| Author |
Message |
Alex Spreier
|
 Posted: Thu 07 Oct, 2010 7:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: | Alex,
Whereas there are many one on one weapons manuals that is not 100% accurate. A few do include some reference to fighting multiple people. More importantly, there are scores maybe hundreds of military manuals from the medieval period from Vegitius to C. de Pisan all including formation and tactical info. Further in the 15th century this gets better as several major rulers decide to make up their own, Charles the Bold has several in his Ordinances about how men of various types of soldiers were expected to line up and fight in unison.
|
Thanks Randall!
As to the "against multiple weapons" - I knew about them, but that is still not fighting in formation. As to the other sources, they give (as far as I remember from reading them) tactical advice for the commander using the formations, not necessarily what to do when in the formation.
| Randall Moffett wrote: | | The idea of the one-on-one medieval battlefield is not in an of itself right. I am sure after a time the ranks would shift and bleed rank But formations were still used and important. If you look at the English, Scots and Swiss this was in many ways how they survived with the troops they were using. |
I never said that you would fight one-on-one on the battlefield - I said that the manuscripts available to us tend to show their techniques in the context of one-on-one combat. One-on-one combat and formation battles are, as Aleksei pointed out, very different animals.
Compagno, Northwest Fencing Academy
http://bunkaijuju.blogspot.com/
|
|
  |
 |
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Oct, 2010 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | So even if the maille and padding can do a good job stopping a cut a heavy thrust to the armpit will hurt like hell: Just have someone give you a stiff fingers trust into your armpit and I'm sure you won't like it. |
I've been hit in the armpit with both blows and thrusts when sparring with padded weapons. It was never a big deal. Blows to the head (with a fencing mask), arms, ribs, or hip could be far more painful. Thrusts to the throat were the worst. Those actually scared me. I have no doubt that thrusts to the armpit were effective for fighting in armor, as they appear all over the place, but a blow, except perhaps from the back spike of poleaxe, would not inflict the same damage. |
You have more experience than I do getting hit in the armpit so I can't dispute your impressions but maybe I can still question, for the sake of argument, that you mention padded weapons. 
A thrust with a padded weapon to maille voider + some padding underneath should be very much less " painful " than a sharp point concentrating all the force on a small point. ( A high level of adrenaline will also help to ignore the pain even with a real weapon but with a padded weapon one might only notice until after the action or with a bruise the next day ).
The point of a poleaxe even if it doesn't break a link of the maille should be able to penetrate to some degree beyond the maille and with a great deal of force push strongly into the padding. ( If lucky the point may not break the skin but the nerves are going to be stunned ..... a fight stopper ? Maybe not, but a good set up for a follow up blow to the head, maybe !? )
If the point of the poleaxe does break at lest one link of the maille the point can go in quite a few inches into the armpit.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Oct, 2010 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jean, I'll reiterate that I'm only dubious of blows to the armpit in armored combat, not thrusts. My understanding of armored dueling gives thrusts to the armpit great importance. Such thrusts through the mail could indeed kill; Smythe mentioned an arrow fatally penetrating a mail gusset in this fashion.
Also, to clarify, I was talking about sparring with padded weapons with no more defensive gear than a fencing mask and perhaps forearm guards. I bring up the experience only to note that the armpit isn't a particularly unpleasant place to take a shot. Any strong blow or thrust can hurt, of course, and I'd never volunteer my armpit as a punching bag!
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Oct, 2010 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | Jean, I'll reiterate that I'm only dubious of blows to the armpit in armored combat, not thrusts. My understanding of armored dueling gives thrusts to the armpit great importance. Such thrusts through the mail could indeed kill; Smythe mentioned an arrow fatally penetrating a mail gusset in this fashion.
Also, to clarify, I was talking about sparring with padded weapons with no more defensive gear than a fencing mask and perhaps forearm guards. I bring up the experience only to note that the armpit isn't a particularly unpleasant place to take a shot. Any strong blow or thrust can hurt, of course, and I'd never volunteer my armpit as a punching bag! |
No problem and I was talking specifically about thrusts and agree that blows to armpits wouldn't be effective or easy to target.  
Anyway, just pressing my thumb in my armpit seems " unpleasant " to me but in the heat of sparring I might not notice it much or shrug it off until after.
I also defer to your actual experience under the conditions you mention. And thanks for your explanations.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Oct, 2010 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hits to the armpit are definitely unpleasant, just not necessarily more so than hits to other areas of the body in my experience. The type of padded sparring I did wasn't so dangerous as what Aleksei does, but it resulted in occasional bruises, headaches, and one fractured finger (too much pain in my opinion, though that wouldn't stop from restarting if I find another partner).
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne Norman
Location: Boston, UK Joined: 05 Oct 2010
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Oct, 2010 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Armpit is where I got stabbed with a bill, glanced off the top rib after breaking it and pushing it into the lung, the bill point carried on into my armpit and made my left arm go dead. I was fighting a bill block, they were in a very tight formation, as i lunged in to stab someone on the breast plate, the guy to his right went for me, got his aim wrong and got me in the wrong place. That damage was caused through voiders and a padded jack underneath.
I have done full contact before, taken a fair few hits all over my body, been hit hard on the head too, but with a good helmet with the right padding under it, you just shrugg it off and carry on. been hacked across most parts of my body with most kinds of weapons, but it's always hit plate and been OK. If your plate is good, you can wade through anything. In real life back in the day, it would be poleaxes that worried me, seen a demonstration of a poleaxe beak go through 14g steel. OUCH!
|
|
 |
|
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Oct, 2010 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To Benjamin H. Abbott:
Please do not compare padded weapons with steel ones. And do not compare unarmored combat to armored one. As Wayne Norman's unfortunate experience shows a thrust in the armpit may end the fight without penetrating. 500 years ago punctured lung would probably mean death (not immediate of course). A good blow would do the same. A good strike to almost any joint may "switch off" the limb. And ribs are broken quite easily with hammers and spikes (and bills and other hafted weapons often had all kinds of spikes and hooks protruding in all directions). The problem is that it is VERY difficult to perform a successful and strong blow to the armpit because such blow has to go upwards and is very likely to hit breastplate, pauldron or vambrace. Hitting inside of the elbow is also difficult because arms tend to move too much. Also when the arm is bent this place becomes also well-protected. However when somebody extends his arms to hit you, you can exploit it and strike. With 14 century style arms (with simple wings or rondels on elbow cops) one can land a blow to an area of the elbow joint that is not protected by rigid plate. You probably received only weak hits in the armpit. I personally have never received a strong blow there, and very few blows to the elbow that were strong enough to bother me. Not because these parts are not vulnerable, but because they are very difficult to hit.
Armpits, insides of elbows and knees, etc. are vulnerable because they are not protected by anything rigid, unlike other places that are protected by plates. Torso is as vulnerable as armpit when not protected by armor, but in case of armored combat, being protected by a breast plate, is almost invulnerable. Neck is one of the most vulnerable parts of the body, but in case of proper armor is also very well protected. Why do you think plate protection for insides of the elbows appeared somewhere in the 15th century? For that same reason. And as for the hips... Well, I have been hit with blunt steel one-handed swords there (without any armor at all) and continued fighting. I mean I was hit REALLY hard. Mucsles act as a good cushion, and people tend not to feel much pain in a fight due to adrenaline. At least I do.
To Randall Moffett:
What we see in the videos is 21 on 21. I believe that these people tried fighting in tight formation but for some reason abandoned it. Maybe too little people for a proper formation fight? After all, we see a lot of one-on-one combat in medieval illustrations on edges of a large formation, and formation of 21 people will have more edges than "body". So there are reasons why these people fight one way or another, and we should be careful when we say that they do it wrong (I am not saying that you say that they fight wrong of course).
To Wayne Norman:
Some ill luck you had there! Now I am starting to think about getting voiders (I do not use them now). But what you are saying is basically same as what I say: good armor protects against most of the blows, even the strongest ones, even to the head.
|
|
 |
|
|
Craig Shackleton
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Oct, 2010 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find this an interesting topic.
I completely buy the argument that the billhook is advantageous at cutting at joints. The general shape is similar to the Dacian falx (ie. a forward hook) which I understand the Romans were terrified of because it was so effective at hacking off limbs.
OTOH, their solution was to give more armour to troops designated to take out falxmen, so I don't know if the hook could cut armour.
All of my knowledge of the falx is from old secondary sources, so take it with a grain of salt.
Ottawa Swordplay
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Oct, 2010 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: | To Benjamin H. Abbott:
Please do not compare padded weapons with steel ones. And do not compare unarmored combat to armored one. |
I was using my experience to counter the notion that the armpit is a generically vulnerable spot. I stand by what I typed.
| Quote: | | But what you are saying is basically same as what I say: good armor protects against most of the blows, even the strongest ones, even to the head. |
Some period sources support the invulnerability hypothesis in vague terms, but at least two others, as I've shown, explicitly say leaden mauls and pollaxes could kill with a single blow to the head. That's a big difference from what y'all have found. I suspect there's an importance difference in either your technique or equipment.
Wayne, that's a horrible injury. I'm glad you survived and hope you recovered fully. Broken bones never come back quite the same for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Head
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Oct, 2010 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Shackleton wrote: | I find this an interesting topic.
I completely buy the argument that the billhook is advantageous at cutting at joints. The general shape is similar to the Dacian falx (ie. a forward hook) which I understand the Romans were terrified of because it was so effective at hacking off limbs.
OTOH, their solution was to give more armour to troops designated to take out falxmen, so I don't know if the hook could cut armour.
All of my knowledge of the falx is from old secondary sources, so take it with a grain of salt. |
Hi Craig, thanks for your input. This is the type of stuff I was hoping to talk about. I understand that you got your info about the falx from secondary sources, but would you still be able to list some of them? I am very interested in checking them out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Shackleton
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Oct, 2010 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll see if I can dig something up, but it might be a problem.
I know the first place read about it was in a book I borrowed from a friend when I lived in New Zealand, which had line drawings of Roman soldiers and enemies of Rome. It was similar to an Osprey book (and may even have been one).
I also found a website once upon a time with video and pictures of some tests done with a falx against a roman shield.
A quick google search pulls up this: http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/ranistorum/site_eng/arma.html
The picture at the bottom is the test I saw before on a different site. I'm not thrilled with the methodology of the test, but the article repeats what I said:
| Quote: | | The cutting action was accomplished by a movement of hitting and pulling. The cutting was amplified by using both hands. When it was used correctly it could easily cut a limb or behead an enemy. |
and:
| Quote: | | The fact that it could cause grave wounds and even surgical sacrifice, arose such great fear among the Roman soldiers, that a special group of Romei legionaries wore their legs and hands armoured while opposing the Falx fighters. As a result of the often encounters between the Romans and the Falx fighters, the Roman armourers added two transversal metalic straps on the helmets of the soldiers to make them more resistant to the hits. |
The article also comments that the falx is probably a militarized farm tool (much like the billhook).
Google also finds a bunch of stuff about an item in World of Warcraft, which is less useful to this discussion.
There are also links popping up to Legio XX and Roman Army Talk, so I know that there are folks on here with more knowledge than me on this. I'll keep my eyes open though.
