Go to page Previous  1, 2

There are a number of techniques with various weapons that are meant to be done with two hands, though by and large one hand is typically on the reins, with the left hand letting go occassinally. The majority of these techniques, though, are meant to grasp the weapon like a spear, even a sword (i.e. half-sword techniques). Note, though, that the Paulus Kal manuscript illustrates mounted combatants with longswords with long, two handed grips, though clearly they are being used one handed.

http://mdz10.bib-bvb.de/~db/bsb00001840/image...l?seite=30

The third guard of mounted combat (rossfechten) from the anonymous author of the von Danzig treatise is described with two hands:

"Position yourself for it thus: grasp your lance in the middle with both hands and hold it across before you on the saddlebow so that the point remains on your left side, and ride to him in this manner."

And the fifth guard for the sword:

"When you sit upon the horse, then hold your sword with your right hand at the grip and with the left hand gripping the middle of the blade and hold it across before you on your saddle."

Note that you can still hold the reins if necessary in this guard, though the reins will likely be dropped as soon as fighting commences.

And the author also makes this comment:

"...from all three guards youu should come with the left hand to help on the lance if you want more strength." (that is, you should let go of the reins to put both hands on the weapon)

This last part is technically for the lance, though the same could easily be applied to the sword, since it is all within the same art.

Gavin Kisebach wrote:
The illustration of halfswording seems to support the notion of using the horse's inertia in a linear attack, and the notion that heavy armor would be a highly advisable component of this weapon system.


Actually, a number of the mounted combat techniques are meant to be done while the horses are not moving or moving slowly, just as a number are intended to be used as the horses are racing to each other. (and Mair's treatise has a number of things that spring straight from earlier treatises as well, in many cases re-illustrating sections of earlier treatises that are "reborn" in his contemporary style). Here's an example from Sigmund Ringeck of a rather slick technique that won't work if you are charging in full throttle:

"Note, when you come with your left side to his rigth, if he has his sword drawn and moves forth to strike grab his right arm behind the elbow with your left hand. And push him upward while raising your left foot up under his right beneath the stirrup leather, so that he falls. Or, when you have grabbed with your left hand behind his right elbow, hold the arm fast; and grab the pommel of his sword with your right and and so take his sword..."

Regarding armour: Yes, it probably was advisable to wear heavy armour in this style, but the 1467 edition of Talhoffer shows the mounted combatants with no armour at all. So armour wasn't necessarily a given.
Joel Minturn wrote:
That is a nice collection of pics of mounted combat. I'll have to save that for later but one quick question. In tghe picture http://mdz10.bib-bvb.de/~db/bsb00007894/image...;seite=369 is the knight on the right tripping the horse on the left?


I haven't read this section of Mair, and my Latin ability stopped after high school, but I'd say that he almost definately is. This is a technique that crops up in many mounted combat treatises.

Doug Lester wrote:
I don't know if it was one of the pictures from Mair's work or not but reciently I saw a picture of a knight spearing his opponent's horse with his lance. This seems like it would bring the opposing knight down before coming within range of that knight's lance. It would seem also to risk depriving the first knight of his lance because it would either break off in the opponent's horse or he would have to get rid of his lance before his own horse carried him past his target and sweep him from his saddle. Comments?


The horse was a very viable target, and striking or tripping the horse, if possible, was an excellent way of dismounting an opponent. In fact, typing this to Joel Minturn's question, here is a perfect example of a dismounted knight using his lance to trip the oncoming horse. (from the Paulus Kal fechtbuch):

http://mdz10.bib-bvb.de/~db/bsb00001840/image...l?seite=43
Gavin Kisebach wrote:
In order to execute a slashing attack that takes advantage of these factors you would need to ride by your target, which would only be possible if you were at the extreme flank of the opposing force, or if the enemy was in such an open formation that your mounted troops could ride between them.


Ummm...I don't think such instances were that rare. True enough, most large-scale cavalry engagements ended with one side running away before any significant amount of hand-to-hand contact between the two formations. However, there were clearly some engagements where the horsemen did open up lanes and practically ride past each other, and this was the desired mode of engagement when neither side broke before contact. The other mode of engagement--that where both sides faced each other and "fenced" at the halt along the contact front between their formations--deprived both sides of their mobility and seemed to have been more likely to end in the horsemen dismounting and fighting each other on foot (at least if we trust Livy's accounts of Roman cavalry encounters).

Now, back to the original question: I agree with the opinions previously advanced here that going on horseback with a two-handed cutting weapon and actually intending to use it two-handed doesn't really sound like a wise idea, what with the obstruction presented by the horse's rump and neck and all. However, Elling has mentioned the Maciejowski Bible illustrations where horsemen did use two-handed weapons, and I've seen some illustrations by Jacques Callot of 17th-century cavalry battles where some of the cuirassiers were swinging their swords two-handed from a position very similar to the Zornhut. My way of reconciling this discrepancy is by putting forth a theory whereby a man expecting to fight on horseback would mostly prefer to carry weapons that can be used one-handed, but this doesn't rule out the possibility of the same weapon being used two-handed in special circumstances. For example, imagine that you're riding past a mounted enemy enemy and you can strike only one blow during the extremely brief moment of contact. It's easy to imagine that you might want to grab your sword's pommel and swing it two-handed from a Zornhut-like position just for that one particular blow for the sake of both extra power and control. I don't think it'll provide you with much advantage in mechanical terms (as Jeffrey has mentioned already, the horse's forward momentum will probably give you far more power than anything you can add by putting an additional arm to the blow) but swinging the blade this way does give more cathartic pleasure, something that many soldiers desperately crave for in the confusion of a massed battlefield.

(Of course, you'll have to make sure that your whole cut only goes to one side of the horse without crossing its rump of neck--which is why the extra control of the two-handed grip may help with swinging the blade in this particular way.)

But--a very big but--this only applies to an attack while you're riding past the target at high speed. It clearly doesn't apply to the relatively static or low-speed circling engagements that forms the context of most fantasy engagements where two-handed cutting weapons are wielded on horseback, because such (relatively) static engagements would eventually require you to swing your sword through angles where it would stab or cut your horse either on the head or on the rump if you were going to wield it in the usual way you fight with two-handed weapons. Of course you might be able to get around this by relying mostly on thrusts, but not many fantasy characters seem to be aware that you can thrust with your sword on horseback....

And oh, yes, aiming for the horse's saddle-strap is not a very practical idea, espcially if you want to avoid injuring the horse. I'd agree with just about everybody else that it's much more practical to just aim for the horse's belly and/or the rider's leg altogether!
Go to page Previous  1, 2

Page 2 of 2

Jump to:  
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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum