| Author |
Message |
Martin Wallgren
|
 Posted: Mon 05 Feb, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
As you can see, they're fighting halfsword and the shields are only slung on their backs by the guige, so this picture is hardly relevent to this discussion, but I present it here for completeness sake. The text says:
"Merck wo die sunn dem gold oder liechten glantze harnasch nach gaut so sol der schilt vor gan also über windet ain manlicher vechter sinen veyent mit der sunnen hilff der sunnen glantz un dem gold oder in dem liechten schöne | harnasch sendet gemist dar uß in der veyent ougen "
|
I belive the text is talking about the reflections of the sun in the eyes and that one should be aware of the danger in that, or am I wrong?
Swordsman, Archer and Dad
|
|
    |
 |
Martin Wallgren
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Feb, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
@ Mr Hand!
What you describe sounds good. I think it is very simillar to a ward in halfswording where you make a transition from a right low guard with the point to the advesary to a left low with the pommel at the opponent, displacing a thrust or mortstoss. Am I right? The pivoting right step seems to work in this. I just had my girlfrien stab and hack at me with a waister and I had my clipius. It worked pretty well. What I think you mean is that the footwork and turning of your line is essensial, but I could have missunderstood.
This is in line with Master Ringecks advice thet all fechten comes from ringen (wrestling). I would step just the same and ward in the same way against a hammer blow or a hook.
What I have found in my interpretations of the manuals is just that . The same moves work but in different scale for different weapons. Move your feet and you become fast. Try to stand still and fight and you become slow.
Very intressting topic anyways, guys! 
Swordsman, Archer and Dad
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Feb, 2007 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh-
The picture you show from Talhoffer is unclear on how the shields are being used. Specifically the fighter on the right does not look to me like the shield is on by the guige (neither fighter has a guige depicted, or any other straps), and we cannot determine if the fighter on the right is in fact in half-sword. If he is then he has his left hand rather farther up on the sword than is normally depicted.
Additionally plate harness was not normally used with shields at all. Bucklers yes, but not shields. Perhaps small heaters that actually function like bucklers, but still there is virtually nothing in terms of art or manuals to show shields used in harness.
"One of the best tricks you can do is to attack with your sword in a way that causes your opponent to move his body and/or shield in one way, then change the arc of your attack to hit him. . . " This statement makes me think that moving the body around the shield would work better as doing so prevents an overcommitment and the creation of an opening.
Many Viking shields were only 6-8mm thick and probably weighed in around 6-8 lbs for a 32" diameter shield. Your characterization of them as huge and heavy belies the fact that peoples before and after them used bigger, heavier shields i.e. Celtic ovoid, scutum and kite.
Even so, maces, axes etc. weren't heavier than shields. Single hand varieties of mass weapons are typicaly around 3-4 pounds and two-handed, polearm varieties are usually around 5-6 pounds. With shields (not bucklers) usually starting around six pounds and going up from there.
Elling-
I suspect that your point about shields being used differently in mass warfare, formation fighting is quite valid. I hypothesize that until the formation breaks down shields are held in close and not moved much.
However, it is possible that the 'duelling' approach to shield use is useful when formations have broken down and the fight is just a big melee.
Mr. Eversberg-
The primary difference in shield use is curved vs. flat. A curved shield is held against the body but a flat shield is not. This is not dependent on size but on curvature.
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Feb, 2007 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Hand wrote: | | Yes, Harnisfechten and Blossfechten (literally shirt fighting - the English word Blouse is a cognate of the German word Bloss) are quite different. I would expect to see as time goes on, interesting differences in shield use discovered. However, I am certain that these differences will not be at the fundamental level suggested by Hugh. |
I can't agree. Everything about the way Harnischfechten is shown suggests huge differences. I've described several of those. As a further one (or rather an expansion of one I've already mentioned), Harnischfechten allows you to ignore your opponent's weapon any time it's not being driven with intent.
| Quote: | | The difference between stepping off line and rotating the shield to close the line, and moving the shield to meet an attack is immense. Now that we have published material on how shields were actually used, the idea of moving any shield larger than a buckler to meet an incoming attack should offend anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of tempo. |
Except that in practice--against skilled fencers, not just reenactors who don't know any better--it works. The reason it works is that throwing a *forceful* blow--one that can be telling through armor as it had to be in armored sword & shield combat, creates its own tempo problems. And, again, we have *no* published material *anywhere* on armored sword & shield.