Ottawa Swordplay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Oct, 2010 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig Shackleton wrote: |
I completely buy the argument that the billhook is advantageous at cutting at joints. The general shape is similar to the Dacian falx (ie. a forward hook) which I understand the Romans were terrified of because it was so effective at hacking off limbs.
|
The various 19th century writers like Burton and Marey-Monge say that the forward curve is as good for cutting as a backward curve. Kukri, kora, yataghan, all great. (Marey-Monge was a yataghan-fan.) For this, the cutting edge needs to be at an angle where the target is hit (doesn't need to be curved - a guillotine works with an angled straight edge). On some bills, this is the case, and on other bills, most of the cutting edge is parallel to the haft. Both types work, so I don't think there's any huge advantage to be had from the first type. Some advantage, there should be, but I don't think huge.
The forward hook is really useful on a working bill. You want to cut branch A, but branch B is in front. Insert bill between A and B, and pull down. Hook cuts into top of A. Repeat until you chop through A. A similar procedure should work against human limbs, and could be nicely effective against gaps in armour. One would greatly benefit from a fellow billman using the point to keep the enemy from closing.
Expended an old computer case as a weapon target, and the bill was the best performer. The forward hook made a very effective armour-piercing spike. Pretty much functioned as a halberd with the cutting edge and the armour-piercing spike on the same side, instead of opposite sides.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Oct, 2010 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
Some period sources support the invulnerability hypothesis in vague terms, but at least two others, as I've shown, explicitly say leaden mauls and pollaxes could kill with a single blow to the head. That's a big difference from what y'all have found. I suspect there's an importance difference in either your technique or equipment.
|
It's probably neither the technique nor the equipment. "Can kill" and "will kill" are very different things. As I said a blunt one-handed axe MAY pierce a helmet, but I would not call it very likely. If a helmet is of poor workmanship and will be penetrated its wearer will most likely be killed. If a helmet is light its wearer may be knocked out or killed. Wearer of the helmet may have some health problems and die even of relatively weak blow. If the blow is very strong even a healthy wearer of a heavy and well-made helmet may be knocked out. However in real battle conditions it is very, very difficult to knock somebody out by hitting him once on the well-made and heavy helmet. Difficult, but not impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 09 Oct, 2010 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
If modern folks in full-contact armored melees used two-handed hammers and they functioned as fifteen-century sources describe, a fair number of people would die. Both Fiore and Religieux of Saint-Denis presented death as the primary outcome of a blow to the head. I hope that's not happening. Assuming that it isn't, that suggests either y'all are doing something different or the authors in question were exaggerating. Does anyone fight with hammer-type pollaxes or leaden mauls? That alone could conceivably explain the discrepancy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Oct, 2010 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | If modern folks in full-contact armored melees used two-handed hammers and they functioned as fifteen-century sources describe, a fair number of people would die. Both Fiore and Religieux of Saint-Denis presented death as the primary outcome of a blow to the head. I hope that's not happening. Assuming that it isn't, that suggests either y'all are doing something different or the authors in question were exaggerating. Does anyone fight with hammer-type pollaxes or leaden mauls? That alone could conceivably explain the discrepancy. |
Could you please quote Fiore and Religieux and Saint-Denis? Or (better) give links to these sources. I am very interested in reading them.
I think no-one uses hammer-type pollaxes. Mostly because these weapons have to have spikes on the opposite side of the hammer, and spikes tend to get into gaps where bale or hammer cannot. However there are axes with hammers on the opposit side of the blade, you can see them in some of the videos.
There is another factor. Helmets used by reenactors are heavy. There are historical helmets that are just as heavy, but most are lighter.
Serious injuries indeed do happen from time to time. I think there also have been some deaths (not sure about it though). I would not participate in an event like on the video, at least not until I make myself a 15 century full harness of heat-treated steel.
There are descriptions of knights battering each other so that pieces of armor fly loose, but wearers remain uninjured. I do not remember where I saw them unfortunately. Instead I quote a couple of passages from here: http://www.thearma.org/essays/Lalaing.htm
| Quote: | Meanwhile, Herve de Meriadec was fighting the other James Douglas. As the two closed in, James lowered his spear and thrust at Herve's face. However, he missed his mark; instead, his point went through the left sleeve of Herve's surcoat and glanced off of the armor underneath. Herve, stepping within distance, struck Sir James so hard on the head with his polaxe that he knocked him to the ground, stunned, face down.
