| Author |
Message |
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
 Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 9:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hugh I need to quote a few things in your book, while keeping in mind that you strongly recommend the spike over the blade axe...
On page 32-33 of your book Hugh, it states "If the instructor admits to mixing different styles(other than the german school and Le Jeu, which are clearly matched), adding new things to make them better, I would suggest moving on."
This can reasonably be applied to the instruments used by the instructor. Thus, can one truly say that practicing with a blade vs spiked axe is better or worse? Is it changing the entire dynamics of the techniques? Then this raises the next quote from your book...
You further state on page 7-8 that, "it seems likely that in single combat the blade side of the axe, which is usually quite pointed at the ends in extant examples, fullfilled the same primary role as the hook or spike on axes shown in the fechtbuecher: to hook parts of the opponent's weapon or anatomy." If the spiked axe and the bladed axe can perform the same techniques as each other, then why the lengthy argument that has arisen?
Hugh, another quote from your book; on page 4, "Le Jeu is also one of the most logically structured of the fechtbuecher. ...' 'The first section deals with..., the fourth with situations in which the center of the axe is presented" Is this fourth portion the axe head, or in between the hammer and spike? If it is the blade then you can see what I am reffering to, if it is between the hammer and spike then I am mis-interpting this portion.
On page 6-7 the paragrapgh says "Most fechtbuecher show or imply axes with a hammer head and spike, while most of the medieval non-fechtbuch iconography shows pollaxes with axe blades and hammers"
If most Icongraphy shows bladed and hammer versions, while most fechtbuch's show hammer and spike combinations and your argument is that "training should specifically be done with what a fechtmeister illustrated" On page 8 you mention a "theory" that only persons with money use spike/hammer axes since they could afford to be taught by a fechtmeister. Though again this is theory and not fact. This raises questions that cannot be answered.
Now considering Non-fechtbuch iconography; Was the bladed axe perffer'd in war time over the hammer/spike axe? Could the bladed axe have a wider range of use in war? Are there any... any pictures of the wealthy in war with a spike and hammer pollaxe? there are even more questions that can be raised regarding the subject.
I do like the book in that from my view point you present both sides of an issue, you may show preference towards one side of an issue (Such as the one on this thread), though the book does not come across to me as bias.
One can conclude that preference played a role that is not being consider'd here.
(A)I like a spike.
(B)I like my bladed axe.
(A)I can puncture a hole in armor and kill my opponet in war with that spike.
(B) I'd rather take my opponet hostage and hold him ransom, rather than your hammer and spike combination that will likely kill; my axe and hammer can stun my opponet long enough to take him captive. Now I can make some money....
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
Last edited by Christopher VaughnStrever on Thu 07 Jan, 2010 9:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
  |
 |
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Thank you, gentlemen, I'm very glad you're finding the book useful, or at least interesting. How far have you gotten? Are you into any of the techniques proper, and if so, how are you finding the directions? One of the biggest challenges in a book such as this is to take something you know very well how to do and have done many, many, times, and then write down everything someone would need to know who has never seen it before; it's too easy to take a lot of little things for granted. |
I am through page 55 of which I have learned up through the Unterschlag. I feel that I am performing the techniques properly in that I spent a day towards stance, and a second day practicing those three sets of footwork and then another day on gripping the axe and the guards. I find the directions very beneficial and as I have not known a single thing about any martial art until now, I have been able to understand the directions 100% Your subject on true and false time helped a ton! The detailed photos and explanations are more than helpful. I am currently under the challenge of learning length and measure.
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sander Marechal wrote: | | Christopher VaughnStrever wrote: | | Ok, here are the others... actually about 24 or so words, but this will be all and I wont bug you at all... for at least a few months. |
Your words included both German and French words. Here goes.
German:
|
Sander,
Thank you so much for this! You have my gratitude.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
 |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hugh,
Please don't put words in my mouth.
I agreed that it wasn't worth arguing about 11093. Unlike you however, I find it *very* useful, and I stand by my analysis of it, save for the possibility of the groin thrust, as you've suggested. I've used 11093 in books and in my forthcoming poleaxe video. |
I'm sorry, Christian, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth, I thought you had come to understand the limited value of Codex 11093. I'll explain it one last time.
The first picture shows two figures in static poses (by which I merely mean we don't know what they're going to do next). Ralph (the one on the right) has either just made a low thrust *or* he has just done a foolishly long strike well past his valid targets; we can't tell which, but we'll assume he's not stupid and assume the former. Larry (the one on the left) has either displaced the thrust or voided the strike. We can't tell which. In either case, at *best* we see a displacement here. That's it. That's not a play, not a technique, it's a displacement, and one seen in most sources; without showing what happens next it's not a technique. :::Yawn::: No value.
The second plate shows Larry cocked back for the worst, most foolish strike that it's possible to make with a pollaxe. Ralph appears to be preparing to displace it with a vertical shaft. Again, no technique, merely the displacement of a foolish technique, and other sources give us *plenty* of information about displacements. No value at all.
The third plate shows that Larry has either struck with his mail, or else he's thrust with his dague; we really have no way to know which it is. Ralph is either doing a backhanded displacement with his queue *or* he's been snookered out of place so Larry can strike. Useless, since we don't know what we're being shown, and again, it's *still* just a displacement or a fake. Boring.
The fourth plate shows some kind of a hook with the taillent. This is useful because it supports my contention about what the taillent is really used for in single combat, but we can't tell who's "winning" in the plate, so we can't decipher the technique. Are we being shown a successful hook or a counter to one? Without text it's not possible to know. So not boring, but not terribly valuable, either.
The fifth plate either shows Larry making a foolishly low swing or, *far* more likely, a thrust which Ralph is displacing with his sword's point a la Talhoffer 1443. Not bad, but a.) we already know about that displacement from other sources, and, b.) it's *still* just a displacement--and not even one for the pollaxe, at that. Truthfully, this shouldn't even count as a pollaxe play since it's really showing a halfsword displacement (and *not* a technique).
It's not a technique unless you know what to do *after* the displacement--something none of these plates even come close to showing us. No matter how generously we interpret these plates, all we get is a few simple attacks and a few simple displacements, all of which are covered in far more detail and depth in other sources.
I really hope this helps.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
Last edited by Hugh Knight on Thu 07 Jan, 2010 11:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
 |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | If efficacy is the only arbiter, then it makes zero sense why half-swording out-represents poleaxe by 10-to-1. Really, any smart master will tell you that longsword suck against armour, no matter how you grip them, when compared to an armour-optimized weapon like the axe. So why is it there? Because sometimes - and the evidence suggest it's the more common - duels were *agreed* to be fought with them. |
Sure, duels may have been fought with an agreed weapon--sorry, certainly *were*. And the weapon in most sources was the hammer/spike pollaxe variant.
| Quote: | | And the head: halberdiers hit people in the head. An axe-bladed poleaxe behaves in that fashion. You keep trying to propose the idea of hitting someone in the head with the blade as ignorant or ineffectual, and yet it's illustrated, and clearly makes sense. As I said much earlier, there's a reason Hedgecock created those rubber axe heads. |
Christian, halberdiers hit with the blade because they don't have anything else with which to hit.
| Quote: | | The shaft-breaking thing is simply a non-starter, and completely irrelevant to the subject of judicial duels, where such an action *never* appears. Please produce evidence of any 15th century knight. |
I said that was only for war, Christian, not for single combat. I said those exact words. Why is this relevent? Because it explains why we see a lot of bladed pollaxes in war iconography and lots of hammer pollaxes in the Fechtbücher.
| Quote: | | Falkner was a pedigreed master; he shows bladed polearms. The "maybe people that disagree with me didn't know what they were talking about" argument is weak. |
I didn't make that argument about Falkner--that's a straw man. Maybe he showed his handful of techniques with halberds, etc., because he knew it would appeal to the folks who were more comfortable with those weapons from their military experience; maybe it was something else. That doesn't refute my contention either way.
| Quote: | | You don't need to overswing or over-commit to hit hard. Not by a long shot. |
Very true, as I have proven many times. Neither do you need a heavier weapon. It's about the delivery, not the weapon. That being the case, it's better to have a lighter, more responsive weapon. QED.
| Quote: | | Sorry, but you're not entitled to this argument. You criticize others all the time for mixing traditions (recently chiding someone about I.33, and regularly dismissing Fiore as overly different), and that's just what you're proposing to do here. You can't have it both ways. |
You're not entitled to tell me which arguments I may use. I may consider Fiore's pollaxe material vastly inferior to other sources, but he still was a 15th-century fighting master, and his books showed only the hammer/spike pollaxes, showing that the trend in Germany was not limited to just Germany. You need to learn the difference between my arguments against Fiore and my understanding of his value. Far too many people hear a criticism and assume that means you think the thing being criticized is of no value whatsoever. Not so. Fiore is a very valuable source in some ways. This is one of them.
| Quote: | | All of Talhoffer's axe material looks roughly the same. |
No, it doesn't. Show me an Absetzen with the dague from 1459 in Talhoffer 1467 or the knee-hook counter to the thrust from below in 1467 in the 1459. There are *lots* of techniques that don't overlap, and relatively few that do. I am very surprised to discover you don't know that.
| Quote: | | I include Falkner in my studies. Anyone claiming to study the polearms of the Liechtenauer tradition should too. Falkner includes bladed weapons. Telling people otherwise is simply misleading. |
I'm not even going to deign to write the detailed response to this: Go back and read what I said about Falkner.
| Quote: | | It's valid for the limited sources that you're using, yes. We can agree on that. |
Limited sources? The sources I used represent at least 90% (probably more, depending upon how you count plays, some of which tend to run together) of the material out there that is related, and that tiny fraction I left out is either useless (like 11093) or is material I don't have (the scant few plays in Falkner), or clearly a vastly different system (e.g., Fiore).
Christian, I feel that your tone has become unprofessional so I will end this conversation with you here since I know the list operators displike acrimonious debates.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 07 Jan, 2010 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christopher VaughnStrever wrote: | Hugh I need to quote a few things in your book, while keeping in mind that you strongly recommend the spike over the blade axe...
On page 32-33 of your book Hugh, it states "If the instructor admits to mixing different styles(other than the german school and Le Jeu, which are clearly matched), adding new things to make them better, I would suggest moving on."
This can reasonably be applied to the instruments used by the instructor. Thus, can one truly say that practicing with a blade vs spiked axe is better or worse? Is it changing the entire dynamics of the techniques? Then this raises the next quote from your book... |
As Christian has pointed out, the axe/hammer pollaxe was certainly used in the Middle Ages, and even, to a very minor extent, in some of the pollaxe material. Thus, it's not completely wrong to practice this material with that sort of weapon. You would do better, however, to practice with the weapon used by the people who wrote the sources that you’re studying.
| Quote: | | You further state on page 7-8 that, "it seems likely that in single combat the blade side of the axe, which is usually quite pointed at the ends in extant examples, fullfilled the same primary role as the hook or spike on axes shown in the fechtbuecher: to hook parts of the opponent's weapon or anatomy." If the spiked axe and the bladed axe can perform the same techniques as each other, then why the lengthy argument that has arisen? |
Because they handle somewhat differently: Blade/hammer pollaxes tend to be heavier in the head than the hammer/spike variety. That’s not to say you can’t do all of this material with a blade/hammer pollaxe, just that it’s better to do so with the same weapon the masters wrote for.