| Quote: | | Examples of swords being used in the same way, remaining essentially stationary while the body moves around the sword, abound in early fencing works. Look at the Zwerchau. It is essentially a transition from Vom Tag to Ochs and as such requires the hands to rotate about two to three inches (5-7.5cm) while the body moves around the sword. Yet it is an exceptionally powerful cut. It is fast because the sword hands move hardly at all. Is the Zwerchau easy to redirect around? No. And neither are the similar actions with shields where the hand barely moves in the course of the defence. |
And moving a small, light heater from an Open Guard (my term) where the Dexter edge is facing your opponent to a closed position so that the dexter edge deflects a cut while you pace back and left with your right foot does exactly the same thing, yet it's an active shield block. Fast, powerful (because it hits the blow from the side, not becuse you have to use much force--maybe powerful isn't the right word) and the movement puts you in a highly advantageous position for a thrust.
Likewise, starting in the closed position (shield flat to your body as we see in hundreds of pictures) and opening the shield like a door to slap an attack aside is effortless and fast and certainly less time consuming that relying on stepping into your opponet so you can hit him with your shield. Follow the slap with a step (what I mean here is that just as you follow the blow when you cut by cutting first and beginning your step afterward you begin your block first and step afterward) brings your right side forward and allows you to be in a great position for attacking around your opponent's shield.
| Quote: | | The system of sword and shield use that I outline in my two papers fits perfectly with late medieval and renaissance fencing theory. Moving the shield to intercept blows does not. Images of shield use from periods before the historical manuals are perfectly in keeping with the principles outlined in those manuals. While it is certain that each unique shield type will conceal its own secrets and subtleties, any hypothesis that shields were used radically differently to the documented way must provide some degree of evidence to support it. At very least the alternative system must utilise the principles of fencing laid down in early works (as indeed the historical system does). |
Your article ignores the effect of armor in spite of the fact that medieval manuals made that out ot be a major factor in combat.
| Quote: | | Hugh, to date you have attacked my interpretation but provided no alternative except broad suggestions to slap away attacks with the shield face and edge. This is in effect the equivalent of the simple parries that Lichtenauer and his followers expended so much ink warning against. The presence of harness may change many things but it does not alter the fundamental laws of tempo and measure. If you have any positive evidence to support your interpretation then please present it for scrutiny as I have. |
First, I have not "attacked" anything. I've disagreed in a polite, respectful manner without criticizing your intelligence or knowledge and without using scornful comments.
Second, I don't present a larger system because I don't think the evidence supports one. I believe that may be the biggest point you're missing in my criticism of your papers: I say your system doesn't apply to armored sword & shield because it's very different from unarmored combat in almost every sense, and we know that armored combat is hugely different from unarmored combat from every manual out there that treats of them. I'm not ignoring the fundamental laws of tempo, I'm showing that the circumstances in which they're used is different, and gave as one example the fact that powerful cuts designed to damage someone through armor take longer than the quicker techniques done out of armor. Case in point, in your Silver book you show a block with the sword followed by a riposte to the head, all without pulling the arm back and re-cocking it. Very good, that's a great technique. But when you try that in armor you can't generate nearly enough force to hurt someone in a helmet. Instead, you have to pull your sword into another "charged" postion and cut again. When sword blows have to be done that way you have plenty of time to move your shield in the slapping motions I describe.
As for moving the body behind the shield as you describe, I believe that's mostly intended to guard the body. In armored combat you can't suddenly turn a spent blow into an attack (as I describe above) by just turning your wrist and making a short thrust or a slicing cut as you could out of armor, so you can worry less about being perfectly covered all the time.
As for Liechtenauer, slapping your blocks out doesn't run counter to the Liechtenauer teachings. Yes, he tells you not to use simple parries that don't accomplish anything on their own, but that's with a two-handed weapon where when you only parry you can't also attack. When you have a sword and shield you can parry with the shield *while* you're attacking with the sword, thus you are perfectly in line with Liechtenauer's teachings.
You're asking for a system in reply to yours? I say it can't be done because Harnischfechten and Blossfechten are too different. But I *have* shown ways in which their differences support my arguments for what little of using a shield we can speculate about. And I'm saying that my way of doing two very simply blocks (not a system, notice) match nicely with what we see in the iconography, and that that iconography doesn't suggest moving behind the shield. For another example, use the Lanacelot vs. Marador picture I posted above--not the one you asked for the source for, the one where the blow is hitting the edge of the shield. In it we see what seems to be a third type of defence I haven't described (because the original poster asked about blocking mass weapons and I don't believe this block is good for that purpose): We see the figure on the left raising his shield to block the overhand cut from his opponent. In your system he should have stepped out to one side or the other and let the rotation of his body move his shield in a displacement, but he's not. That alone should show there were other ways of doing things, and we see this type of block very frequently in the iconography.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
 |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Feb, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: | Hugh-
The picture you show from Talhoffer is unclear on how the shields are being used. Specifically the fighter on the right does not look to me like the shield is on by the guige (neither fighter has a guige depicted, or any other straps), and we cannot determine if the fighter on the right is in fact in half-sword. If he is then he has his left hand rather farther up on the sword than is normally depicted. |
Well, the shield on the left must be on a guige because otherwise it's just hanging in space; moreover, you'll find that the guige is, for some reason, often not shown even when it's obviously being used. You're right that we can't know exactly how the sheild on the right is being held. As for how the figure on the left is holding his sword, I believe he has it couched under his arm in the halfsword Fourth Guard. In this guard you put your hilt inder your arm and use that to help you push into a mail-covered target. Typically the Fourth Guard is only used once your poitn is in place on your target, so I don't know why it's shown here that way, but I'm at a loss for what else this could be since we actually see the pommel of the sword under his right armpit. Please note, however, that I only posted this link for completeness' sake since it's clearly depicting another kind of fighting than that which we're discussing.
| Quote: | | Additionally plate harness was not normally used with shields at all. Bucklers yes, but not shields. Perhaps small heaters that actually function like bucklers, but still there is virtually nothing in terms of art or manuals to show shields used in harness. |
I'm sorry, but that's not the case. I will post a picture of sword & shield being used in plate armor. It is one of many such that I have seen. The shield continued to be used throught the 14h century in spite of the fact that after the first quarter of the century most high-end knights had more or less full plate armor (often of the coat-of-plates construction, it's true, but against a sword swing every bit as effective). The shield was falling out of favor during this time because they came to realize that good armor obviated the need for a shield and that two-handed weapons were more effecive, but you still see sword & shield used a lot in the iconography.
| Quote: | | "One of the best tricks you can do is to attack with your sword in a way that causes your opponent to move his body and/or shield in one way, then change the arc of your attack to hit him. . . " This statement makes me think that moving the body around the shield would work better as doing so prevents an overcommitment and the creation of an opening. |
You throw a cut in such a way as to imply one target, but change it in mid-swing to one that will be open when your opponent blocks. Many times this can be done without even moving the feet and without even leaving the guard you're in. Stepping *can* be used in the middle of the play, too, but doesn't have to be.
| Quote: | | Many Viking shields were only 6-8mm thick and probably weighed in around 6-8 lbs for a 32" diameter shield. Your characterization of them as huge and heavy belies the fact that peoples before and after them used bigger, heavier shields i.e. Celtic ovoid, scutum and kite. |
All I meant was that they were larger, and therfore heavier, than a later-period heater. I also specified center grip because in playing with them I have found that center-grip shields simply don't respond as well or as quickly and surely as one with enarmes. For all I know, this may make Stephen's techniques work very well with Viking shields.
| Quote: | | Even so, maces, axes etc. weren't heavier than shields. Single hand varieties of mass weapons are typicaly around 3-4 pounds and two-handed, polearm varieties are usually around 5-6 pounds. With shields (not bucklers) usually starting around six pounds and going up from there. |
You're correct, excuse me. I was trying to point out that mass weapons were proportionately heavier than swords in relation to shield weight, and I didn't say that well. Thank you for the correction. I have my doubts about the weight of shields, however: if a 32" viking round shield with a metal boss and reinforcements (as the what is it? Boksten shield?) weighs a minumum of 6 lbs. then a 24-26" heater with no metal reinforcements (and that's fairly typical) and signifcantly less surface area (since it's not round) should weigh less. Still, this isn't important--all I was saying was that mass weapons are proportionately heavier than swords. They also handle very differently because of the distribution of mass. A sword will weigh around 2.5 lbs with the point of balance only a few inches from the cross. An axe that weighs 3 lbs. will have a point of balance only slightly below the head; this makes for very different handling.
 Attachment: 11.27 KB
Full armor with sword & shield
Attachment: 11.27 KB
Full armor with sword & shield
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Feb, 2007 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Wallgren wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: |
As you can see, they're fighting halfsword and the shields are only slung on their backs by the guige, so this picture is hardly relevent to this discussion, but I present it here for completeness sake. The text says:
"Merck wo die sunn dem gold oder liechten glantze harnasch nach gaut so sol der schilt vor gan also über windet ain manlicher vechter sinen veyent mit der sunnen hilff der sunnen glantz un dem gold oder in dem liechten schöne | harnasch sendet gemist dar uß in der veyent ougen "
|
I belive the text is talking about the reflections of the sun in the eyes and that one should be aware of the danger in that, or am I wrong? |
I don't know, but if you could help with that translation I'd be very appreciative. I have had a very difficult time translating this book since I don't speak German. I could translate most of the technique plates because they are similar to those I already understand in other manuals, but the first part of the book contains large paragraphs of material in a very difficult dialect--Swabian, as I understand it.