Herve immediately looked to see whether his companions needed assistance, since that was allowed by the rules. As he did so, Sir James began to recover, rising to his knees. Seeing this, Herve struck him to the ground again with numerous blows of his axe. As he turned to aid his friends, Sir James rose yet again, and the two fought briefly with their polaxes. At this point, seeing the danger that the Scottish knights were in, the king ended the fight. |
I do not know how correct is the translation, but from what I read a blow to the head that cnocked a person down was considered very strong. In other words, something that did not happen too often. But look, no death here. Not even a knock-out. The knight was able to raise and continue fighting.
I already said it and I say it again: it is very difficult to knock a well-armored person out with a single blow in battle. Please note words "very difficult", not impossible, and "well-armored", not simply "armored".
I suggest to make an experiment. Let somebody put on full armor, take a sharp pollaxe and hit a biece of steel (16 to 12 ga should be OK) a couple of times as hard as he can. Then take a padded weapon, spar with somebody for 2 minutes and after that immediately hit the same piece of steel with a sharp pollaxe. This time though the blows should be not only hard, but also fast, to simulate exploiting a gap in opponent's defence that appeared for a split of a second. It would be very good if somebody could somehow move this piece of steel to make aiming more difficult and angle of impact less predictable. I would gladly do such test myself if I had a pollaxe. I have seen a lot of tests where people bash armor with all kinds of weapons, but I have never seen a test which simulates a real battle condition where people are tired, have to think not only about attack but also about defence, and targets are moving.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sun 10 Oct, 2010 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here are the quotations and sources:
| Fiore dei Liberi wrote: | | With a middle-turn/half-turn (meza volta) I will take this pollaxe from your hands. And as I have removed it from you, in just that one turn, I injure you in the head, as this student which is after me does. You will fall down dead I think. |
| Chronicle of the Religieux of Saint-Denis wrote: | | Many of them had adopted a weapon until then unknown - great lead-covered mallets from which one blow to the head could kill a man or knock him senseless to the ground. |
I am aware of the various tournament accounts that present pollaxe blows as less dangerous, but find it telling that these sources describe combat where killing the other guy wasn't the goal and where extra-heavy armor may have been worn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Oct, 2010 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shank you for reply, Benjamin.
| Quote: | | With a middle-turn/half-turn (meza volta) I will take this pollaxe from your hands. And as I have removed it from you, in just that one turn, I injure you in the head, as this student which is after me does. You will fall down dead I think. |
This is armored combat, right? Sounds doubtful, frankly speaking. To kill a person you usually need to crush his scull, and even this may not be enough. If a person has a good helmet, you may knock him down, you may knock him unconscious, but dead? Also to pull the weapon from opponent's hands and strike one should do it all quickly. No time for wide-arc swing, etc. The blow will be strong, but most like not the strongest one.
| Quote: | | Many of them had adopted a weapon until then unknown - great lead-covered mallets from which one blow to the head could kill a man or knock him senseless to the ground. |
This already looks like true. Do I understand it right that these mallets are something like sledge hammers with very long handles? I have not seen these weapons, but I believe that a solid blow with such thing could kill. At least by breaking neck. Are there any surviving examples of such weapons? Or at least drawings? I would like to see it. Seems like a fun reproduction project.
However why would one use a mallet when he could use a pollaxe? Is it because mallet is cheaper, or because it is more effective against well-armored opponents due to its sheer weight? If it is the latter, we again have evidence that pollaxes were not very effective.