It’s kind of like the falchion and the arming sword. A falchion is a one-handed sword, too, but has a different configuration making it handle differently from an arming sword; it has a very wide tip designed to maximize chopping attacks. That being the case, I would not recommend using a falchion to learn I.33 since that art was clearly designed to be practiced with an arming sword. Could you do many of the same plays with a falchion? Probably, but it’s not ideal.
| Quote: | | Hugh, another quote from your book; on page 4, "Le Jeu is also one of the most logically structured of the fechtbuecher. ...' 'The first section deals with..., the fourth with situations in which the center of the axe is presented" Is this fourth portion the axe head, or in between the hammer and spike? If it is the blade then you can see what I am reffering to, if it is between the hammer and spike then I am mis-interpting this portion. |
No, it refers to the middle of the shaft—the demy hache.
| Quote: | On page 6-7 the paragrapgh says "Most fechtbuecher show or imply axes with a hammer head and spike, while most of the medieval non-fechtbuch iconography shows pollaxes with axe blades and hammers"
If most Icongraphy shows bladed and hammer versions, while most fechtbuch's show hammer and spike combinations and your argument is that "training should specifically be done with what a fechtmeister illustrated" On page 8 you mention a "theory" that only persons with money use spike/hammer axes since they could afford to be taught by a fechtmeister. Though again this is theory and not fact. This raises questions that cannot be answered.
Now considering Non-fechtbuch iconography; Was the bladed axe perffer'd in war time over the hammer/spike axe? Could the bladed axe have a wider range of use in war? Are there any... any pictures of the wealthy in war with a spike and hammer pollaxe? there are even more questions that can be raised regarding the subject. |
This is what we’ve just spent several pages exploring. I do believe the bladed pollaxes had a wider range of uses in war, hence the long quote from DiGrassi on p. 8 about cutting weapon shafts in battle.
As for pictures of men at arms using hammer/spike pollaxes in war, there are plenty of them. Clearly, personal choice was a large factor here.
One correction, however: Nowhere did I say anything about money. In fact, I suspect many well-to-do men at arms had no formal Fechtbuch-style training under an established master. So far, no one has presented any information about how common this was, however, so that’s only a guess. But I did *not* make any connection between that and money (I just checked the text again to make sure I didn’t say something without thinking it through).
| Quote: | | I do like the book in that from my view point you present both sides of an issue, you may show preference towards one side of an issue (Such as the one on this thread), though the book does not come across to me as bias. |
Thank you, I tried very hard to present various sides of some of the less clear issues.
| Quote: | One can conclude that preference played a role that is not being consider'd here.
(A)I like a spike.
(B)I like my bladed axe.
(A)I can puncture a hole in armor and kill my opponet in war with that spike.
(B) I'd rather take my opponet hostage and hold him ransom, rather than your hammer and spike combination that will likely kill; my axe and hammer can stun my opponet long enough to take him captive. Now I can make some money.... |
I’m sorry, but I don’t quite understand your question here. I especially don’t get your point about the hammer and spike pollaxe being more likely to kill than the blade and hammer version; there’s nothing like that anywhere in my book.
Another thing I’d like to correct is your statement about punching holes with your “spike.” Do you mean the bec or the dague? If the former, then be aware there is no evidence for striking with the bec in any source I have seen.
If the latter, then be aware that puncturing armor *might* happen, if you’re lucky and hit a weak spot with a very, very powerful hit, but it’s very unlikely—that’s why the masters made such a big deal about attacking the gaps in a harness. We did an experiment years ago with my steel pollaxe in which we rigged a 16-guage breastplate in a rigid form (not a moving one like we did with the strikes with the blade) and attacked with brutally powerful thrusts of the dague. Now that was probably lighter than most helmets and breastplates (in the middle of the breastplate, at least), and we did not use hardened steel. We then attacked the breastplate with both pool-queue (“thrusts single”) and two-handed (“thrusts double”) thrusts of the dague without punching through even once, even though some of the testers were practically gorillas. Go back and re-read “Fighting in Armor” on pp. 11-13 in my book for more on this. The bottom line: You are unlikely to ever penetrate plate in a real fight, and so should not plan for it. Instead, thrusts should be directed to the gaps in the harness.
I hope this helps!
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I hate to do this, though I understand people have different definitions of certain words, and that is why I am asking, to further my understanding of your material Hugh.
| Quote: | | In fact, I suspect many well-to-do men at arms had no formal Fechtbuch-style training under an established master. |
"established master" - If you refer that there were other fechtmesiters that taught soldiers to fight. From this their fechtbuechs did not survive the test of time or could not afford to have a fechtbuech made? Then the conclusion that poll weapons with a spike or blade were preffer'd can not be determined for the sake of historical accuracy. Only assumptions can be made and assumptions are not fact and should not be passed off as factual.
I am sorry, the way I read the material came across to me as such involving money, though I am corrected you do not mention money.
Does the "well-to-do" imply people with money? I only ask this point again,
(A)Because if I were to live in the mid 15th century; I had a complete suit of armor. I had a pollaxe. I had lots and lots of money. I knew I could die when I went to fight. I would want to take every advantage of learning how to use the weapon I had for the best defense and offense, in conjuction with my armor. Therefore I would pay a fechtmeister and learn an art, especially such as Le Jeu.
(B)If I was alive in the 15th century. I had some armor. I had a pollaxe. I had little to no money (Just like the common man today. We live day to day, from paycheck to paycheck) I knew I could die in war. I would not exactly be able to pay for a fechtmeister, though I would be saving my pennies (or whatever coins they had) for the meister.
(C) If I had the circumstances of (A) and I went to war to fight. I had no training by a fechtmeister. I fought a man with training by a fechtmeister, the reasonable conclusion is drawn out that I would die.
Yes I am sure people were taught to fight in formation during war and thus do not specifically need to be taught by a fechtmeister. What if you are seperated from your unit. I personally would not take that chance. I know I would die alone if I did not have training.
| Quote: | | I especially don’t get your point about the hammer and spike pollaxe being more likely to kill than the blade and hammer version; there’s nothing like that anywhere in my book. |
Correct, I have reason'd that from this thread, not the book. Death can come from any surface of a mans weapon, therefore I concluded if a spike and hammer was preffer'd, then it would have been more deadly than an axe.
| Quote: | | Another thing I’d like to correct is your statement about punching holes with your “spike.” Do you mean the bec or the dague? If the former, then be aware there is no evidence for striking with the bec in any source I have seen. |
I mean the bec de faucon. You say right above that there is no evidence that a man would strike withe the bec de faucon....Then in that case, why would a war-hammer ever been made? It has practically the same bec de faucon on it.
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Very good resource you've put together Sander, I'm sure students of the German systems will appreciate that...
I can only judge your French and it's quite good, though perhaps you're saying "demy" a bit as if it was "démy". Only a very slight deformation. Still way better than anything I can do in a foreign language 
| Sander Marechal wrote: | | Quote: | | Queue (I am thinking like a pool queue) |
That's French. I have no idea how to pronounce it. Sorry. |
Yes it's related to the pool queue but not pronounced as it is in English.
It's exactly the same vowel as in Jeu, only you put a k before instead of the J
'Qu' -> k
'eu' is the only heard vowel
The terminal 'e' is just a marker for genre.
Makes for a confusing spelling, the oral version is much simpler
The wiktionary has records for words in current French. Here is "la queue". Jeu, hache, croix are there too. Demy is spelled demi in contemporary French. More specialized words such as dague are not recorded yet, though.
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
How about the word Krieg, is that sounded with a ee sound or eh sound?
And again as vincent mentioned, thank you again Sander This is extremly helpful.
