| Author |
Message |
|
Hugh Knight
|
 Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 12:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | But...we should be careful: our desire to neatly classify all these weapons would've been alien to our ancestors, and regional and temporal variances abound in the naming of polearms in the period. |
Absolutely true, and I should have said that as well. On the other hand, where the weapons are used differently, then a difference of classification is fine.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
    |
 |
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Hugh,
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | We'll have to agree to disagree. And even if you're right, that single picture is not enough to contradict all of the other material out there that shows the majority of blows were done with the hammer. |
We can do that, of course. But I doubt anyone replicating that image would want to do anything but strike with the axe. Certainly, it's a chambered blow, otherwise he wouldn't have it cocked back and around so far.
I'm also not sure what you mean about the other material. Since we only have technical images in 11093 and Falkner of bladed axes, how can you conclude that? In most cases, there is no blade in the manuscripts. Falkner, btw, clearly shows the blade swung at the opponent.
Now, speaking of Falkner, I neglected to note earlier that he also mentions the word 'streitaxt' in his text. He's clearly using multiple, and similar, polearms interchangeably, and both the images and text support this.
| Quote: | | I don't see where Mair uses a pollaxe to show any interchange. He uses a halberd and he uses a mordaxt. The latter is simply a short version of his halberd in that it has an axe blade and a spike, no hammer, so of course there's similarity of technique. Both are used for unarmored techniques (I say this not because they aren't in armor--Talhoffer shows armored techniques out of armor all the time--but because of the targets he thrusts into that you wouldn't in armor). So no mention of pollaxes anywhere; we only assume they're the same because some people decided to call them pollaxes. As far as I'm concerned, and going by Mair to support this, anything that has an axe blade backed by a hook/spike is a halberd. And going by the plays in both Mair and Meyer, halbred techniques are significantly different from pollaxe plays. |
Maybe we're talking about different versions of Mair? I'm thinking of the version translated in the very good book by Knight and Hunt a couple years back. The poleaxe in there is a different beast than the halberd, by my recollection.
I do agree on your cautions about Mair as an armoured source (I don't like or use him), and I also agree that if it's got a blade and single fluke/back spike, it's a halberd. Meyer shows no poleaxe, and his halberd work is quite different from most other stuff. But as far as the use of blades vs. hammers - whatever we want to call them - there's little evidence distinguishing their uses in the days of armoured dueling. 11093 doesn't look substantially different from Talhoffer, and we have a medieval master (Falkner) giving us interchangeable techniques for a variety of them.
Cheers,
CHT
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
|
|
 |
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
A bit more on Cod. Vind. B 11093. I have the images on my iPhone, but don't seem them online anywhere to be linked here. If you'd like to do so, that's cool.
As you know, we have 4 plates showing axe v. axe. A fifth plate has half-sword defending against the axe. All figures are armoured in c. 1440 kit. Here's some quick analysis/speculation:
1st Plate - Guy at left has his axe held high, the axe blade facing the opponent. He's using the lower third of the haft to hook aside his opponent's axe head. The opponent's attack could've been a thrust, or perhaps an upward blow. It could, in theory, also be a downward blow with the hammer, but I doubt it, as the direction of motion wouldn't be conducive to it getting hooked.
2nd Plate - this is the one where the left fighter is cocked back for a blow. The guy at right may be stepping in to hook, or strike upward - it's hard to say.
3rd Plate - This is the one you posted where you see a downward hammer blow. I don't see that as his left hand is in a bad position for such a blow. I think it more likely a thrust. The guy at right is parrying from the outside with his haft, and likely preparing to bring the head into play; note his axe blade faces the opponent. Now, as you say, this could be to hook the guy at left. But if he hits with it, it will be the axe that makes contact.
4th Plate - As this is an entanglement of sorts, we can't tell the starting orientation here.
5th Plate - This is unambigously a downward blow with the axe blade, received with a ceding parry by Mr. Half-sword at right.
That's my read on these. Granted, several of them are open to intepretation, and all the more so because we've no captions.
