like to apologize if I came across in a bad way through the thread. Yyour book is an invaluable source of great material, of which I am learning alot. |
You were not impolite, else I would not have responded.
| Quote: | | I have been carrying out the techinques just as you mention in your book, I am early in my stages of learning and I came to the Unterschlag a second time and noticed that I could not see, exactly where the final strike should be placed upon the opponet. Looks like the unterschlag could be hit upon hand. Or even the chin, though if it is the chin, then... well thats why I have decided to petition your answer. |
If you're referring to the demonstration on pp. 54-55, I am hitting Matthew's left hand. I suspect it would be very difficult to hit someone's chin with an Unterschlag. Truthfully, I have rarely found the Unterschlag to be all that useful as a strike, although the same motion makes for an excellent displacement in some cases (see pp. 56-57).
| Quote: | | As I mentioned, I like to see both sides of the coin, that way I can discuss either case. |
While coins have two sides of equal value, when it comes to issues, it is often the case that one side of the issue is very valuable and other mere quibbling. Regardless, of course, both must be studied, if only to learn which is which.
Again, thank you for your kind words, and don't hesitate to ask any questions you might have.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2010 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | But in many cases, and especially in war (and I've used a pollaxe in full-contact reenactments for many years), I think of the pollaxe as a "spear with benefits". That is to say, I can hit with it, but the thrust seems like a more useful idea. And that's especially true in battle, because a thrust can be re-chambered far faster than a hit. |
We have some evidence on this subject. Writing about the short halberd used in battle, Sir John Smythe suggested both the blow at the head and thrust at the face. Short halberds aren't pollaxes, but they're awfully close.
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2010 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, yes. That response helps with my understanding of the unterschlag. I can see how effective that would be as a (used more often than an attack) displacement.
Thanks!
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 12 Jan, 2010 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | We have some evidence on this subject. Writing about the short halberd used in battle, Sir John Smythe suggested both the blow at the head and thrust at the face. Short halberds aren't pollaxes, but they're awfully close. |
Hello,
Interesting, I've not read that. I assume we're talking about the Sir John Smythe from Certain Discourses Military? If so, I wonder if we can connect the two things: After all, full armor was rare in battle among front-line troops in his day, and the little bit you gave us doesn't indicate a preference for either one.
Don't get me wrong, of *course* one should strike the head and thrust at the face, but it doesn't speak to thrusting being preferred over striking at all. Is there more to this?
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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