Clements is on TV tonight! ("The Fight Book") -- myArmoury.com

James Head · Posted: Wed 19 Jan, 2011 12:07 pm Post subject:

Hi Christian. I am so glad you pointed that out. I've often wondered the same thing about certain other fechtbuch sections that I've seen. If you were to arrange those images like a flip book, it would look just like an armored halfsword fight. With the strange complication that the combatants' armor was slowly fading out of existence.

I think this is why it is so important to truly know the material you are working with, and (more importantly) collaborate with other like minded experts. I also got a sense that the ARMA crew (John and Aaron) did not spend much time preparing for the segments on Judicial Duels. I'm always attracted to the quirky side of things, so Medieval ritual combat traditions are of particular interest to me. Like I mentioned earlier, they paired a Frankish rite Langenschilt with a Swabian rite arming sword. And even John C mentions in his blog that most of the techniques they used with the shields came from their experience with the other big-name KDF weapons like the longsword, pollaxe and messer. Obviously there is a huge overlap in technique between all these weapons, but the Langenschilt has the least amount of similarity amongst them. Such a strange object requires some individual attention before diving right into it. That's all I can really say since there is very little material on this part of filming that has been made available. I'm not accusing anyone of doing things wrong, but I get a sense that these areas were not considered as having much importance.

Also, concerning collaboration. It seems clear that in John's blog he was not aware that Leo Todeschi (sp?) was the one commissioned to build the shields. That is certainly the fault of the film producer and has nothing to do with John Clements. But it just illustrates this strange issue of 'six degrees of separation' that we have going on in the HEMA and Arms & Armour communities. We are still a relatively small group of enthusiasts and experts, even globally. Everybody is connected to everyone else. I think it would have been so much better if the film producer simply connected John Clements with Leo, so the two of them could work out the design of the Langenschilts together: height, weight, balance, blunted tips etc... It would have made it better for everyone. John would have felt more comfortable working with the shields, thus giving a better performance, thus increasing the chances of Leo's work to be featured in the final cut of the TV special.

Kel Rekuta · Posted: Wed 19 Jan, 2011 1:12 pm Post subject:

Nathan Robinson · myArmoury Admin

Kel Rekuta · Posted: Wed 19 Jan, 2011 1:21 pm Post subject:

James Head · Posted: Wed 19 Jan, 2011 1:33 pm Post subject:

Sean Flynt · Posted: Wed 19 Jan, 2011 1:46 pm Post subject:

The narration does acknowledge that the scenario is unlikely but not impossible.
It's another reminder not to accept medieval illustrations as photographs.

Roger Hooper · Posted: Wed 19 Jan, 2011 5:06 pm Post subject:

I enjoyed the presentation. It had some faults, but was certainly superior to the typical Bad History Channel effort.

A few random comments:

Like everyone else here, I wanted more longsword combat!! It seemed that less that 25% of the show was concerned with hand-to-hand fighting.

If I was fighting someone in full plate armor, instead of a thrusting longsword, I'd want a poll-axe or a bec-de-corbin.

I wasn't convinced by the crayfish explanation. Having them run back and forth on tracks inside the gatehouse seemed like a lot more trouble that they were worth. It would have been pretty easy to knock them aside with a pole-arm or shovel at the price of a few men-at-arms.

Being inside that early proto-tank would be most unpleasant. - really bad for your hearing and respiratory system.

Clements gave a good plug in his blog for the Albion Talhoffer, Regent, and the Maestros.

Owen Bush · Industry Professional

I havn't seen the show yet so cant comment on that .
but reading the comments on Judicial Duels I would like to add the very real possibility that what is depicted in this manuscript is not the fair fight or best possible fight from the combatants terms.
The judicial duel as I understand it is a trial in front of god and also with a blood thirsty audience . It would look like a lot of the weapons combinations are not chosen because they are ideal for the job in hand but more because they would be a burden and and make fighting harder (and or more interesting) more of a chore, more of an ordeal, more of a test....more of a trial in both senses of the word.

Leo Todeschini · Industry Professional

James Head Wrote

Christian Henry Tobler · Posted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 6:20 am Post subject:

Hi James,

Regarding the Langenschilt, I agree with you...for the most part.

First, as you mention, there is the overlap of techniques/general usage. One of the things I teach my students to do is analyze how a weapon works, then decide upon what subset of the overall art applies to it.

If we perform this exercise with the shield, we find it can strike blows like a sword (the word 'hau' is specifically used in texts for this weapon), is can thrust like the sword/spear/poleaxe, it can hook like the poleaxe, etc. That gives us a lot. But...what's missing is how to use it like a shield, and for this we must look to the texts for the long shield; there we find the idea of using this very large shield like a sort of revolving door, around which one fights. We also find methods for forcing the other guy's door to 'open', allowing us access to the target.

So, yes, you can do some good stuff with the long shield just using knowledge of the other weapons, but there are specialized things to know as well.

All the best,

Christian

Glen A Cleeton · Posted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 8:19 am Post subject:

Paul Macdonald and Bob Brooks were bouting with long shields ala Talhoffer a decade or so ago and ongoing. The video(s) of those seemed sturdy but wield-able for work also with a sword. IIRC, there are two varieties of these, One more of a hooking and pavaiseroutine, the other more as a weapon but then again back to the sequencing in the original book itself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9VG4ClQcJk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkFx8JdBodk

http://wn.com/judicial_combat

It was still a treat just to see the color plates and one could hope in our lifetimes that at some point the entirety of it might be shared as an e-book. I know a lot of folk (including myself) have Five Rings and The Mark Rector edition on their shelves with more efforts coming along in time but to actually have an original text such as that in hand has got to be a thrill for. anyone.

There were some funny (ha ha ) moments I caught as uniquely Clements but my mentioning specifics could easily be misinterpreted. Despite the Yanks' hurdles and perceived productions problems, it looks like everyone had a bit of fun by the end of the day(s) and months for all involved.

Cheers

GC

Craig Shackleton · Posted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 8:43 am Post subject:

David Teague · Posted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 9:46 am Post subject:

The things I noticed:

Was that Clements appeared to be sliding his hand up and down the edges with his fluid half swording techniques, something you can do with a blunt but didn't look quite right with a sharp. (He may have been gripping the flats and not allowing the edges to come in contact with this hands, but that's not the way it looked)

The sallet worn in the fight sequence did not have a period heavy quilted liner, just a simple leather one that transferred the energy of the pommel strikes right into the head of his armoured opponent .

That Irony is still alive in the world as the translation used by NatGo was Jeffery Hull's. Happy

I too wished for more Fight Book and less weird and wild weapons....

Cheers,

David

Nathan Robinson · myArmoury Admin

Joe Fults · Posted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 4:21 pm Post subject:

Enjoyed the fight book parts. Even if they were not perfect, which John notes in his blog, it was a neat oh-ah moment for people who had never seen the plates and could not imaging something like that existing. As they got more into the weird machines my interest thinned and I eventually wandered awy from the program.

Glen A Cleeton · Posted: Fri 21 Jan, 2011 5:27 am Post subject:

Bill Grandy · myArmoury Team

Finally got a chance to see it. Turns out it's all on YouTube in multiple parts now, for anyone like me who doesn't use cable TV.

All in all, I thought it was good for what it was. There are a ton of misconceptions and things that are flat out wrong, but quite frankly, it was so much better than a lot of other programs on the middle ages that I can get over it. What I liked most is that they really hammered home the idea that people in the middle ages weren't stupid.

As for all of the things that were wrong, Sean Hayes said this on SFI:

"A friend of mine once mentioned the "Nova effect." She noted that you would watch Nova and think, "Man! What a great job they do in really covering this subject!" The effect lasts until they cover *your* subject - and you think, "Lord! What a really crappy job they did with this!""

Walter S · Posted: Fri 21 Jan, 2011 7:58 am Post subject:

Youtube says the videos have been blocked in my country on copyright grounds... I am not amused Sad

Christian Henry Tobler · Posted: Fri 21 Jan, 2011 8:44 am Post subject:

Hi Bill,

I've seen a bunch of bits and pieces now too, and I agree with you. The 'unarmoured v. armoured' thing is just a bit frustrating, because it could've completely been avoided with better communication across the (our) community; such analyses have been place for some years now, after all.

But yes, much better than the average medieval history program, and I think John Clements came off really well in the interview-style segments I saw: he was restrained, but engaged, which played well.

Cheers,

Christian

Bill Grandy · myArmoury Team