| Author |
Message |
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
 Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 7:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hi Hugh,
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | 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. |
You don't need to. I did, and showed, it long before you used it - recall, it's in 'Secrets'. I teach it every year to my students here. And indeed, it's very easy to do with half-sword v. half-sword. I only suspect the axe changes things. For one thing, the greater length, and better hooking of the axe makes it more dangerous as you shed it off. The half-sword version becomes 'spent' much quicker. If you don't continue to cover as the axe descends, you can still get hooked, whereas the mordschlag strikes with the pommel - when it misses the high target, it falls short.
| Quote: | | But not that much; the picture we're discussing looks like the Talhoffer 1443 picture I cited, making that a much more plausible explanation. |
It's on the other side of the body, which does change the dynamics here. But, yes, I'll agree there are some similarities.
| Quote: | | 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. |
I just don't think a groin stab is reliable with that configuration of harness. Also, stabs into the harness don't make people fall over dead either - this is cumulative, and usually leads to a takedown, etc.
Plus you can't talk about a poleaxe blow in isolation. Sure, a blow to the head may just stun the guy, but as he recoils I'm going to hook his neck, drop the axe behind his knee, etc. Things can go south very fast once you've been hit hard. Save for the Mordschlag, which hits nowhere near as hard as the axe, the half-swording doesn't work this way. You *have* to seek the gaps right off, because that's all there really is. The poleaxe on the other hand, is a true tank buster - an anti-armour weapon, optimized for just such a purpose. It's no coincidence that this weapon arises as full plate appears. Half-swording, on the other hand, is an attempt to make the best of a bad situation: you've got to kill an armoured guy and all you have is a lousy sword!
| Quote: | | 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. |
Indeed, and not with blade or beak or mallet. The glancing surface of the armour has a lot going for it.
[quote]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?[/qoute]
As we both have now agreed, there's no poleaxe in Mair or Meyer, so really there's no way to say that. Plus in both those cases, it's an unarmoured form, which is simply a different beast than our subject here. Both also appear long after the heyday of armoured knightly combat: they're antiquarian pieces in a lot of ways.
| Quote: | | 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.) |
Well, for one thing, we see very little axe, compared to the half-sword, or the shield fighting variations. But maybe all duels required these weapons...God knows why, but it's possible. Certainly, tradition informs the duel; the spear cast owes as much or more to tradition than effectiveness, and in some jurisdictions the appellant was required to throw something (hence the cheat of the the hucked pommel in Gladiatoria: "I'm not giving up my spear!")
It also may come down to simple preferences: some may have liked blades, others pronged hammers. On some helmets, if I overshoot with the hammer, I may lose purchase as I pull back; with the way the points are on the Wallace axe, it'll more likely catch. I could go on and on here...
BTW, Anglo doesn't exactly say what I believe you implied earlier. I just re-read that. He isn't commenting on how often the blade was used, but how often axes with blades were used: "What is significant, though, is the fact that on only one occasion does Olivier de la Marche specifically refer to a taillant - an axe with a cutting edge." That's a reference to a configuration, not what side of the axe one strikes with. It's a horse of a different color. Obviously, if your axe has no blade, there will be no references to you using it. So this is no argument for which side of the weapon to swing with.
| Quote: | | 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. |
There's no illustrative, or textual evidence for that. It's also much, much harder to do than you may imagine. Try doing this some time. Really, I used to buy that Zweihander tale too - you're far more likely to knock the weapon out of their hands than cut the haft. And the only weapon unlikely to be absent langets is the pike. Guys with poleaxes whittling away at pike blocks seems unlikely in the extreme.
The better answer is this: since there are gobs of images with armoured guys fighting, and getting hit with, axe blades, we can conclude that's how they were used: for hitting people, not hafts.
I just rechecked, btw, the Lirer Chronicle image: it does show what most sources would call Mordaxts. They have almost no back spike (stubby little thing), so the big blade is clearly the business end. The guys are wearing late 15th c. German plate. Image courtesy of the ARMA website:
Given the configuration here, it's clear axe blades were used in armoured dueling.
Here's a small Falkner image:
Note the downward blow with the blade. Now, this is more of a halberd configuration, but you have to then ask...if you'd hit armour with an axe blade here, then why wouldn't you with another configuration using the same blade? And, Falkner makes it clear this and his other handful of techniques work across the board - hammered axes, bladed ones, halberds.