Cheers,
CHT
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: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | We can do that, of course. But I doubt anyone replicating that image would want to do anything but strike with the axe. Certainly, it's a chambered blow, otherwise he wouldn't have it cocked back and around so far. |
I'm not arguing against that being a strike, I'm arguing against us understanding what he's doing with it. The head of the axe is cut off, and all you see is a bit of the mail. I don't think *any* conclusion, one way or the other, can be taken from that. Moreover, from the way he's chambered it so far around, my take is that this is an example of a *bad* fighter doing something stupid who is about to be taught the error of his ways. Either way, there's nothing to support your argument here.
| Quote: | | I'm also not sure what you mean about the other material. Since we only have technical images in 11093 and Falkner of bladed axes, how can you conclude that? In most cases, there is no blade in the manuscripts. Falkner, btw, clearly shows the blade swung at the opponent. |
In all the other material in the Fechtbücher, and even in the books by that Italian guy, what-his-name, Flower?, anyway, in every single source (except the two we've been discussing), the axes are of the hammer and spike variety, and all blows are with the hammer. To me, that screams out that the hammer must be the best thing for hitting people with. Anglo suggests the same thing when he talks about Olivier de Marche's comments about pollaxes in the 15th century:
"On one occasion only, when describing the encounter between Jacques de Lalain and an English knight in 1448, does Oliver specify a taillent, that is an axe head with a cutting edge: and it is, I think, significant that another account of the same combat similarly makes special reference to this feature. Olivier frequently mentions the use of the hammer-head (maillet or mail)." (taken from his paper on Le Jeu).
| Quote: | | Maybe we're talking about different versions of Mair? I'm thinking of the version translated in the very good book by Knight and Hunt a couple years back. The poleaxe in there is a different beast than the halberd, by my recollection. |
No, I'm using that same source. There is no mention in Mair of a pollaxe. He talks about the halberd and the mordaxt. I'm arguing the mordaxt is more of a halberd since it's almost exactly like the halberd shown in the same book, only shorter, and it's used much the same way the halberd is.
But as far as the use of blades vs. hammers - whatever we want to call them - there's little evidence distinguishing their uses in the days of armoured dueling. 11093 doesn't look substantially different from Talhoffer, and we have a medieval master (Falkner) giving us interchangeable techniques for a variety of them.[/quote]
See above re: Anglo and Olivier de Marche. He rarely even mentions the taillent, but frequently mentions the mail. See the 15th-century novel Le Petit Jehan de Saintre which only mentions the taillent once in any fight, and that's to show it was used for a specialized blow to the fingers. See the fact that medieval Fechtmeisters evidently prefferred the mail to the taillent, almost unanimously. And try hitting a helmet with a taillent, and notice how your blade tends to wobble, which wastes energy, and slip, which wastes more. The hammer is a better weapon for hitting plate, and that's why the vast majority of Fechtbücher show axes with hammer heads, not blades. And I don't think 11093 looks all that much like Talhoffer at all. Looking through his 1467 and 1459 books, I can't find any matching techniques. I won't speak about Falkner until I have a chance to see his book.
As for your analysis of 11093, I think you're giving it *way* more insight than we can justify. Yes, in the first plate the taillent is aimed forward, but all we see is a displacement with the queue. There's no indication that the guy on the left is about to swing; for all we know, the "technique" is being demonstrated by the guy on the right.
The second plate we've already discussed.
The third plate is probably a blow and I assume the hand is drawn poorly. If not, however, then it's a thrust or something else--but that doesn't support the idea of hitting with the taillent.
The fourth plate shows a hook with the taillent--exactly as I said it was used for. You're right that we can't tell what exactly is being done about it.
The fifth plate is a thrust to the groin being displaced by the halfsword; no good pollaxe fighter would ever swing his axe that low past the head. Le Jeu warns us against exactly that, so it is *not* a blow.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Marechal
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christopher VaughnStrever wrote: | | Ok, here are the others... actually about 24 or so words, but this will be all and I wont bug you at all... for at least a few months. |
Your words included both German and French words. Here goes.
German:
French:
| Quote: | Blo(is) The "is" part is a letter I cannot type it actually looks more like a "j" connected with an arch to a capital "B" the word means "an opening" I do see this letter a few times and if you could sound that particular letter after or before the word, that would help me to say a few other words
|
See this Wikipedia article. It's called an Eszett (sz) and it is used in written language to replace the double s (not sz oddly enough). If you can't write it, use a double s instead. Pronounce it as a sharp s.
| Quote: |
Dobringer (there are actually two dots above the "o")
Fuhlen (there are actually two dots above the "u")
Lucke (there are actually two dots above the "u")
|
The two dots is called an umlaut. See this article which also tells you how to pronounce it. Basically it shifts the sound of the letter that it is over. If you cannot write it, write the letter it is over followed by an e. So: Doebringer, Fuehlen, Luecke.
| Quote: | | Queue (I am thinking like a pool queue) |
That's French. I have no idea how to pronounce it. Sorry.
|
|
 |
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Marechal
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
PS: Could some kind admin please split off the language stuff from the poleaxe stuff? Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually Hugh, I do have more time after all. Here we go...
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | I'm not arguing against that being a strike, I'm arguing against us understanding what he's doing with it. The head of the axe is cut off, and all you see is a bit of the mail. I don't think *any* conclusion, one way or the other, can be taken from that. Moreover, from the way he's chambered it so far around, my take is that this is an example of a *bad* fighter doing something stupid who is about to be taught the error of his ways. Either way, there's nothing to support your argument here. |
There's plenty of evidence for using such chambered blows. They're shown in lots of images, and both Fiore and Vadi use this high guard. There's absolutely nothing unsafe about them either...if you know how to manage measure.
| Quote: | In all the other material in the Fechtbücher, and even in the books by that Italian guy, what-his-name, Flower?, anyway, in every single source (except the two we've been discussing), the axes are of the hammer and spike variety, and all blows are with the hammer. To me, that screams out that the hammer must be the best thing for hitting people with. Anglo suggests the same thing when he talks about Olivier de Marche's comments about pollaxes in the 15th century:
"On one occasion only, when describing the encounter between Jacques de Lalain and an English knight in 1448, does Oliver specify a taillent, that is an axe head with a cutting edge: and it is, I think, significant that another account of the same combat similarly makes special reference to this feature. Olivier frequently mentions the use of the hammer-head (maillet or mail)." (taken from his paper on Le Jeu). |
As those aren't judicial duels, I don't think they apply much here. And, I have to say I'm not impressed with Dr. Anglo's remarks on axe fighting at all, or his translation of Le Jeu, for that matter. That's one that needs a serious revisit.
If we are however to turn to chronicles and non-judicial duel sources, there's material supporting the use of the blade. Look at the famous Beauchamp v. Malatesta fight, where our man Sir Richard is creating a horrific bloody wound with the blade of his axe. If you hit someone that way at the top of the pauldron, it's a bad, bad day for them.
In fact, I know of no illustration that shows armoured knights striking each other with the hammer of an axe-bladed poleaxe in iconography; it's always the opposite. Do you have one to hand?
| Quote: | | No, I'm using that same source. There is no mention in Mair of a pollaxe. He talks about the halberd and the mordaxt. I'm arguing the mordaxt is more of a halberd since it's almost exactly like the halberd shown in the same book, only shorter, and it's used much the same way the halberd is. |
I just revisited this and I agree with you. I don't believe I'd translate Mair's 2nd weapon in question as a 'poleaxe'.
However, we got onto this tangent because of the discussion on Falkner. And, as I said earlier, Falkner mentions "mordagst", "hellenbarten", and "streitaxt".
| Quote: | | See above re: Anglo and Olivier de Marche. He rarely even mentions the taillent, but frequently mentions the mail. See the 15th-century novel Le Petit Jehan de Saintre which only mentions the taillent once in any fight, and that's to show it was used for a specialized blow to the fingers. See the fact that medieval Fechtmeisters evidently prefferred the mail to the taillent, almost unanimously. And try hitting a helmet with a taillent, and notice how your blade tends to wobble, which wastes energy, and slip, which wastes more. The hammer is a better weapon for hitting plate, and that's why the vast majority of Fechtbücher show axes with hammer heads, not blades. And I don't think 11093 looks all that much like Talhoffer at all. Looking through his 1467 and 1459 books, I can't find any matching techniques. I won't speak about Falkner until I have a chance to see his book. |
I have hit a helmet with a poleaxe blade. Plus, we know how this worked out for Charles the Bold.
That said, I do agree that the pronged head is optimized for finding purchase on the glancing surfaces of armour. But I also think anyone that thinks they're safe from an axe blade on a 6' haft in armour is kidding themselves.
Who knows though? There were so many stipulations in judicial duels, perhaps one weapon form or another was *mandated* at times. In any case, that these *were* used in judicial duels, and in these the blade was used.
As for 11093, I don't see anything surprising or unseen elsewhere. It just seems like boilerplate axe fighting to me. The 2nd & 3rd plates are completely standard stuff: 2 is just high guard vs. low guard, which appears all over Talhoffer, Kal, the Anonymous Axe treatise; 3 is just an outside sweep of the head with the haft, which is also everywhere. Just how unique could those be?
| Quote: | | As for your analysis of 11093, I think you're giving it *way* more insight than we can justify. Yes, in the first plate the taillent is aimed forward, but all we see is a displacement with the queue. There's no indication that the guy on the left is about to swing; for all we know, the "technique" is being demonstrated by the guy on the right. |
Please do remember that I said it was open to interpretation. However, Occam's Razor still applies, and if the head looks like it's the business end in an image, that's because it probably is.
As for image 1, surely you wouldn't hold the weapon in the opposite way you'd intend to bring that end to bear with! What if the guy at right didn't act first? If not, the guy at left is going to something with his, and since the head's obviously primed for a blow...
| Quote: | | The second plate we've already discussed. |
Yup.
| Quote: | | The third plate is probably a blow and I assume the hand is drawn poorly. If not, however, then it's a thrust or something else--but that doesn't support the idea of hitting with the taillent. |
That's always possible with these things, and all the more so because 11093 isn't the best artwork in the world. Even with that ambiguity though, Mr. Right clearly has his blade forward. If he brings the head forward, which really, we know he's about to do, the blade will be moving in.
| Quote: | | The fourth plate shows a hook with the taillent--exactly as I said it was used for. You're right that we can't tell what exactly is being done about it. |
Yes, we're in agreement on this one. I can only guess at some possibilities here.
| Quote: | | The fifth plate is a thrust to the groin being displaced by the halfsword; no good pollaxe fighter would ever swing his axe that low past the head. Le Jeu warns us against exactly that, so it is *not* a blow. |
Addressed in my previous, and far more brief, post.
Cheers,
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: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | I don't have time for much right now, but...
In the fifth play, I don't believe the blow is aimed low at all. I think it's aimed high, and made to run off low. It's directly analogous to one of the Mordschlag half-sword plays: catch the blow near the tip, let it drop off, then bring your point online.
That play isn't advice about the axe - it's about what to do against it. And this would be one of the few things you could do against the most likely attack - a long range blow that you can't afford to let connect. |
Hello Christian,
You're probably right that this is about what to do against the axe, but your interpretation doesn't make sense based on their final positions. When you do a deflection you don't bring your point down that far because doing so wastes the time in which you should be attacking, and it isn't at all necessary because once the striking surface is past the target you can ignore it. All you do is let the attack slide off of your point, then you immediately attack with it. Here's a video in which my student was really and truly is trying to hit me for real. Notice how high I keep my point. Not enough to slow down his sword, or to keep it from swinging way down low, just enough to keep me safe, and the deflection is truly effortless. As you can see, his sword stops about where the axe is, but my sword never gets that low:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihTQE0Epi8k
If I had moved my sword all the way down as we see in the attached picture we're discussing, I would have wasted the opportunity to attack, thus defeating the entire idea.
No, it's very, very clear this is a thrust to the groin being displaced with the sword. Here's a link to an almost identical posture, and in this case it's *obvious* that the attack being displaced is a thrust to the groin:
 Attachment: 137.75 KB
The fifth pollaxe play from Codex 11093 [ Download ]
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
I don't see a groin thrust there, not at all. For one thing, the groin would be a bad target with such long faulds. Also, if you do this parry against a full axe blow, your sword will be driven down far: half-sword v. axe is not a good place to be.
But, again, we can't be sure what's going on, in lieu of captions. I know you and I know that; I just want to use full disclosure for other readers.
Cheers,
Christian
PS. Added note: The video's not selling me. Your attacker's way out of measure, and he's aiming to your side. He's also using what seems to be a relatively light sword simulator. That's much different than a commited attack by an axe against a flexible sword.
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: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hi Hugh,
I don't see a groin thrust there, not at all. For one thing, the groin would be a bad target with such long faulds. Also, if you do this parry against a full axe blow, your sword will be driven down far: half-sword v. axe is not a good place to be.
But, again, we can't be sure what's going on, in lieu of captions. I know you and I know that; I just want to use full disclosure for other readers. |
Hi Christian,
Go back and look again, I added a similar plate from Talhoffer to show why I believe that's a groin thrust. The position of the sword seems pretty clear.
I want to state categorically, however, that I completely agree with you regarding the ambiguity of much of this. Honestly, I like looking at Codex 11093 because I keep feeling as though I can *almost* see plays in there, but then I see something else that shows me they're just too unclear to be useful. Actually, the halfsword and grappling isn't too bad, but the spear and pollaxe--no way.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | PS. Added note: The video's not selling me. Your attacker's way out of measure, and he's aiming to your side. He's also using what seems to be a relatively light sword simulator. That's much different than a commited attack by an axe against a flexible sword. |
Sorry, but you're mistaken. Look again: He *starts* out of measure, but steps right into it. Had I not deflected his attack it would have hit me squarely on the head; you can tell that by where his pommel ends up. The reason you might think he aimed out to my side was because I stepped offline as he struck. I was there. He aimed directly at my head and well within his reach to hit me.
And it's not that light, it's a Purpleheart hickory waster, but it's not a pollaxe, you're quite right there; that was only meant to show how it's done. But the flexibility of the sword doesn't matter as much as you imply. First, swords weren't *that* flexible, and second, you don't *stop* the attack, you step offline and deflect it. The pollaxe just slides straight off. If you do it the way I show in the video you can do it agaisnt a solid iron bar.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, on second thought, the lack of flexibility would be more detrimental. It means you must absorb any force not shed, not the flexure of the blade.
In any case, I can well see an axe moving the sword considerably. Plus, we don't know where the blow might be targeted. If it's aimed at the shoulder, rather than vertically to the head, the sword will have to deflect lower and more to the side, and *might* then end in the picture we're discussing.
It's possible it's a groin thrust, but that'd be the last thing I'd do. It's a poleaxe, and he's just got a sword: just hit him. The sword requires precision to injure the armoured man, whereas the axe can soften him up with blows and then move to more precise work.
On another note, I recently hit a relatively light gauge helmet with my A&A Burgundian axe...even though I just let the axe drop onto it, the results were appalling. Now there's a lot wrong with that as a meaningful test, but enough for me to be sure that if someone swings a bladed axe at my head, my response is: PARRY. There's a reason why Jeff Hedgecock & company went to rubberized axe heads in lieu of even blunt steel bladed ones for tournament fighting; the damage to the armour was just too great; sharpen that edge and that's a lot of pounds per square inch at work.
Halberds are simply differently configured poleaxes. There's no difference in striking with an axe-bladed poleaxe as opposed to a halberd - there are comparable geometries, blade shapes, and applications. And we know what halberds did to armoured knights and that it wasn't pretty. As I alluded to before, Charles the Bold had his helmeted head split in two by such a weapon. Clearly, it's more than possible to get a good hit with the blade.
We also can't dismiss the possibility that the pronged configuration was more popular in Fechtbucher simply because of customary stipulations. This is an area often given short shrift: the quirks created by rules. Most people would be surprised to find out that the man/woman duels actually happened, or that in the club & shield encounters, it was sometimes possible to request replacements after you'd hucked yours at your opponent. The pronged heads might be favored because of rules, rather than effectiveness. Without further data, it's not possible to know.