Another point: it says "from which one blow to the head could kill a man or knock him senseless to the ground". "Could", but not "will". I already mentioned helmet penetrated by reenactment axe. So one-handed reenactment axe COULD penetrate a helmet made of 14 ga steel. We don't know what the author thought, but there is room for different interpretations, for example "while other weapons could not do it with one blow, this one could". Also it says nothing about armor. There are helmets and helmets. One can easily punch through 1mm of soft iron with a spike of war hammer, but it will simply glance off 2 mm of hardened steel.
It is possible that extra-heavy armor was worn in tournaments. But I think most of the images of tournaments with pollaxes show people wearing sallets, not great bascinets. Well, here is the problem with historical sources. While they say about one thing, they do not mention other important factors. We cannot be sure about what armor they had. Just like examples you quated, things that I quoted leave too much room for different interpretations.
So far only Fiore says that a single blow with a pollaxe to the head will most likely kill. Other sources say either "may", which tells nothing about probability of such outcome, or say that pollaxes were not very effective. I tend not to trust a source that contradicts majority of other sources. However i am interested in reading as much about the subject as possible. So if you find other descriptions of effect of polearms please post them here.
Oh, by the way. I almost forgot that original post was about bill, not pollaxe :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Oct, 2010 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aleksei Sosnovski wrote: |
So far only Fiore says that a single blow with a pollaxe to the head will most likely kill. Other sources say either "may", which tells nothing about probability of such outcome, or say that pollaxes were not very effective. I tend not to trust a source that contradicts majority of other sources. However i am interested in reading as much about the subject as possible. So if you find other descriptions of effect of polearms please post them here.
|
How could a heavy blow to the head kill without crushing in the helmet?
A) Concussion bad enough to kill outright or resulting in death some time later.
B) The head might be well protected by the helm but the neck might snap or head twisted enough to break the neck if the helm is just sitting on the head. Very heavy great bascinet resting on the shoulders would avoid this at least.
C) Stun and knock down long enough to finish the job with multiple bludgeoning hits ? Or lifting the visor and using a dagger to finish off.
Just some ideas/speculations.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Mikko Kuusirati
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Oct, 2010 11:48 am Post subject: Re: The Power of the Billhook |
|
|
| James Head wrote: | | I obtained a large, vintage two handed Billhook this summer. While I've found that its cutting power is fairly comparable to a machete for most jobs, I have been pleasantly surprised at how well the tool cuts limbs and branches at the joint. I usually have to hack at the 'crotch' of a branch a few times with my machete to take it off, but the Billhook blows through it like butter. Clearly it has something to do with the unique geometry of the 'hook' that makes such a big difference. |
Unsurprising, really, since at least here in Finland the billhook's primary function is specifically removing limbs from felled trees. Even the Finnish term for it, "vesuri", translates roughly as "limber". 
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Valli
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 11 Oct, 2010 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't want to jump in the middle of this too far off topic, but I had to chime in on some poleaxe comments. There are a few reasons that the majority of the poleaxe techniques strike to the head- primarily that depending on what type of axe head you are implementing there's a good chance you could go right through and get some 'light penetration of the brain' All of us on set for the poleaxe DVD shoot when we filmed the duel for the start of the video were surprised at the axe's power. Even with the controlled power level the prongs on the axe nearly pierced the back of the sallet I wore.
If you haven't broken through the helm, you've stunned him. I've been training in martial arts for years and still a strong blow to the helmet with even training weapons stuns me long enough for someone to take me out. So maybe you don't kill him with the blow, but you make it really easy to go for a takedown or well-placed thrust.
If you've gone to strike his head and missed, then you have a selection of options depending on where you ended up. Maybe you're lined up for the thrust, maybe a hook to his neck, whatever is set up for you. Starting your attack by aiming to the head is just a nice place to begin the horrible bloody beatdown
Kal (I believe) also shows the strike to the knee. Yes its a hook, but you don't hook someone in combat by gently placing your weapon where you need it to be, you put it there with vigor
Asst Instructor, Selohaar Fechtschule
Director, Speaking Window Productions, LLC
www.speakingwindowproductions.com
|
|
 |
|
|
|
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