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
With regards to cutting shafts with polearms, an ambiguous source on the Battle of Flodden Field could read as English bills hacking up Scottish pikes:
| Thomas Ruthal, Bishop of Durham wrote: | | Howbeit our bills quitted them very well, and did more good that day than bows, for they shortly disappointed the Scots of their long spears wherein was their greatest trust... |
Accounts from that battle, especially poetic ones, also stress the damage bills could inflict on armored men.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | Hi Bill,
You're quite right about the messer and sword, and it's probably possible to find axe/hammer pollaxes that handle somewhat like a hammer/spike pollaxes. |
Not only is it possible, its quite normal. I'm not sure where this idea that bladed ones are heavier, because across the board, there seems to be just as much variation between like as there is between dislike. In a later post in this thread you say that a falchion handles differently than an arming sword, and again, that simply isn't true across the board. *Some* falchions handle differently than *some* arming swords. We really need to be careful about drawing conclusions based on opinion when we have so many existing antiques that can prove us wrong.
| Quote: | | So while there may be exceptions, they will *normally* be different, |
See above. I've handled enough antique polearms to say that this isn't true.
| Quote: | | You make it too strong; no one is advocating the kind of fanaticism you suggest with words like "hyper-analyzing". |
Well, I didn't say anything about fanaticism, but I do see quite a bit of hyper-analyzing. The fact that this thread has gone on multiple pages is quite a bit of nit-picking. (I'm guilty of it too, as I've been reading along!)
| Quote: | | The actual argument is simpler: We know that the two kinds of axe usually handle differently, |
No we don't.
| Quote: | | and we know that all the sources we're using (at least I don't know of anyone who's published any work with the Falkner text, and Christian and I both agree 11093 is not a useful source) use one kind and never the other. |
Well, I use Falkner, and while 11093 isn't the clearest source, I'd hardly say its not a useful source.
| Quote: | | From that, it naturally follows that we should prefer the kind of axe our sources use. |
Again, I'm not arguing the idea of trying to match the sources. But if we have evidence that these weapons were interchangible, and there isn't a shred of evidence that says the historical masters felt that the hammer should be used over the axe blade, then I don't think its fair to say that an axe bladed poleaxe is incorrect, which is what you said earlier on.
| Quote: | | But anyone who's working from the book I wrote should know that all the material therein, every single play, comes exclusively from sources that use *only* the hammer/spike pollaxe, and thus, they will do best to use the same kind of axe the source documents discuss. |
*shrug* That's fine. I just don't think its as big a deal to use a hammer configuration as you do. We have Bolognese sources that even tell use that the various polearms are really just different flavors of the same thing, we have Falkner showing that they are interchangible, and we have tons of iconographic images showing both weapons (and quite honestly, so what if the iconographic images aren't fencing treatises? Its not like those soldiers valued their lives any less.)
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christopher VaughnStrever wrote: | | How about the word Krieg, is that sounded with a ee sound or eh sound? |
A hard "E" sound. As a general rule, if the letter configuration in German is "ie", then its pronounced has a hard "E", and if its "ei", then its pronounced with a hard "I".
I know you said you don't want to study German (and that's completely fair), but I recommend going to the library and checking out a book on German. Its free, and it'll show you how to pronounce these words.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's been asked that a Moderator split this thread to move the pronunciation stuff to its own thread as it is off-topic to this one.
That's hard to do as some people have posted both about pronunciation and axe combat, making it impossible to split.