Thank you for your insight, this will help me to work on the translation.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Wallgren
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Feb, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | The text says:
"Merck wo die sunn dem gold oder liechten glantze harnasch nach gaut so sol der schilt vor gan also über windet ain manlicher vechter sinen veyent mit der sunnen hilff der sunnen glantz un dem gold oder in dem liechten schöne | harnasch sendet gemist dar uß in der veyent ougen "
|
I get this much - "Notice how the golden sun easely glance/touch the armor so step so that the sun is parted from him and over turn manly vechter sinen (ths i dont realy understand) the way with the sun and help the sun (to) strike/glance/touch on the gold or with the light beutiful | the armor then sends it onto the way to the eyes"
Rougly translated with my Swedish/Swabian linguality. But that´s seems to be the general idea at least.[/i]
Swordsman, Archer and Dad
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Feb, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Wallgren wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: | The text says:
"Merck wo die sunn dem gold oder liechten glantze harnasch nach gaut so sol der schilt vor gan also über windet ain manlicher vechter sinen veyent mit der sunnen hilff der sunnen glantz un dem gold oder in dem liechten schöne | harnasch sendet gemist dar uß in der veyent ougen "
|
I get this much - "Notice how the golden sun easely glance/touch the armor so step so that the sun is parted from him and over turn manly vechter sinen (ths i dont realy understand) the way with the sun and help the sun (to) strike/glance/touch on the gold or with the light beutiful | the armor then sends it onto the way to the eyes"
Rougly translated with my Swedish/Swabian linguality. But that´s seems to be the general idea at least.[/i] |
Thanks, Martin, that'll make my work a lot easier, I'm sure. I really appreciate your help.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hand
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Feb, 2007 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | Stephen's approach is quite interesting, and I'll certainly try it out.
However, it is clearly a mode of fighting suited for dueling, but not for the field. Practically, you are focusing your defence on a single opponent, which, in a larger fight, means that you are going to be turned into swis cheese by the opponent's spears and polearms. |
Indeed Marozzo makes just this distinction. He holds his rotella with the edge towards a single opponent but flat against the body against multiple opponents, particularly pole arms. In my first Spada paper I noted the difference between depictions of shields in duels or open combat and depictions of close combat between units. In the latter the shield is almost invariably held close to the body, face forward.
Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield
Stoccata School of Defence
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hand
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Feb, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| M. Eversberg II wrote: | | I'd like to ask if bucklers are shields moved to |intercept| an incoming blow? We've established that larger shileds are held to the body and are used to "remove" that area as a target. |
Larger shields aren't generally held to the body. By far the most common stance shown in artwork, and the stance in which combatants commence in all of the fencing manuals has the shield edge directed at the opponent's left shoulder, closing the line of attack to the combatant's left side.
Bucklers were sometimes moved to intercept incoming blows, but certainly in the systems I've studied the primary means of defence was, as with large shields, moving the body off line around the buckler and moving the buckler as little as possible.
Cheers
Stephen
Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield
Stoccata School of Defence
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hand
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Feb, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Wallgren wrote: | @ Mr Hand!
What you describe sounds good. I think it is very simillar to a ward in halfswording where you make a transition from a right low guard with the point to the advesary to a left low with the pommel at the opponent, displacing a thrust or mortstoss. Am I right? |
Dear Martin,
I don't do much longsword, but I'm presuming that you're referring to something like the technique shown in figure 20.4c of Christian Tobler's Fighting with the German Longsword? Note how in this technique the right hand moves significantly but the left hand simply rotates. If I'd parried in an Inside Ward (so my shield was closing my Inside Line - i.e. facing to the right) and I was attacked on the Outside (to my shield side). I would slope pace forward and right and rotate my hand much as Christian is doing in this figure. This would face my shield to the left and close the Outside Line. It's all shown in detail in my two papers.
Cheers
Stephen
Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield
Stoccata School of Defence
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Wallgren
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Hand wrote: | | Martin Wallgren wrote: | @ Mr Hand!