Given the above, and lots of other iconographical evidence, there can be no doubt that armoured knights walloped each other with long-hafted blades. We can debate how often, and the relatively efficacy of blades vs. prongs, but not that.
Lastly, in regard to your other post: yes, I too am suspicious of the Oakeshott story. I'd love to dig into it more, but don't know of any other work discussing that passage from the chronicle in depth. I posted it so it was clear I didn't pull the idea from out of thin air, that's all.
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
Last edited by Christian Henry Tobler on Wed 06 Jan, 2010 8:12 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
    |
 |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | With respect to both you and Oakshott, there are as many mistakes in his works as there are in Anglo's. |
If you are going to point out that someone makes mistakes, at least have the decency to spell their name right.  It's Oakeshott. See, everyone makes mistakes...
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | You don't need to. I did, and showed, it long before you used it - recall, it's in 'Secrets'. I teach it every year to my students here. And indeed, it's very easy to do with half-sword v. half-sword. I only suspect the axe changes things. For one thing, the greater length, and better hooking of the axe makes it more dangerous as you shed it off. The half-sword version becomes 'spent' much quicker. If you don't continue to cover as the axe descends, you can still get hooked, whereas the mordschlag strikes with the pommel - when it misses the high target, it falls short. |
I meant that I wish I could show you this with the pollaxe. I just did it tonight in class as we were discussing this thread. It was as easy as deflecting the Mordschlag.
| Quote: | | There's no illustrative, or textual evidence for that. It's also much, much harder to do than you may imagine. Try doing this some time. Really, I used to buy that Zweihander tale too - you're far more likely to knock the weapon out of their hands than cut the haft. And the only weapon unlikely to be absent langets is the pike. Guys with poleaxes whittling away at pike blocks seems unlikely in the extreme. |
I admit that my combat practice has been with safe weapon simulators, so I haven't done any cutting of shafts myself. However, I have a source that discusses doing this in no uncertain terms: Giacomo di Grassi of Medena wrote:
"But because these weapons for the most part are exercised, and used to enter through divers Pikes & other weapons, and to breake and disorder the battell raye, to which ende, and purpose, if it be used, then that manner of mannaging and handling is verie onvenient which is practised now adaies, and thus it is. The Partesan, Holberd, and Bill … must be borne in the middle of the staffe, with the heele thereof before, and verie lowe, and the point neere a mans head. And with the said heele, or halfe staffe underneath, from the handle downwardes, he must warde and beat off the pointes and thrustes of the Pikes and other weapons, and having made waie, must enter with the encrease of a pace of the hinder foote, and in the same instant, let fall his weapon as forcibly as he maie, and strike with the edge athward the Pikes. This kinde of blowe is so strong (being delivered as it ought, considering it commeth from above downwardes, and the weapon of it selfe is verie heavie) that it will cut asunder not onely Pikes, but also any other forcible impediment. (Hudson, T., and P. Swanson, DiGrassi, His True Arte of Defence, www.cs.unc.edu/~hudson/digrassi/staff.html, 1996 pp. P-Q)
Note that he says "pikes or other forcible impediment", so it wasn't just used on pikes. And, incidentally, I have seen pikes with languets, but I can't find a picture of that right now.
| Quote: | | The better answer is this: since there are gobs of images with armoured guys fighting, and getting hit with, axe blades, we can conclude that's how they were used: for hitting people, not hafts. |
I don't see "gobs" of them. I see them occasionally; rarely, even, such as in the Lirer Chronicle you posted.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
Last edited by Hugh Knight on Wed 06 Jan, 2010 9:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
 |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | If you are going to point out that someone makes mistakes, at least have the decency to spell their name right. It's Oakeshott. See, everyone makes mistakes... |
Too bloody right. I stand justifiably corrected. Thank you. In my defense, I don't type as well as I'd like.