I'd encourage people to make a separate topic to deal with foreign language pronunciation, as it is relevant and important. Continuing to take this thread off-topic is not the best solution as it will dilute the original topic and the pronunciation stuff will be hard to find as a resource later. Thank you.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Christopher VaughnStrever"]I hate to do this, though I understand people have different definitions of certain words, and that is why I am asking, to further my understanding of your material Hugh.[quote]
That's quite all right, I'm very happy to try to help.
| Quote: | | "established master" - If you refer that there were other fechtmesiters that taught soldiers to fight. From this their fechtbuechs did not survive the test of time or could not afford to have a fechtbuech made? Then the conclusion that poll weapons with a spike or blade were preffer'd can not be determined for the sake of historical accuracy. Only assumptions can be made and assumptions are not fact and should not be passed off as factual. |
I don't think a fight master had to write a book to be an established master of his art; in fact, it seems likely the majority did not. But the ones who did probably represented the norm of their arts--else it would be strange that nearly all the German Fechtbücher to have come down to us are in the Liechtenauer line (or at least claim to be). Could there be other styles that didn't survive? There probably were, but we can't debate about them because they didn't survive.
| Quote: | I am sorry, the way I read the material came across to me as such involving money, though I am corrected you do not mention money.
Does the "well-to-do" imply people with money? I only ask this point again,
(A)Because if I were to live in the mid 15th century; I had a complete suit of armor. I had a pollaxe. I had lots and lots of money. I knew I could die when I went to fight. I would want to take every advantage of learning how to use the weapon I had for the best defense and offense, in conjuction with my armor. Therefore I would pay a fechtmeister and learn an art, especially such as Le Jeu.
(B)If I was alive in the 15th century. I had some armor. I had a pollaxe. I had little to no money (Just like the common man today. We live day to day, from paycheck to paycheck) I knew I could die in war. I would not exactly be able to pay for a fechtmeister, though I would be saving my pennies (or whatever coins they had) for the meister.
(C) If I had the circumstances of (A) and I went to war to fight. I had no training by a fechtmeister. I fought a man with training by a fechtmeister, the reasonable conclusion is drawn out that I would die.
Yes I am sure people were taught to fight in formation during war and thus do not specifically need to be taught by a fechtmeister. What if you are seperated from your unit. I personally would not take that chance. I know I would die alone if I did not have training. |
Yes, "well-to-do" means having money.
I don't completely agree with your assumptions. First, it seems likely that the majority of men at arms had some training, from other men at arms with more experience, if nothing else--kind of like an SCA fighter practice. That's not the same as training under a professional fight master. And I'm sure many of them received input on how to fight once the formation broke up.
Second, even a relatively poor man at arms might receive training from a Fechtmeister hired by his liege lord; Christian makes the point that Paulus Kal trained his patron's men, for example (he discusses this in the book on Kal, if I remember correctly). And a man with a lot of money might not bother to have any training. One thing we're really missing as we study this material is any good evidence for how many of each class had had formal training under a professional instructor. I've tried to research this, and I've asked people who have done a lot of research into the subject, but no one has shown any hard evidence. We can only hope new documents will come to light someday that gives us more on this subject.
Third, having training does *not* guarantee you're a great fighter. Silver talks about how often untrained farm boys could beat those with training because the farm boys acted naturally, while many school fighters were rendered stiff and artificial because they were trying to assimilate their instruction. Lots of karate-ka today get beaten in street fights by those with no formal training, too. And I see this in my own classes: Some people just "get it" better.
Fourth, remember that the Fechtbücher are focused almost exclusively on single combat, and primarily on judicial combat (in the armored material, at least); Le Jeu is one of the few that specifically addresses friendly deeds of arms. Apart from a few almost disconnected plates in Talhoffer showing some mounted techniques, none of the Fechtbücher address war fighting at all. And the evidence seems to suggest that formal judicial combats were fairly uncommon. So it might be that many men at arms felt it was sufficient to train for war fighting with one of their lord's more experienced soldiers, and not seek out formal instruction from a professional, or a lord may have felt that sufficient and so not hired a professional to teach his troops.
Fifth, we know that some people who had to fight judicial combats had had no formal training because Talhoffer talks about this in his 1449 and 1459 books. He says that when the duel was decreed the judges would give the combatants "six weeks and four days" for training time. He then gives advice on how to pick a Fechtmeister with whom to train, and how the training should be conducted.
| Quote: | | Correct, I have reason'd that from this thread, not the book. Death can come from any surface of a mans weapon, therefore I concluded if a spike and hammer was preffer'd, then it would have been more deadly than an axe. |
Well, that's an assumption we might make about it as we try to understand why so much more Fechtbuch material shows the hammer/spike pollaxe, but I don't think I'd go that far. I'd say that it's likely the hammer/spike pollaxe was considered better *suited* to single combat (which is what the Fechtbücher teach)--more efficient, in other words--by experts with formal training. But both kinds were brutal and deadly, and the man wielding a weapon is always more of a factor than the weapon he wields.
And you can't say one form was "more deadly" than the other as a general thing, you have to consider the venue. In fact, I tend to think medieval experts saw the blade/hammer version as better suited to war. And many men at arms might see it as better suited to *them* in single combat if that's all they had experience with.
| Quote: | | I mean the bec de faucon. You say right above that there is no evidence that a man would strike withe the bec de faucon....Then in that case, why would a war-hammer ever been made? It has practically the same bec de faucon on it. |
You're right, and I don't know why that is. But when you go through the material, there isn't a single attack with the bec except to hook with it. To answer this question, we'd have to find a Fechtbuch with instruction in the use of the war hammer and hope it addressed the issue.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Spreier
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
As we delve further into the minutiae concerning the weapons depicted (or not) in these manuscripts we are all studying we have to come face to face with this truth:
We don't know.
We don't know why the men who wrote these books chose to include the weapons they did. We can make theories and assumptions and educated guesses but at the end of the day, we just don't know.
My personal 2cents worth: It comes down to personal preference. I own A&A's Burgundian axe and I love it! But I also want their new Italian model. Because I want to be more correct to the manuscripts? No, because I am greedy and like shiny things  I, personally, doubt that The Old Man (whether it be Fiore or Liechtenauer or whomever) would give a darn about whether you used an axe/hammer or hammer/spike pollaxe. They would care more about whether you can effectively use the principles of the system they espouse.
Compagno, Northwest Fencing Academy
http://bunkaijuju.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alex Spreier wrote: | Quote: | | We don't know why the men who wrote these books chose to include the weapons they did. We can make theories and assumptions and educated guesses but at the end of the day, we just don't know. |
I'd like to second this statement.
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And I'd like to second this statement:
| Alex Spreier wrote: | | No, because I am greedy and like shiny things |
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Felix R.
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex Spreier wrote: | | ..... The Old Man (whether it be Fiore or Liechtenauer or whomever) would give a darn about whether you used an axe/hammer or hammer/spike pollaxe. They would care more about whether you can effectively use the principles of the system they espouse. |
Very well said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Felix R. wrote: | | Alex Spreier wrote: | | ..... The Old Man (whether it be Fiore or Liechtenauer or whomever) would give a darn about whether you used an axe/hammer or hammer/spike pollaxe. They would care more about whether you can effectively use the principles of the system they espouse. |
Very well said. |
If I understand correctly, you and Alex are implying that the choice of weapon type to be used in single combats would be considered unimportant by a professional instructor, is that correct? Upon what do you base that opinion?
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher VaughnStrever
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Jan, 2010 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The choice of weapon type is the pollaxe. Any variation of the pollaxe, is still a pollaxe. Hammer and spike or axe and hammer is still the same weapon.
I can base that opinion on the description of the pollaxe provided in your book.
There is a simple answer...
(1)Mr. Hugh Knight feels very strongly about his opinion and theory on the preffernce of the hammer and spike combination.
(2)Others feel very stongly that a pollaxe is a pollaxe and either variant of a pollaxe is acceptable for training purposes.
Two opinions do not equal a fact. As the statement above is being ignored concering theories, the nit-picking is becoming quite... quite something not good.
Experience and learning from such defines maturity, not a number of age
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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