What you describe sounds good. I think it is very simillar to a ward in halfswording where you make a transition from a right low guard with the point to the advesary to a left low with the pommel at the opponent, displacing a thrust or mortstoss. Am I right? |
Dear Martin,
I don't do much longsword, but I'm presuming that you're referring to something like the technique shown in figure 20.4c of Christian Tobler's Fighting with the German Longsword? Note how in this technique the right hand moves significantly but the left hand simply rotates. If I'd parried in an Inside Ward (so my shield was closing my Inside Line - i.e. facing to the right) and I was attacked on the Outside (to my shield side). I would slope pace forward and right and rotate my hand much as Christian is doing in this figure. This would face my shield to the left and close the Outside Line. It's all shown in detail in my two papers.
Cheers
Stephen |
Exactly! I´ve got it. We are talking about the same movement. Thanx!
Swordsman, Archer and Dad
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Wallgren
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Martin Wallgren wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: | The text says:
"Merck wo die sunn dem gold oder liechten glantze harnasch nach gaut so sol der schilt vor gan also über windet ain manlicher vechter sinen veyent mit der sunnen hilff der sunnen glantz un dem gold oder in dem liechten schöne | harnasch sendet gemist dar uß in der veyent ougen "
|
I get this much - "Notice how the golden sun easely glance/touch the armor so step so that the sun is parted from him and over turn manly vechter sinen (ths i dont realy understand) the way with the sun and help the sun (to) strike/glance/touch on the gold or with the light beutiful | the armor then sends it onto the way to the eyes"
Rougly translated with my Swedish/Swabian linguality. But that´s seems to be the general idea at least.[/i] |
Thanks, Martin, that'll make my work a lot easier, I'm sure. I really appreciate your help. |
Your wellcome! A slight editing in my translation must be made though. Now when I´ve slept on it I think that it should be more like this.
- "Notice how the golden sun or sparks/lightning/flashes glance/touch the armor so step so that the sun is parted from him and over turn manly vechter sinen (this I don´t realy understand but could be out of the way) the way with the golden sun and help the sun or sparks/lightning/flashes to strike/glance/touch or with the light beutiful | the armor then sends it onto the way to the eyes"
Swordsman, Archer and Dad
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reinier van Noort
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Wallgren wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: | The text says:
"Merck wo die sunn dem gold oder liechten glantze harnasch nach gaut so sol der schilt vor gan also über windet ain manlicher vechter sinen veyent mit der sunnen hilff der sunnen glantz un dem gold oder in dem liechten schöne | harnasch sendet gemist dar uß in der veyent ougen "
|
- "Notice how the golden sun or sparks/lightning/flashes glance/touch the armor so step so that the sun is parted from him and over turn manly vechter sinen (this I don´t really understand but could be out of the way) the way with the golden sun and help the sun or sparks/lightning/flashes to strike/glance/touch or with the light beautiful | the armor then sends it onto the way to the eyes" |
First post here. Perhaps I can help out.
veyent is very similar to the dutch word vijand, which means enemy.
I'd say he's telling you to use the reflection of the sun on your armour or shield to blind the enemy... Some help from a native german would be best but this is what I can make of it.
Notice where the sun (on/from) the gold or the light shiny armour {nach gaut; goes?} so will the shield go first/forward/in front (don't know exactly here), and beats/conquers/overturns a manly fighter his enemy with the suns help the suns shine on the gold or in the light beautiful | armour send {gemist dar uß} in the enemy's eyes.[/i]
School voor Historische Schermkunsten
www.bruchius.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Evans
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Hand wrote: | | ..... By the way, Viking shields were very thin and surprisingly light. Another problem with re-enactment combat that I've seen is that people are hesitant to make shields as light as they were because the shields don't last long. Historically it seems people looked at shields much as we might look at an airbag in a car, as something that they didn't mind seeing destroyed if it meant they were still alive. Stephen |
I'd suggest looking at Table 2 on the following web site http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/...html#Table The table suggest that shields found from 18 sites were between 0.4cm to 3.5cm for the board and grip.