And to atone for my error, let me say I think Oakeshott's contributions are, like Dr. Anglo's, essential to our studies in spite of some errors made along the way. We build on the shoulders of giants.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | I meant that I wish I could show you this with the pollaxe. I just did it tonight in class as we were discussing this thread. It was as easy as deflecting the Mordschlag. |
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification - I'll have to play about with this.
| Quote: | I admit that my combat practice has been with safe weapon simulators, so I haven't done any cutting of shafts myself. However, I have a source that discusses doing this in no uncertain terms: Giacomo di Grassi of Medena wrote:
"But because these weapons for the most part are exercised, and used to enter through divers Pikes & other weapons, and to breake and disorder the battell raye, to which ende, and purpose, if it be used, then that manner of mannaging and handling is verie onvenient which is practised now adaies, and thus it is. The Partesan, Holberd, and Bill … must be borne in the middle of the staffe, with the heele thereof before, and verie lowe, and the point neere a mans head. And with the said heele, or halfe staffe underneath, from the handle downwardes, he must warde and beat off the pointes and thrustes of the Pikes and other weapons, and having made waie, must enter with the encrease of a pace of the hinder foote, and in the same instant, let fall his weapon as forcibly as he maie, and strike with the edge athward the Pikes. This kinde of blowe is so strong (being delivered as it ought, considering it commeth from above downwardes, and the weapon of it selfe is verie heavie) that it will cut asunder not onely Pikes, but also any other forcible impediment. (Hudson, T., and P. Swanson, DiGrassi, His True Arte of Defence, www.cs.unc.edu/~hudson/digrassi/staff.html, 1996 pp. P-Q) |
I know di Grassi says this, but man I just don't know. I've handled one two-hander I can imagine doing this, but I'd have to have a lot of room to do it. It'd also be darned hard to do this reliably with the much smaller cutting area of the axe.
Nevertheless, there's no description of using one polearm to break another, and zero iconography supporting it.
| Quote: | | Note that he says "pikes or other forcible impediment", so it wasn't just used on pikes. And, incidentally, I have seen pikes with languets, but I can't find a picture of that right now. |
I've seen that picture too. And, you're right, there are other arms without langets. My bad there. I'm still sure axe blades weren't used this way. The only accounts speak of true two-handed swords.
| Quote: | | I don't see "gobs" of them. I see them occasionally; rarely, even, such as in the Lirer Chronicle you posted. |
There's one other image of a judicial duel proper (and we know the Lirer one is just that) with blades. Let me see if I can dig it up. Other than that, there are battle scenes around with armoured guys facing each other - axes forward.
I'd really also advise you try hitting some armour with a sharp poleaxe. I don't say this to be condescending. It's just that it's one scary eye-opener. The thing doesn't need to cut through the helmet; it just needs to dent in enough to crack your skull, and that's more than possible with a powerful blow with one of these babies. And, to that end, I can't recommend the A&A Burgundian highly enough - it's agile and lovely in the hands.
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 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Nevertheless, there's no description of using one polearm to break another, and zero iconography supporting it. |
Unless we take DiGrassi at his word, in which case it becomes clear that was one of the *primary* purposes of poll weapons.
| Quote: | | I'd really also advise you try hitting some armour with a sharp poleaxe. I don't say this to be condescending. It's just that it's one scary eye-opener. The thing doesn't need to cut through the helmet; it just needs to dent in enough to crack your skull, and that's more than possible with a powerful blow with one of these babies. |
I *have* done it, that's what made me doubt it in the first place. Against a loosely-mounted target (like it would be on a person), we found that the axe blade tended to wobble when hitting plate, and tended to glance off very easily. The hammer, on the other hand, sticks like glue and transfers all its force beautifully. That was when I realized why all the Fechtbücher (with the exceptions we discussed) all show axes with hammer heads: Because in the single combats of the sort with which the Fechtbücher are concerned, the hammer is a *much* better and more effective weapon. Perhaps your experience came from armor that was too thin, and which dented in too easily, givign your weapon better purchase?
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm coming into this very late, but Christian has largely said the things I would have, plus much more. He also included the image from Falkner that I was going to show.
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | [ And if halberds are the same as pollaxes, why are they used differently in Mair and Meyer? |
Well, I suspect for the same reason that Mair and Meyer don't use the halberd the same way the Bolognese do: They're different systems. After all, Meyer doesn't use the dagger the same way that, say, Lignitzer taught it, despite using the same weapon. Meyer doesn't use the staff the same way that Falkner or Egenolph do, despite them all using the same weapon. With that in mind, I don't think its an even analogy to Meyer and Mair's [unarmoured] halberd material and compare it to the earlier poleaxe material, and then draw the conclusion that its the weapon that changes the mechanics.
As a personal anecdote, I once hit a helmet with an A&A Hungarian Axe. It was a regular oberhau from vom tag, and it was more than a little scary how easy it was to dent the helmet without a whole lot of force. Obviously that wasn't a serious test, but it certainly was an eye opener.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Wed 06 Jan, 2010 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
Interesting...I'd heard this quote from dG before, but had always thought it applied to two-handed swords.
That said, all accounts of cutting off pole weapons come from later in the period, all involving lightly armed infantry. Thus far, I've shown technical and iconographic evidence for blades hitting armoured men. You haven't produced any of armoured men taking apart hafts with the blade, nor any text from the period to that effect.
I've hit some pretty stout helmets before (not good helmets per se, but not flimsy). I've also struck a pretty stout breastplate. In both cases, the dents were appreciable. We are in agreement that it's easier to 'stick' a blow with the pronged head. The design is, after all, optimized for that purpose.
Given the images, Falkner's words, 11093, etc. I am confident a 15th c. knight wouldn't have whined at us that "this bladed thing won't work right...it's all wrong". As I said, there are tradeoffs: the blade is better at hooking than the pronged head, but, as you correctly point out, harder to stick on rounded surfaces. One can find the same debates among firearms afficianados today. It ends up being about preference, and what tradeoffs you're willing to live with. Given we can document both forms, and both forms being used in duels, my original point remains: no one should be telling anyone that a bladed poleaxe is 'wrong' for this art; that's simply unsupportable. I am, however, perfectly fine with saying "the pronged head is much more common in period fight books". But if you *really* want to learn about medieval poleaxes, you should have experience with both forms, which are represented relatively equally in collections around the world.
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 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | As a personal anecdote, I once hit a helmet with an A&A Hungarian Axe. It was a regular oberhau from vom tag, and it was more than a little scary how easy it was to dent the helmet without a whole lot of force. Obviously that wasn't a serious test, but it certainly was an eye opener. |
Just so Bill. And it doesn't even need to dent the helmet much to concuss you into senselessness. There are SCA guys that have gotten knocked silly, or even unconscious, with padded rubber simulators. While those arguably are easy to stick, they also flex and absorb shock, unlike a real poleaxe.
Other targets that would suffer greatly from a blow with the blade would be the collar area and hands. I needn't go into the hands part, but it's worth noting that most German harnesses of the 15th c. are less protective where the shoulder defense ends at the top.
The other advantage the blade has over the pronged head is weight. So while the prongs might stick better, the blade delivers the goods as far as takedown power is concerned.
@Hugh: One more thing occurred to me. You've mentioned 'exceptions' with regard to 11093 & Falkner. Statistically, that's not a good way to characterize them, if we're to confine our discourse to armoured sources from medieval Germany. Here are the poleaxe sources we have (and I'm counting only distinct masters, not multiple copies of one guy's work):
1. Kal (streitaxt only)
2. Talhoffer (streitaxt only, sometimes weird ones!)
3. Anonymous Axe Treatise (streitaxt)
4. 11093 (bladed)
5. Falkner (streitaxt, bladed[mordaxt, halberd, possibly a bill])
That's basically it. And that means that 2 of the 5 sources treat bladed versions, which means they're hardly exceptions.
Cheers gents,
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
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would like to advise that the book The Play of the Axe: Medieval Pollaxe Combat by Hugh T. Knight, Jr. is a wonderful read. With the discussion at hand one could lean towards not buying the book. I advise otherwise, this book is a dream come true for me. I am learning so much and from great sources within this one book. The historical context and the ability to fully understand the written words is in the least; Great!
I do not mean to bring up the issue again, only to summarize the main ji'st of the discussion...
Christopher VaughnStrever wrote:
| Quote: | | I will be training on drills of the basics with a sharp pollaxe. |
Hugh Knight wrote:
| Quote: | | First, define a "sharp" pollaxe. Correctly speaking, you should be using a pollaxe with a hammer and spike (mail and bec de faucon) configuration, so the only "sharp" parts that it could have are the dague and queue. |
Christian Henry Tobler wrote:
| Quote: | | 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. |
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christopher VaughnStrever wrote: | I would like to advise that the book The Play of the Axe: Medieval Pollaxe Combat by Hugh T. Knight, Jr. is a wonderful read. With the discussion at hand one could lean towards not buying the book. I advise otherwise, this book is a dream come true for me. I am learning so much and from great sources within this one book. The historical context and the ability to fully understand the written words is in the least; Great!
|
I would second the above.
Once one has learned the basics and read many different interpretations " maybe " one can start coming to personal conclusions ( conclusions that could be wrong  ) or opinions.
Oh, although Christian and Hugh may argue ( respectfully ) about details they are in much greater agreement over the entire art(s) than in disagreement I think.
I assume that even in period masters of the same art didn't always agree and even if they practised the same basic moves their individual skills and abilities would affect the execution of the same basic style ???
Oh, and people from different styles I assume would also have heated arguments about which style is better and people of different styles would meet on the battlefield or in duels and would have to adapt to survive a real fight against attacks unknown in their system ! They might be aware of the other's style and know how to counter using their own style, be forced to use some of the other guys system if they knew some of it or have to: The HORROR ...... " IMPROVISE " random actions not part of any system !
The bottom line is that in a real fight it's hit while not getting hit and a style are well learned moves that one can use without having to think about them as there is no time to think. ( I think  ) If something unusual/unexpected/new happens then a trained fighter will react spontaneously using what has been learned but maybe in a way never used before or anticipated and still win ....... or not come up with a solution and be the loser. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Just so Bill. And it doesn't even need to dent the helmet much to concuss you into senselessness. There are SCA guys that have gotten knocked silly, or even unconscious, with padded rubber simulators. While those arguably are easy to stick, they also flex and absorb shock, unlike a real poleaxe. |
Christian, I've never argued that you could not make an effective hit with the blade of an axe--certainly you can. Hell, single-handed axes were popular in armored combat throughout much of the middle ages. I argued that the preponderance of hammer/spike pollaxes demonstrates that they were considered superior in single combat by professional instructors. Your only counter to that argument, to bring this debate back on point, was that maybe they required hammer headed pollaxes in judicial combat. Unfortunately, there isn't a shred of evidence to support that argument, and, in fact, the evidence of Codex 11093 suggests it isn't true, since that book shows a bladed axe. And if you are arguing that the hammer head was required in only *some* judicial combat, then I would counter that the absence of the other type in any of Talhoffer's works mitigates against that claim since Talhoffer was good about showing the variations in judicial combat formats (e.g., the Frankish and Swabian versions of the Langenschilt fights). Ergo, the simpler and more likely answer is that the professionals felt the hammer/spike variant was better for single combat.
| Quote: | | Other targets that would suffer greatly from a blow with the blade would be the collar area and hands. I needn't go into the hands part, but it's worth noting that most German harnesses of the 15th c. are less protective where the shoulder defense ends at the top. |
The hands, certainly; I gave evidence for that from Petit Jehan. We can make conjectures about other targets, but to what point? It's enough, for this debate, to show that the axe blade had *some* valid targets. Unfortunately, that doesn't answer the root argument in any way, which was why I brought it up the first time.
But you're still ignoring the main fact here: In the majority of books that teach single combat, the pollaxe with a hammer/spike is preferred. The non-Fechtbuch iconography shows some blade/hammer pollaxes being used for single combat, but we know from Olivier that most such combats were with hammer/spike pollaxes. (And you keep showing pictures to prove it was done; Christian, I *know* it was done; I gave evidence for it on one of my first posts.) We see lots of blade/hammer pollaxes in war scenes, and DiGrassi gives us good evidence for why that might be: Not because they were superior for hitting people, but because they were useful for breaking weapon shafts.
So much is clear. I would offer one pure guesswork theory (you did it, so I am allowed, too): Why do we see blade/hammer axes in some single-combat pictures? I would suggest--and I offer no proof, this is a pure guess--that it's because many men at arms had no formal Fechtbuch training, and they used what they were familiar with from their experience in war.
| Quote: | | The other advantage the blade has over the pronged head is weight. So while the prongs might stick better, the blade delivers the goods as far as takedown power is concerned. |
The evidence in Le Jeu, with its careful warnings against overswinging, suggests that mayn't have been an issue in single combat. Yes, you can hit harder with a heavier axe, but recovery from the blow is slower, too.
| Quote: | | @Hugh: One more thing occurred to me. You've mentioned 'exceptions' with regard to 11093 & Falkner. Statistically, that's not a good way to characterize them, if we're to confine our discourse to armoured sources from medieval Germany. Here are the poleaxe sources we have (and I'm counting only distinct masters, not multiple copies of one guy's work): |
First, it's a mistake to stick only to Germany in this discussion. We're not discussing the Liechtenauer canon, we're discussing the use of the axe in the Middle Ages. So we should add to the list you gave Fiore, Vadi, and Le Jeu, making the count at least 8 to 2. Moreover, I disagree that authors with multiple books shouldn't be counted individually, since, after all, they're showing different material (well, Talhoffer is, Fiore isn't for the most part, so I'll just count Talhoffer). That means the count now goes up to 10 to 2 since Talhoffer had three books with pollaxe material in them.
Also, I believe it's a serious mistake to compare them on a one-for-one basis. Codex 11093 has five techniques and Falkner has six (and it's not fair to count all of his since some are halberds, but we'll let that pass), for a total of 11. But the number of techniques in sources showing hammer-only pollaxes is many times that--it's hard to count because some are multiples and some are just tactical principles, but any way you count it you won't get less than 100. And one of the two sources, Falkner, shows both axes and halberds, so his actual pollaxe material is even less. So in the vast majority of techniques out there, the hammer/spike variant is what's being shown. Falkner and 11093 are the *exceptions*.
But all of that ignores the irrefutable bottom line: If you're studying medieval pollaxe techniques from the Fechtbücher, you ought to use the kind of pollaxe they wrote about--after all, the two types handle differently. And the type used in all the *useable* medieval Fechtbücher is the hammer/spike kind.
And before you jump on that, it's true: Codex 11093, as you admitted, isn't clear enough to give us any real techniques, and Falkner has only a scant handful of techniques for the actual pollaxe (as opposed to the halberd or bill).
So my suggestion about using a hammer/spike pollaxe is perfectly valid. Use the type of weapon the sources you are studying used.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | But all of that ignores the irrefutable bottom line: If you're studying medieval pollaxe techniques from the Fechtbücher, you ought to use the kind of pollaxe they wrote about--after all, the two types handle differently. |
Do they handle differently? I've handled a fair number of antique polearms. Some handle differently from others, some more similarly, and it seems to have little to do with whether or not they have an axe face or a hammer face (or any other polearm configuration). You can take two halberds and two poleaxes, and its possible that one of the halberds handles exactly like one of the poleaxes, and one doesn't. There's too much variation within a single design to make a claim like that. Its kind of like saying a messer and a sword are completely different in handling. It would depend on which messer and which sword.
Either way, I don't disagree with the idea that we should try to get as close to these manuscripts as we can. When it comes down to it, though, I also don't think we should miss the forest for the trees by hyper-analyzing and drawing concrete conclusions about what was and wasn't used from such a limited number of sources... some of which show the bladed version to be interchangible and some of which never once claim that you should *only* use one style and not another.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | Do they handle differently? I've handled a fair number of antique polearms. Some handle differently from others, some more similarly, and it seems to have little to do with whether or not they have an axe face or a hammer face (or any other polearm configuration). You can take two halberds and two poleaxes, and its possible that one of the halberds handles exactly like one of the poleaxes, and one doesn't. There's too much variation within a single design to make a claim like that. Its kind of like saying a messer and a sword are completely different in handling. It would depend on which messer and which sword. |
Hi Bill,
You're quite right about the messer and sword, and it's probably possible to find axe/hammer pollaxes that handle somewhat like a hammer/spike pollaxes. But, as Christian pointed out, in the majority of cases, axe/hammer pollaxes are heavier in the head, which causes them to handle quite differently. So while there may be exceptions, they will *normally* be different, as opposed to the messer and sword, which will normally be pretty close.
| Quote: | | Either way, I don't disagree with the idea that we should try to get as close to these manuscripts as we can. When it comes down to it, though, I also don't think we should miss the forest for the trees by hyper-analyzing and drawing concrete conclusions about what was and wasn't used from such a limited number of sources... some of which show the bladed version to be interchangible and some of which never once claim that you should *only* use one style and not another. |
You make it too strong; no one is advocating the kind of fanaticism you suggest with words like "hyper-analyzing". The actual argument is simpler: We know that the two kinds of axe usually handle differently, and we know that all the sources we're using (at least I don't know of anyone who's published any work with the Falkner text, and Christian and I both agree 11093 is not a useful source) use one kind and never the other. From that, it naturally follows that we should prefer the kind of axe our sources use. When Falkner has been published, then I think people will be perfectly justified in practicing the 2-3 pollaxe techniques in his book with an axe/hammer pollaxe (as I'm sure Christian already has since he's worked with the material). But anyone who's working from the book I wrote should know that all the material therein, every single play, comes exclusively from sources that use *only* the hammer/spike pollaxe, and thus, they will do best to use the same kind of axe the source documents discuss.
If they're practicing Talhoffer's sword and buckler play or his messer plays, then they should feel perfectly comfortable switching back and forth between arming swords and messers, since he himself does so.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christopher VaughnStrever wrote: | | I would like to advise that the book The Play of the Axe: Medieval Pollaxe Combat by Hugh T. Knight, Jr. is a wonderful read. With the discussion at hand one could lean towards not buying the book. I advise otherwise, this book is a dream come true for me. I am learning so much and from great sources within this one book. The historical context and the ability to fully understand the written words is in the least; Great! |
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | I would second the above. |
Thank you, gentlemen, I'm very glad you're finding the book useful, or at least interesting. How far have you gotten? Are you into any of the techniques proper, and if so, how are you finding the directions? One of the biggest challenges in a book such as this is to take something you know very well how to do and have done many, many, times, and then write down everything someone would need to know who has never seen it before; it's too easy to take a lot of little things for granted.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To respond briefly, as I am heading out the door soon; I have gotten into the first 4 forms of attack and have read every page up to that point. I will make a detailed explanation/ a question or two later on tonight or in the morning. I am able to read and thuse see the picture and in turn be able to evaluate an accurate stance/ perform the action correctly.
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
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: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Christian, I've never argued that you could not make an effective hit with the blade of an axe--certainly you can. Hell, single-handed axes were popular in armored combat throughout much of the middle ages. I argued that the preponderance of hammer/spike pollaxes demonstrates that they were considered superior in single combat by professional instructors. |
No, we don't know that. We know *some* masters felt this way. For Falkner, it's a wash; for the creator of 11093, blades are it.
| Quote: | | Your only counter to that argument, to bring this debate back on point, was that maybe they required hammer headed pollaxes in judicial combat. Unfortunately, there isn't a shred of evidence to support that argument, and, in fact, the evidence of Codex 11093 suggests it isn't true, since that book shows a bladed axe. And if you are arguing that the hammer head was required in only *some* judicial combat, then I would counter that the absence of the other type in any of Talhoffer's works mitigates against that claim since Talhoffer was good about showing the variations in judicial combat formats (e.g., the Frankish and Swabian versions of the Langenschilt fights). Ergo, the simpler and more likely answer is that the professionals felt the hammer/spike variant was better for single combat. |
There's no ergo about it. Here's why:
If efficacy is the only arbiter, then it makes zero sense why half-swording out-represents poleaxe by 10-to-1. Really, any smart master will tell you that longsword suck against armour, no matter how you grip them, when compared to an armour-optimized weapon like the axe. So why is it there? Because sometimes - and the evidence suggest it's the more common - duels were *agreed* to be fought with them.
So, indeed, custom may explain both forms. We don't know the exact locale that 11093 is associated with, so this could be a regional, and customary, variation.
| Quote: | | The hands, certainly; I gave evidence for that from Petit Jehan. We can make conjectures about other targets, but to what point? It's enough, for this debate, to show that the axe blade had *some* valid targets. Unfortunately, that doesn't answer the root argument in any way, which was why I brought it up the first time. |
And the head: halberdiers hit people in the head. An axe-bladed poleaxe behaves in that fashion. You keep trying to propose the idea of hitting someone in the head with the blade as ignorant or ineffectual, and yet it's illustrated, and clearly makes sense. As I said much earlier, there's a reason Hedgecock created those rubber axe heads.
| Quote: | | But you're still ignoring the main fact here: In the majority of books that teach single combat, the pollaxe with a hammer/spike is preferred. The non-Fechtbuch iconography shows some blade/hammer pollaxes being used for single combat, but we know from Olivier that most such combats were with hammer/spike pollaxes. (And you keep showing pictures to prove it was done; Christian, I *know* it was done; I gave evidence for it on one of my first posts.) We see lots of blade/hammer pollaxes in war scenes, and DiGrassi gives us good evidence for why that might be: Not because they were superior for hitting people, but because they were useful for breaking weapon shafts. |
The shaft-breaking thing is simply a non-starter, and completely irrelevant to the subject of judicial duels, where such an action *never* appears. Please produce evidence of any 15th century knight.
| Quote: | | So much is clear. I would offer one pure guesswork theory (you did it, so I am allowed, too): Why do we see blade/hammer axes in some single-combat pictures? I would suggest--and I offer no proof, this is a pure guess--that it's because many men at arms had no formal Fechtbuch training, and they used what they were familiar with from their experience in war. |
Falkner was a pedigreed master; he shows bladed polearms. The "maybe people that disagree with me didn't know what they were talking about" argument is weak.
| Quote: | | The evidence in Le Jeu, with its careful warnings against overswinging, suggests that mayn't have been an issue in single combat. Yes, you can hit harder with a heavier axe, but recovery from the blow is slower, too. |
You don't need to overswing or over-commit to hit hard. Not by a long shot.
| Quote: | | First, it's a mistake to stick only to Germany in this discussion. We're not discussing the Liechtenauer canon, we're discussing the use of the axe in the Middle Ages. So we should add to the list you gave Fiore, Vadi, and Le Jeu, making the count at least 8 to 2. Moreover, I disagree that authors with multiple books shouldn't be counted individually, since, after all, they're showing different material (well, Talhoffer is, Fiore isn't for the most part, so I'll just count Talhoffer). That means the count now goes up to 10 to 2 since Talhoffer had three books with pollaxe material in them. |
Sorry, but you're not entitled to this argument. You criticize others all the time for mixing traditions (recently chiding someone about I.33, and regularly dismissing Fiore as overly different), and that's just what you're proposing to do here. You can't have it both ways.
| Quote: | | Also, I believe it's a serious mistake to compare them on a one-for-one basis. Codex 11093 has five techniques and Falkner has six (and it's not fair to count all of his since some are halberds, but we'll let that pass), for a total of 11. But the number of techniques in sources showing hammer-only pollaxes is many times that--it's hard to count because some are multiples and some are just tactical principles, but any way you count it you won't get less than 100. And one of the two sources, Falkner, shows both axes and halberds, so his actual pollaxe material is even less. So in the vast majority of techniques out there, the hammer/spike variant is what's being shown. Falkner and 11093 are the *exceptions*. |
All of Talhoffer's axe material looks roughly the same. And if quantity is a measure, you can't count the small, and uncaptioned stuff in the 1443. That leaves 1467 & the Thott; those overlap all the way. Kal exists only in unvarying copies.
But, it's not about number of techniques, it's about what that given master thought, and so, even granting Talhoffer two, you stiill have 1/3 of the corpus supporting blades. A third would not be considered an exception by any sober statistician.
| Quote: | | But all of that ignores the irrefutable bottom line: If you're studying medieval pollaxe techniques from the Fechtbücher, you ought to use the kind of pollaxe they wrote about--after all, the two types handle differently. And the type used in all the *useable* medieval Fechtbücher is the hammer/spike kind. |
I include Falkner in my studies. Anyone claiming to study the polearms of the Liechtenauer tradition should too. Falkner includes bladed weapons. Telling people otherwise is simply misleading.
| Quote: | | And before you jump on that, it's true: Codex 11093, as you admitted, isn't clear enough to give us any real techniques, and Falkner has only a scant handful of techniques for the actual pollaxe (as opposed to the halberd or bill). |
We've been through this before, and it's becoming tedious: Falkner makes it clear there's no distinction between techniques for one and techniques for another. I believe that Marozzo says as much later on.
| Quote: | | So my suggestion about using a hammer/spike pollaxe is perfectly valid. Use the type of weapon the sources you are studying used. |
It's valid for the limited sources that you're using, yes. We can agree on that.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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