Finally, iconography gives a sense of the blade being the 'forward' part of the poleaxe, where a blade and mallet are coupled together. Men are shown carrying them blade forward, and the blade is (almost?) invariably shown as the side being engaged in battle depictions. And, really, this is the configuration most shown - the pronged version appears much more in the dueling and tourneying context. All of which raises more questions...
In closing Hugh, you and I are on the same page regarding the primacy of the pronged variant in German sources. I just wasn't comfortable with you telling the other reader that the bladed versions were essentially irrelevant for practice, because, indeed, hitting a pell with a good bladed replica is an eye-opener. These are scary, scary weapons. I'm confident we can agree on that, at least. 
All the best,
CHT
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
Last edited by Christian Henry Tobler on Wed 06 Jan, 2010 4:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just to add, I have/am enjoying this interchange of thoughts on depictions of art work. I believe this is a wonderful example of a proffesional and respectable conversation (not argument) between two opinions regarding the same source material. As mention in your book Mr. Knight (or if I may) Fechtmeister; There is no governing organization that regulates and qualifies a person to be a fechtmeister. Since the art has survived "only" through books and images such as what is being discus'din this thread.
Thank you Mr. Christian Henry Tobler for the emphesis and opinions you have brought forth thus far. They have brought forth a great wealth of knoweldge which forth I can now pass on.
Thank you both, and thank you again Sander for that help!
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
I have hit a helmet with a poleaxe blade. Plus, we know how this worked out for Charles the Bold.
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
Halberds are simply differently configured poleaxes. There's no difference in striking with an axe-bladed poleaxe as opposed to a halberd - there are comparable geometries, blade shapes, and applications. And we know what halberds did to armoured knights and that it wasn't pretty. As I alluded to before, Charles the Bold had his helmeted head split in two by such a weapon. Clearly, it's more than possible to get a good hit with the blade.
|
While Charles did indeed suffer a grevious wound to the head there is nothing in the primary source (Molinet) which suggest that he was wearing a helmet at the time. Molinet merely states that the skull of the otherwise naked body had cloven his skull in two. Given the circumstances surrounding the Dukes death, him being thrown from the horse and then overwhelmed on foot I'd consider it likely that he had either removed his helmet to increase the odds of escaping on foot or it was forcibly removed by the men that killed him as he lay wounded from the pike thrusts into his groin and buttocks.
The least likely explaination of his head wound IMHO is that a halberd had been able to cause that kind of massive damage through high quality Milanese armour. Alan William's data on the protection provided by Milanese armour makes such a wound improbable IMO.
Regards
Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Daniel,
I found where I'd read this. It's in Oakeshott's "European Weapons and Armour", pp. 58-59. I'll quote the passage:
"...with the account in the Annales Burgundiae which mentions the great wound which cleft the side of Charle's armet and split the head from brow to chin, and two other wounds as well, a thrust in the groin and another 'near the fundament'. Only a weapon like a halberd could have broken through his helmet, and the wounds in his crutch, the only armoured part of a fully-armed man's body, are entirely consistent with the way halberds were used. A blow to the head would unhorse a man, or drive him forward over saddle-bow so that his unarmoured rear rose out of the protection of the saddle, when the spear-like point of the halberd could be put to good use."
Cheers,
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: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Actually, on second thought, the lack of flexibility would be more detrimental. It means you must absorb any force not shed, not the flexure of the blade. |
I wish I could show you this in person. This deflection is very effective regardless of the force because you don't stop it, you merely redirect it.
| Quote: | | In any case, I can well see an axe moving the sword considerably. Plus, we don't know where the blow might be targeted. If it's aimed at the shoulder, rather than vertically to the head, the sword will have to deflect lower and more to the side, and *might* then end in the picture we're discussing. |
But not that much; the picture we're discussing looks like the Talhoffer 1443 picture I cited, making that a much more plausible explanation.
| Quote: | | It's possible it's a groin thrust, but that'd be the last thing I'd do. It's a poleaxe, and he's just got a sword: just hit him. The sword requires precision to injure the armoured man, whereas the axe can soften him up with blows and then move to more precise work. |
I think that ignores the central theme of Kampffechten: Stab the gaps. Yes, the pollaxe makes a great hitting weapon, but hitting someone is less sure than stabbing into his groin. People took full hits on the head, etc., all the time in friendly deeds without being killed or injured; this is a common theme in the literature. Sure, sometimes they were stunned, but it's not a very sure thing, and it often takes many blows. So a pollaxe man has to think about the fact that if he swings and it isn't an incapacitating blow, then he has someone with a very quick, manueverable weapon inside his swing ready to stab into the gaps in his harness. Look at Le Jeu: Most of the swinging blows there are done *after* your opponent is disadvantaged somehow. Talhoffer's the same way.
| Quote: | | On another note, I recently hit a relatively light gauge helmet with my A&A Burgundian axe...even though I just let the axe drop onto it, the results were appalling. Now there's a lot wrong with that as a meaningful test, but enough for me to be sure that if someone swings a bladed axe at my head, my response is: PARRY. There's a reason why Jeff Hedgecock & company went to rubberized axe heads in lieu of even blunt steel bladed ones for tournament fighting; the damage to the armour was just too great; sharpen that edge and that's a lot of pounds per square inch at work. |
There's no denyng that we should avoid being hit with blows to the head, but there's *ample* evidence to show that they're not always incapacitating, too.
| Quote: | | Halberds are simply differently configured poleaxes. There's no difference in striking with an axe-bladed poleaxe as opposed to a halberd - there are comparable geometries, blade shapes, and applications. And we know what halberds did to armoured knights and that it wasn't pretty. As I alluded to before, Charles the Bold had his helmeted head split in two by such a weapon. Clearly, it's more than possible to get a good hit with the blade. |
As Daniel already pointed out, the Charles the Bold story is very weak, and not supported by much else in the literature. And if halberds are the same as pollaxes, why are they used differently in Mair and Meyer?
| Quote: | | We also can't dismiss the possibility that the pronged configuration was more popular in Fechtbucher simply because of customary stipulations. This is an area often given short shrift: the quirks created by rules. Most people would be surprised to find out that the man/woman duels actually happened, or that in the club & shield encounters, it was sometimes possible to request replacements after you'd hucked yours at your opponent. The pronged heads might be favored because of rules, rather than effectiveness. Without further data, it's not possible to know. |
That is entirely possible, you're absolutely right. But we *see* variations in types of judicial combat (the Frankish and Swabian versions of using the Langenshilt, for example), so why none with the pollaxe except 11093 and Falkner (who I still need to see before I accept)? And why doesn't the axe blade get mentioned more often in the non-Fechtbuch literature, like Olivier? (NB: Doubt Anglo if you wish, I certainly do some of the time, and have had to re-do a lot of his translation, but he's right about Olivier.)
| Quote: | | Finally, iconography gives a sense of the blade being the 'forward' part of the poleaxe, where a blade and mallet are coupled together. Men are shown carrying them blade forward, and the blade is (almost?) invariably shown as the side being engaged in battle depictions. And, really, this is the configuration most shown - the pronged version appears much more in the dueling and tourneying context. All of which raises more questions... |
And I have a great answer: The axe blade would be great for chopping weapon shafts. We know that was a concern because of how many weapons had languets, even ones that were used in places that didn't use huge Zweihander. This gives us a perfect explanation for the variations.
| Quote: | | These are scary, scary weapons. I'm confident we can agree on that, at least. |
And on that we can agree, most emphatically.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | I found where I'd read this. It's in Oakeshott's "European Weapons and Armour", pp. 58-59. I'll quote the passage:
"...with the account in the Annales Burgundiae which mentions the great wound which cleft the side of Charle's armet and split the head from brow to chin, and two other wounds as well, a thrust in the groin and another 'near the fundament'. Only a weapon like a halberd could have broken through his helmet, and the wounds in his crutch, the only armoured part of a fully-armed man's body, are entirely consistent with the way halberds were used. A blow to the head would unhorse a man, or drive him forward over saddle-bow so that his unarmoured rear rose out of the protection of the saddle, when the spear-like point of the halberd could be put to good use." |
With respect to both you and Oakshott, there are as many mistakes in his works as there are in Anglo's.
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