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hand
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | I say your system doesn't apply to armored sword & shield because it's very different from unarmored combat in almost every sense, and we know that armored combat is hugely different from unarmored combat from every manual out there that treats of them. I'm not ignoring the fundamental laws of tempo, I'm showing that the circumstances in which they're used is different, and gave as one example the fact that powerful cuts designed to damage someone through armor take longer than the quicker techniques done out of armor. Case in point, in your Silver book you show a block with the sword followed by a riposte to the head, all without pulling the arm back and re-cocking it. Very good, that's a great technique. But when you try that in armor you can't generate nearly enough force to hurt someone in a helmet. Instead, you have to pull your sword into another "charged" postion and cut again. When sword blows have to be done that way you have plenty of time to move your shield in the slapping motions I describe. |
Let's analyse what you've said here. You say that you don't violate the fundamental laws of tempo and then proceed to suggest that to fence sorrectly in armour you must do precisely that! A tempo is a window of time within which an action can occur. The most fundamental law of tempo in all martial arts is that if you create a window of time which your opponent can use to hit you, then he is likely to do so...so don't do it. The archetypical violation of the laws of tempo is the withdrawal of the arms within distance. If you pull back your arms you create a massive window of time in which you can be hit. Many masters warn against it and none recommend it.
Hugh you've said a lot about fighting in armour being different to fighting unarmoured. Certainly there are large differences, but let's look at what the masters recommend in terms of tempo. You state that "you have to pull your sword into another "charged" position and cut again" and state that "sword blows HAVE to be done that way" (my emphasis). No master recommends this, or indeed anything remotely like this. In armoured fighting in both German and Italian systems the primary weapon, the longsword is used gripped in both hands, like a short spear. These guards allow you to deliver powerful attacks without drawing back the arms and offering the opponent a tempo. Tempo is dealt with in identical fashion in armour as it is out of armour. The masters no more recommend offering a tempo to an opponent in armour than out. It is potentially just as fatal a mistake.
So, you do violate the fundamental laws of tempo. You claim that you can create a tempo in defence because the attacker must create one in offence. This is completely false and is contradicted by the armoured combat instructions of both German and Italian systems which strive just as assiduously not to offer the opponent a tempo in armoured fighting as elsewhere. Even if it were permissable to offer a tempo in offence, why would that make it acceptable to offer one in defence. The argument of "my opponent has made a mistake so I can make one too" is a logical fallacy.
| Quote: | | As for Liechtenauer, slapping your blocks out doesn't run counter to the Liechtenauer teachings. Yes, he tells you not to use simple parries that don't accomplish anything on their own, but that's with a two-handed weapon where when you only parry you can't also attack. When you have a sword and shield you can parry with the shield *while* you're attacking with the sword, thus you are perfectly in line with Liechtenauer's teachings. |
The Liechtenauer system contains a significant amount of sword and buckler. Please show me an instance where the buckler is used to make a simple parry while the sword attacks and the guy doing it doesn't immediately get killed? The I.33 system which uses many of the same principles as Liechtenauer is so adamant that parrying with the buckler alone is a tactical mistake that it doesn't even bother to finish sequences where one combatant has separated sword and buckler, it just says that the fight is over. It's nothing to do with one handed or two handed. Simple parries are simply not part of German swordsmanship.
Can you honestly not see how completely out of line with the Liechtenauer system simple shield parries are and how completely in line with the system closure of the line by moving the body around the shield is? This is the difficulty of discussing this with you. My first reaction upon reading your posts is to question whether you honestly believe what you're writing - that you're not violating tempo, just drawing back the arms within distance, the most heinous violation of tempo possible etc.
We have historical systems of shield use described. Essentially the same system is described in two different national systems, using very different shaped shields, one held with a centre grip, the other with enarmes. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the addition of armour changes the way a shield should be used at such a basic level as to break the fundamental rules of timing of all fighting, armed, unarmed, armoured and unarmoured. There are no doubt some very interesting nuances of armoured shield fighting that we could be exploring. Unfortunately while we're stuck debating the most basic fundamentals our chances of discovering these nuances are nil.
Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield
Stoccata School of Defence
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hand
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've looked at that site many times. The author, Peter Beatson is a friend of mine. The numbers need to be looked at carefully as the measurements are not always of the same thing. The 0.4cm measurement is of a shield edge and may have been thinner than the majority of the shield. The higher measurements are from rivets that passed through the shield board AND the shield grip, so for instance the Valsgarde 1 shield board thickness was 0.6cm while the board and grip thickness was 4cm.
As Peter concludes, "The Planks were usually only 6-10mm thick and were bevelled even thinner at the outer edge".
Shields constructed using historical thicknesses work beautifully using the historically documented system.
Stephen Hand
Editor, Spada, Spada II
Author of English Swordsmanship, Medieval Sword and Shield
Stoccata School of Defence
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is quite posible to divide the sword and shield when using large shields, under a given set of cirumstances.
First of all, you need to provide a effective "passive defence" with your shield. In unarmoured combat this is hard to do with a shield that is smaller than 80-90 cm in height, as your opponent can drop under your shield .
