| Author |
Message |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
 Posted: Thu 17 May, 2012 5:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| William P wrote: | | secondly ive heard from a few places tht longbowmen ad increased luck owning a sword (or falchion) and buckler as a sidearm by, roughly the middle of the 15th century. |
No. Longbowmen came from a fairly privileged social class to begin with (not noble, but fairly well-off by commoners' standards) and at least a fair proportion of them probably had swords right from the beginning of the Hundred Years' War. By the end of the 14th century practically all of them had swords (and often bucklers), so the mid-15th century is much too late as a timeframe for the adoption of swords by the better sort of common soldiers.
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | Looks like falces and gisarmes are the weapons of the lower class, and bows. I wonder if the falces and gisarmes are more peasant weapons thna the true military versions?
A falx could be nothing more than an agricultural scythe, and a gisarme and it's simplest form is a pruning hook on a shaft. I'd rather have a spear than either of these. |
Let's not underestimate the "peasant" weapons. A war scythe (with the blade positioned to lie along the same line as the shaft) is virtually as good as a spear except that it also had a long and wicked cutting edge, while if you've seen tree limbs being lopped off with a billhook you'd certainly wince when you see a war bill (at the end of a long shaft) going towards you--or past you!
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Funny though, all one on one sparring that I have seen has the spear used in two hands. |
Because that's the method for which we have solidly documented techniques? I don't think I've seen spear-and-shield techniques in any manual apart from Marozzo's target and partisan (?) plays, while plays for the short spear are all over late medieval and early Renaissance manuals. However, these short spear techniques are knightly techniques (so to say) and may not necessarily be representative of the methods used with the longer spears commonly encountered among non-chivalric troops--for one thing, the short spear lacks the reach of the 8- to 12-foot commoners' spear but is much more manoeuvrable for striking with both ends.
|
|
  |
 |
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Thu 17 May, 2012 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Does Xenophon mention any fighting techniques for spear and shield?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 17 May, 2012 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I don't think so. As far as I remember, the only manual he wrote was for cavalry tactics.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 17 May, 2012 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gregg/ Timo
1) I prefer to stand left foot/hand forward at most times. This gives better defence against rushing swordsmen, but worse angle for attacking. With head hits, however, you can easily make fast thrusts from any direction and bypass the opponents defence.
Moving towards the shield side is safer, as it forces the opponent to turn to follow you. Moving to the sword side can generate openings, but promts blocks and counterattacks from your foe.
At the end of the day, anything that keeps him in place so that you can thrust at him without exposing yourself to danger is good.
2)The butt spike is only really usefull on a very short two handed pole. On a full size spear, lifting the weapon to turn simply takes to long time. You are better off trying to shorten your grip or going for a backup weapon.
Some polearms, like polaxes, are often held cue forward because the heavy head makes it to sluggish to block thrusts. On such a weapon a spike would be handy.
3) My experience with bad ground is that it favours pole weapons. As all movement is hindered, combat becomes more static, and the spear has more time to hack at people that can not strike back. Should the swordsman decide to rush, the spearman has ample time to produce his backup weapon, or shorten his grip.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
  |
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Thu 17 May, 2012 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Does Xenophon mention any fighting techniques for spear and shield? |
Only vaguely, in that he has a character opine that every boy understands how to strike with something in their right arm and defend with something on their left, so training men how to use their weapons is not needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Thu 17 May, 2012 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Gary Teuscher"] | Quote: |
My question here - a serf with a few acres - are this considered "their" lands, since they lease them?
. |
They really didn't lease them, they had to work them, which is the main reason why they didn't go off to war. Someone has to tend the crops, and they normally weren't allowed to leave the land they were bond to. When serfdom began to go out of style, they became tenants, and I assume there must have been free tenant farmers alongside serfs. The system as it was in Scotland up until 1746, was that persons whose immediate lord was the King owed him military service, and in turn those persons required military service from their tenants. So basically military service was part of the rent. England had much earlier abandoned this system where rent was paid in money, and professional soldiers hired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Thu 17 May, 2012 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Funny though, all one on one sparring that I have seen has the spear used in two hands. |
Because that's the method for which we have solidly documented techniques? |
It's also much "better" for one-on-one sparring. A much more effective weapon for one-on-one fighting, anyway. Two-handed gives you fast movement of the point up and down, and sideways, not just fast in the thrust. Fast disengage and renewed attack after a parry/block is what wins often. One-handed, you don't have the leverage. The leverage also helps you play with the opposing weapon. Beat, feint a thrust to draw an over-reacted block, disengage, and thrust and hit.
You'd need adequate armour to get away with it in battle, due to the incoming arrows and javelins etc.
A short spear is fine against a short weapon. Against spear, you want a slightly longer spear. In battle, with almost everybody using spears, a long spear is good. Too long, and not mobile enough. Too short, and you'll get poked by longer spears.
With two-handed spears, you can go longer and still be mobile, due to the leverage. Thus, pikes.
Some people will fight two-handed because that's documented, but some will fight two-handed because it is better one-on-one.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 18 May, 2012 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | They really didn't lease them, they had to work them, which is the main reason why they didn't go off to war. |
Well, they paid rents, and usually a combination of that and being required to work the lords lands as well.
The Landowner did not really care if they worked their own lands, as long as they worked his. Of course, if they did not work their own lands they likley could not pay their rents nor survive, but that's another issue.
But in simplist forms, that is a lease, they pay rent and provide work for the right to have their own land to work. Only true difference from a lease - there was not a way for them to "break" this lease in most cases.
| Quote: | | Let's not underestimate the "peasant" weapons. A war scythe (with the blade positioned to lie along the same line as the shaft) is virtually as good as a spear except that it also had a long and wicked cutting edge, while if you've seen tree limbs being lopped off with a billhook you'd certainly wince when you see a war bill (at the end of a long shaft) going towards you--or past you! |
I'm not underestimating the effectiveness of these weapons, Lafayette. They were predessors of the later very effective polearms.
My question though is both of these weapons mentioned seem the type that could have well been improvised weapons as opposed to designed weapons. Having a blacksmith change the lie of a scythe blade or put a pruning hook on a longer pole is different than having weapons designed as such from the get go.
Not that the peasant weapons could not be effective, but a weapon designed for combat would be a better option than having a farm implement improvised to be one.
My real question I guess is were these holders of small amounts of land expected to have (and pay for) true weapons, or was it more expected that when the need came, they would improvise with their farm implements. And it's unclear which of these are expected from the document.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregg Sobocinski
|
| Posted: Fri 18 May, 2012 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks to Timo and Elling for answering my slightly off-topic questions.
I'm enjoying watching this thread progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Fri 18 May, 2012 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Quote: | | They really didn't lease them, they had to work them, which is the main reason why they didn't go off to war. |
Well, they paid rents, and usually a combination of that and being required to work the lords lands as well.
The Landowner did not really care if they worked their own lands, as long as they worked his. Of course, if they did not work their own lands they likley could not pay their rents nor survive, but that's another issue.
But in simplist forms, that is a lease, they pay rent and provide work for the right to have their own land to work. Only true difference from a lease - there was not a way for them to "break" this lease in most cases.
| Quote: | | Let's not underestimate the "peasant" weapons. A war scythe (with the blade positioned to lie along the same line as the shaft) is virtually as good as a spear except that it also had a long and wicked cutting edge, while if you've seen tree limbs being lopped off with a billhook you'd certainly wince when you see a war bill (at the end of a long shaft) going towards you--or past you! |
I'm not underestimating the effectiveness of these weapons, Lafayette. They were predessors of the later very effective polearms.
My question though is both of these weapons mentioned seem the type that could have well been improvised weapons as opposed to designed weapons. Having a blacksmith change the lie of a scythe blade or put a pruning hook on a longer pole is different than having weapons designed as such from the get go.
Not that the peasant weapons could not be effective, but a weapon designed for combat would be a better option than having a farm implement improvised to be one.
My real question I guess is were these holders of small amounts of land expected to have (and pay for) true weapons, or was it more expected that when the need came, they would improvise with their farm implements. And it's unclear which of these are expected from the document. |
the thing is that improvised weapons can be surprisingly effective.
i mean, as mentioned, broadaxes for stripping bark and shaving timbers were thin bladed and could probably slice flesh as well as any purpose made war-axe...
of course, a weapon designed to be such either for hunting, or for war, from the get go is always going to have some advantages, since it will invariably be designed with te consideration of overcoming shields maybe.
as for 2 handed use of spears, the asian continent provides a good legacy of techniques namely the qiang of china and the sojutsu techniques of japan.
also as ive showcased a few times in other threads. numerous historical precedents show that a shield can be used, in formation at least, while still wielding a 2 handed spear, although admittedly most of these men are pike bearers
though byzantine menavlion bearers were meant to be highly mobile 'flying squads being moved to help reeinforce hotspots, they had a very stout 8ft or so spear with a quite long head, which was specified as being quite stout, possibly even being made directly from a tree sapling rather than a pole cut from a board. and a shield as well, the shield is specified as being smaller than the pikemans shields which we believe to be kite shields or a similar design.
so what we have ais a man with a big spear, and a shield, used as heavy skirmishers, clearly it must have worked..
also i suggest when talking about improvised weapons compared to purpose built ones, look at this
http://www.china-tour.cn/images/Chinese-Arts/Ge.jpg
this is a chinese Ge, translated as dagger axe it was the standard infantry polarm of chinese armies at least up until the han dynasty, and maybe even later than that, it was designed to make scything hooks and pickaxe like piercing blows
but had no thrusting point.
untill it was usually transformed into the Ji, or halberd when the Ge had a thrusting spearhead added to the design
look at that
now look at this
http://stepnoy-sledopyt.narod.ru/pzg/2.jpg its a grape knife maybe a sickle (i think its a grape knife anyway) its the second from the bottom left hand corner with a socket, curved sickle-like blade and small rectangular protrusion, near the back of the blade at the top
its from a slavic hillfort along the don river in the area around the north coast of the black sea an area roamed by the khazarsand dated to roughly the 10th-11th century i think.
one is an agricultural tool found in a 11th century AD hillfort, the other is a purpose built weapon probably from the warring states period of about the 3rd century BC, yet very little difference in its essential design characteristics
and both would likely be equally good as each other at hoooking and scyth like attacks and making pickaxe like piercing hits although im not too sure about how big the slavic sickle was. it might be a great deal smaller than the Ge head.
|
|
 |
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Mon 21 May, 2012 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Quote: | | They really didn't lease them, they had to work them, which is the main reason why they didn't go off to war. |
Well, they paid rents, and usually a combination of that and being required to work the lords lands as well.
The Landowner did not really care if they worked their own lands, as long as they worked his. Of course, if they did not work their own lands they likley could not pay their rents nor survive, but that's another issue.
But in simplist forms, that is a lease, they pay rent and provide work for the right to have their own land to work. Only true difference from a lease - there was not a way for them to "break" this lease in most cases.
|
There is no law that land owners have to be heartless. There is also a pretty big difference between a lease and serfdom. I have actually read divers descriptions of serfdom and vassalage, and most seem to imply that one system was in place everywhere all the time. None the less, I believe the corvee and the paying rent in labor existed outside of serfdom.
Also, there is a slight difference between a lease and feudal land tenure. A lease is for a fixed period of time, feudal land tenure is a form of property. That is a farmer could sell the right to work and live on the land and it could be inherited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jun, 2012 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | | Also, there is a slight difference between a lease and feudal land tenure. A lease is for a fixed period of time, feudal land tenure is a form of property. That is a farmer could sell the right to work and live on the land and it could be inherited. |
I've just had the time to read the "sociological" side in this discussion thread and, well, to add my tuppences' worth, leasehold was one of the many forms of land tenure utilised in medieval Europe. The one we've been discussing here, though, is villeinage, which was fairly common but by no means universal; it was just one of several forms of unfree tenure (where the tenant is personally a free man, but the tenure imposes conditions that curbs some of his freedoms--technically, by his voluntary assent!). There were also free tenures like socages, burgages, and whatnot, and the holders of these free tenancies were the class of commoners most likely to have the right and obligation to bear arms (because they were the most likely to have enough property to qualify for military service anyway).
It's complicated. It was always complicated. I strongly recommend Susan Reynolds' Fiefs and Vassals for an excellent overview of the complexities of land tenure in medieval Europe--and a good antidote against the view of a "universal" mode of feudalism that applied in basically the same form throughout the entirety of Europe and the Middle Ages as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin Floyd II
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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