Second, you need to make your opponent miss his intended target, which you most efficiently do by moving behind the shield, much as stephen describes, but with a more closed guard, and moving towards the opponent.
At the same time, strike at your opponent so that the path of your sword covers you. Typically a blow to the side of the head with the blade sloping downwards, or a thrust executed in the same fashion.
If you miss, simply move away.
With large shields, unlike bucklers or longswords, you can not hit the opponent from any position of the sword. There is a gap of time (or Tempo, as it seems the terminology goes) where one moves the sword to a position where one can efficiently attack.
However, smaller shield, like the rotella does not have this advantage to the same degree; They are easier to fall under, and are thus more reliant on footwork and active defence.
Armoured fighters are also effectively imune to drawcuts, and thus can ignore this threat to a large degree; thus, as armour becomes more common, heaters shrink.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Hand wrote: | | Let's analyse what you've said here. You say that you don't violate the fundamental laws of tempo and then proceed to suggest that to fence sorrectly in armour you must do precisely that! A tempo is a window of time within which an action can occur. The most fundamental law of tempo in all martial arts is that if you create a window of time which your opponent can use to hit you, then he is likely to do so...so don't do it. The archetypical violation of the laws of tempo is the withdrawal of the arms within distance. If you pull back your arms you create a massive window of time in which you can be hit. Many masters warn against it and none recommend it. |
You can do it because you have your shield for defense while you're doing it, and you *must* do it to charge your blows to give them enough power to land or you won't have any effect through armor. You can't cut, then leave your sword out there and just turn your hand for a slice, you have to cut, then cock your weapon (and it doesn't have to be back, by the way--I'm very surprised you don't know that) so you can attack another area. Moreover, you can use footwork to give you distance with which to cock your blows; I never said you *only* defend with your shield, nor did I say you always cock while in range.
| Quote: | | Hugh you've said a lot about fighting in armour being different to fighting unarmoured. Certainly there are large differences, but let's look at what the masters recommend in terms of tempo. You state that "you have to pull your sword into another "charged" position and cut again" and state that "sword blows HAVE to be done that way" (my emphasis). No master recommends this, or indeed anything remotely like this. In armoured fighting in both German and Italian systems the primary weapon, the longsword is used gripped in both hands, like a short spear. These guards allow you to deliver powerful attacks without drawing back the arms and offering the opponent a tempo. Tempo is dealt with in identical fashion in armour as it is out of armour. The masters no more recommend offering a tempo to an opponent in armour than out. It is potentially just as fatal a mistake. |
No master says anything about hitting someone in armor with a one-handed sword while using a shield, Stephen. That's my point. I argue it's fundamentally different. Comparisons with halfsword don't mean anything because we're not halfswording here. When using halfsword your attacking weapon and your shield are the same thing--a sword. When you're fighting sword and shield your attacking weapon is your sword and your defending weapon is your shield (of course, there are occasions when the right timing might allow you to block with your sword while you're striking with your shield, but while this seems to work well in practice I can find no evidence for it).
| Quote: | | So, you do violate the fundamental laws of tempo. You claim that you can create a tempo in defence because the attacker must create one in offence. This is completely false and is contradicted by the armoured combat instructions of both German and Italian systems which strive just as assiduously not to offer the opponent a tempo in armoured fighting as elsewhere. Even if it were permissable to offer a tempo in offence, why would that make it acceptable to offer one in defence. The argument of "my opponent has made a mistake so I can make one too" is a logical fallacy. |
It's not about making a mistake, it's about the mechanics of what you have to do to hit a one-handed sword hard enough into an armored target to cause concussive damage combined with having a shield you can use to defend yourself. This gives you more freedom of action. Quoting the German and Italian masters doesn't have any meaning here because none of them discuss this and because it's inherently different, as I said, from what they do talk about. And this doesn't require you to violate any "universal" notions of tempo, it just solves the tempo problem a different way.
| Quote: | | The Liechtenauer system contains a significant amount of sword and buckler. Please show me an instance where the buckler is used to make a simple parry while the sword attacks and the guy doing it doesn't immediately get killed? The I.33 system which uses many of the same principles as Liechtenauer is so adamant that parrying with the buckler alone is a tactical mistake that it doesn't even bother to finish sequences where one combatant has separated sword and buckler, it just says that the fight is over. It's nothing to do with one handed or two handed. Simple parries are simply not part of German swordsmanship. |
So far as I know the Liechtenauer system doesn't show any such, but that's because the Liechtenauer system is *unarmored*. In an unarmored system of combat a buckler isn't as much a shield (although it can do that in conjunction with your sword, etc., as you know as well as I) as it is a gauntlet, with most defensive actions being made with the sword while the buckler protects your hands. When I look at Paul Wagner's book on Silver I see that the buckler *is* used for defensive actions on its own (away from the sword, that is) because the sword is equipped with a basket hilt--a kind of armor.
Moreover, in unarmored combat your opponent can make very subtle, quick motions of his sword to attack you, even from a spent position, e.g., a thrust from a spent position such as you show in yoru new Silver book where all you do is turn your wrist after a block and move your point a few inches (forgive me if I'm using the word "spent" in the wrong way, I know that in Silver's system it has a very precise meaning, but I hope you understand what I mean) to make a thrust. In armored combat you can't do that because you have to overcome armor with your attack, and subtle, almost delicate motions of the hand and wrist won't do that. That changes the dynamic of combat dramatically.
By using a shield and sword at the same time (but not together) you can accomplish precisely the same thing the German masters call for. They say not to make simple defenses because they want you to be attacking, and any defense that doesn't attack gives your opponent time to take the Vor and put you on the defensive. But with armored sword & shield you can defend with the shield *while* you're attacking with the sword, thus you are still in the Vor. In essence, you are making single-time actions just like Zwerchau or Shielhau, it's just that one hand does the defense while the other does the offense. It's quite easy to do, actually.
| Quote: | | Can you honestly not see how completely out of line with the Liechtenauer system simple shield parries are and how completely in line with the system closure of the line by moving the body around the shield is? This is the difficulty of discussing this with you. My first reaction upon reading your posts is to question whether you honestly believe what you're writing - that you're not violating tempo, just drawing back the arms within distance, the most heinous violation of tempo possible etc. |
As I explained above, what I suggest is perfectly within the ideals of the German shool: Single-time actions designed to take and hold the Vor. Liechtenauer would have loved it. Moreover, all I proposed when we started this was a couple of blocks. How did pulling your arm back get to be one of the issues here?
And as for tempo violations, pulling your sword back in distance happens all the time in German combat: Consider the Zucken or twitch in halfsword combat (it happens in all kinds of situations, but let's just discuss this one): In this technique you have lunged into your opponent with a halfsword thrust at some target and he has parried your thrust with a powerful motion of his sword, so you immediately pull your sword back and under his and attack him to another location. The reason you can get away with doing this is that he used too much force in his parry and you take advantage of the time it would take him to pull back to parry again to cock your weapon for another attack. That means that pulling your weapon back in distance isn't a "universal law of tempo" but rather something that can only be done when something has happened so that you are safe to do so. So much for violating any universal laws of tempo.
| Quote: | | We have historical systems of shield use described. Essentially the same system is described in two different national systems, using very different shaped shields, one held with a centre grip, the other with enarmes. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the addition of armour changes the way a shield should be used at such a basic level as to break the fundamental rules of timing of all fighting, armed, unarmed, armoured and unarmoured. There are no doubt some very interesting nuances of armoured shield fighting that we could be exploring. Unfortunately while we're stuck debating the most basic fundamentals our chances of discovering these nuances are nil. |
You keep saying that we have "historical systems of shield use described" and that armored fighting wasn't that different from unarmored. Stephen, I've explained to you how armored fighting changes the very nature of shield combat and you keep saying "but it's not in the rules of tempo" in spite of my showing how it can be done as single-time techniques. The fact is that there are no manuals that cover armored sword & shield combat. Another fact is that armor changes the very nature of combat in profound ways--if it didn't, later masters wouldn't have done halfsword in armor, they'd have just done unarmored longsword. And the last, and I do mean last, fact is that what I argued solves the problems of armored sword & shield combat every bit as safely as your version does, and it does so with faster, surer techniques that allow you to defend with quick motions of your hand rather than taking the time to move your entire body for your defense--doing that will get you killed by feints, I promise.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Reinier van Noort wrote: |
First post here. Perhaps I can help out.
veyent is very similar to the dutch word vijand, which means enemy.
I'd say he's telling you to use the reflection of the sun on your armour or shield to blind the enemy... Some help from a native german would be best but this is what I can make of it.
Notice where the sun (on/from) the gold or the light shiny armour {nach gaut; goes?} so will the shield go first/forward/in front (don't know exactly here), and beats/conquers/overturns a manly fighter his enemy with the suns help the suns shine on the gold or in the light beautiful | armour send {gemist dar uß} in the enemy's eyes.[/i] |
Thank you Reinier, that helps!
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic