[Mark Millman]

Dear M. Le Chevalier,

[P. Cha]

Vincent, I think you maybe over-estimating the amount of blunt force you can get through chainmail.

Okay some more chainmail stories, in the SCA, using rattan, if I use welded chainmail and have a gambeson on, I can have a very strong person do a pull back and use all his might blow with a two handed rattan sword and I would get a mild bruise that goes away in a couple days. That is WAY more percussive force then what you would see in a normal sword fight from the sword. Is giving a bruise better then not doing anything at all? Well yes...but it would hardly be anything to end the fight. Yeah with enough of them...maybe...but it´d take you ALL day to get to that level, and quite frankly dehydration would get you before that point. Arms, legs and head are better targets. Even with the helm, you can knock them out. SCA helms are thicker then historical counterparts with more padding and people STILL get KOed through the helm.

As for half swording with a shield...actually it can be done. You use the shield to stabilize the tip of your sword. It works quite well actually.

[Michael Edelson]

Mark,

Sword and shield is not my thing, but you raise excellent points and I basically agree with you.

Vincent, that was a great question about the threat of the sword, and I was thinking the same thing, but Mark's answer makes sense to me.

I was never happy with the idea that people went to all this trouble to make these sharp things called swords and then advocated smashing them into iron armor. Assuming very few people you fight will be mailed, that will still ruin your edge and make you unable to defeat the textile armor of the rest.

[Sander Marechal]

[P. Cha]

[Harry J. Fletcher]

A Knight or man at arms would most likely seek a worthy adversary so as M. Le Chavalier has pointed out that adversary would most likely be wearing mail, helmet, carrying a shield (and wearing an undergarmet underneath his hauberk likely to be padded as mentioned above.) Engaging such an adversary would mean landing blows wherever the opportunity presented itself. Yes, there are better places to land a blow with the sword than others but in a fight one takes any opening one can get.

Also as M. Le Chavalier has pointed such swords as used would be broad bladed and slightly blade heavy although handling well (though not all did so) your typical Oakshotte Type X, XI, XII blade. This would serve to land a percussive force to an area of contact and the very narrow edge would transmit that force to the wearer. The head with a helmet was vulnerable as pointed out and so were the legs as one Norweigian King called his sword LEG BITER. Additionally, a sword blade would lose its edge after making repeated contact with mail, shield, or helmet. Mail dangling from the helmet would protect the neck from a cut but not from a sword blow. There is also the chance that mail links could burst and a cut be made which would cause a cleaver like cut.

As M. Le Chavalier and myself have pointed out blows which landed and did not cause percussive effect or cut still had a distractive value and allowed additional follow up blows to be made which might be more effective. Such a momentary effect while not disabling could cause an adversary to drop his sword arm a bit or his shield arm and allow for a more effective sword blow to be made which could be a cut or percussive blow to the head.

If one keeps an open mind it is not so hard to reach a reasonable conclusion from the empirical evidence.


Regards,


Harry

[David Teague]

[Harry J. Fletcher]

Well, this is digressing into another subject area and I would rather stick to cutting. bashing, and slashing, etc. However, I guess we can address this point. In the social system of the time one's social and economic status depended upon one's Lord. Poor or Bachelor Knights who performed well in battle were rewarded with grants of land and therefore an income. Men at Arms could hope to be Knighted if noticed by his retainer or someone of nobility. There was really no challenge bashing and slashing men of lower status poorly protected. Knight, Noble, King, and Man at Arms all sought out worthy opponents. The King had to be seen as a strong courageous leader, the nobles worthy of the King's largesse, and the Knights worthy of the Nobility's patronage. Besides economic considerations there was also social status based upon honor (read bravery, valor, etc.)

One example is the invasion of Egnland by William the Bastard or William the Norman. His retainers followed him hoping for grants of land. The whole feudal system was based upon this concept. The college courses I have taken, books I have read, and studies I have done, all are empirical evidence demonstrate that this is so. I find it rather hard to argue this point with people who simply refuse to accept it or think they know different.

Human nature being what it is these Knights, nobility, and men at arms simply wanted to impress the boss and get a bonus. Today, we want be the badest guy on the golfcourse. Back then they wanted to be the badest hombre on the battlefield and impress the boss, get the big house, the great big yard, and the servants plus the golden parachute as a reward. Only difference between then and now is that the game was just a bit tougher back then and the rewards were a hell of lot more substantial.

If someone doesn't want to accept this then they are stuck with an erroneous view of history and I won't change their minds no matter how much evidence I present to prove my statement. If they think I am wrong it doesn't bother me in the least because I know I am solid ground.

Regards,


Harry

[David Teague]

Hello Harry,

I change my mind all the time on issues by reading, studying facts and exploring both sides.

Medieval history is my hobby and I'm a living historian that portrays a lesser knight in1388 Scotland along with my tenant farmers. I've studied the lifestyle of the lesser knights and how they interfaced with the families they were responsible for.
I'm lucky enough to have 25-40 fellow living historians who are willing to work with me as tenants/ pikemen, craftsmen, retainers, and men at arms that a lesser knight would have in his holdings at events.

However, since you brought up 1066 and the Norman invasion...

Who were the troops with King Harold?

Were they all knights of England?

No. They were the Saxon Fyrd. The Fyrd base was farmer/ part time soldiers that were selected out of each set of 'hides" to serve the king for 30 days a year. The Saxons had a set of laws about the duties of each male of weapon bearing age ( the Greater Fyrd) and laws set about the duties of the part time paid solders ( the Fyrd) and last , laws set about the duties of the full time paid solders of the Thegn, the Huscarls.

Who were the troops with William the Duke of Normandy?

Were they all knights of Normandy?

No, The Norman army was made up of nobles, mercenaries, and troops from Normandy , Flanders, Brittany and France, with some from as far as southern Italy. Yes they came for land grants.

You might want to expand your reading to other areas of the history of the knights as while points you make are correct, they are only a piece of the puzzle.

I'll leave you with this tidbit, Codex Wallerstein (a German 15th century fightbook) has a illustration and text telling a knight how to rob a wealthy peasant by making him think you cut his throat...

Cheers,

David

PS My Group at an event



My Harness (and period hair)



My pikemen.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Harry J. Fletcher]

Hello David,

I applaud people like you and your group for reviving skills and arts of the past. Still I feel I am on solid academic ground for my thinking. Rather than turn this discussion into an epistemological disagreement I would prefer to get back to the essence of the main thread i.e. the naked facts of cutting.

Regards,

Harry

__________________


Bonjour M. Le Chavalier,

I think you stated the argument succinctly when you described the shape of the sword blade which came about for attacking mail. As you stated the sword blade evolved into differents forms as armor evolved. The most difficult point for people to understand is that the medieval period was a continuum of time and as one progresses on that continuum armor and swords changed to meet the new challenges. A second point also misunderstood is that there was a repetition of sword and armor types of an earlier era, a reinventing of the wheel so to speak.

There is a tendency for those involved in a discussion to use inductive reasoning. Taking exceptions and generalizing from them rather than using deductive reasoning from the general pattern while noting exceptions. That is to say exceptions do not make the rule.

As you have properly pointed out an armored opponent was most likely to be encountered. If the primary weapon such as an axe, spear, mace, was lost thru breakage such as an axe handle, spear shaft, or thrown such as a spear, mace, or even an axe then the sword would be resorted to and it was problematic how to deal with an armored opponent.

As you have stated it was far more likely that a percussive blow would have been delivered than a cutting blow and it was far more likely that the sword's sharp edge would be blunted with repeated blows to shield or armored opponent but would still be capable of delivering a cleaving blow.

I think that you and I are in agreement with my hypothesis that a sword blow tends to be (1) percussive and (2) a cut will be a cleaving cut, (3) and a slicing cut is much less important than (1) and (2). Against unarmored opponents a sword cut can be either cleaving or a slicing type of cut but probably will be a cleaving cut due to the main impact of the blade and its design.

Harry

[Glen A Cleeton]

[P. Cha]

[Michael Edelson]

[P. Cha]

[David Teague]

[Glen A Cleeton]

Hi David,



Not to digress entirely off the track but at the onset of the War of The Roses, you have the rebel archers at Shrewsbury reassigned or killed, their choice and that would be a case of self ransom. I'll admit this thread to be quite harried but the count of kittens killed over absolutes may (in the end) be staggering.

Two nights until the full moon.

GC

[Harry J. Fletcher]

David was very correct in saying that those heavy behemoths seeking suitable targets slaughtered any commoners who got in their way to a suitable opponent. Heavy cavalry charged the less glamorous infantry formations to break them and used their swords to the point of dullness in cutting down these unglamous nothings in a melee. And yes, I freely admit there are many exceptions to the rule. An army was assembled by the King's nobles bringing their retainers and by hiring mercenaries since there was no standing army as such. In a sense the nobility was the national guard and the peasants the militia.

As Mr. Cha correctly pointed out the aristocracy was not the only part of the medieval economy. A sort of dual economy existed of freemen with their holdings and in the towns. Freeholders existed along side of the great land holdings of the nobles. The freeholders in England provided the longbow archers of the period. It is however dependent on what area of Europe, at what time on the continuum during the medieval period one is. In some areas of Europe manufacturing and town guilds provided many goods for consumption. For the purposes of this discussion however; it is the economy of the aristocracy, power and priviledge which led men to seek out worthy opponents who were more than likely to be armored which has led to this digression in the first place.

For anyone I have offended with my remarks I humbly apoligize if I was somewhat overzealous in presenting my views.

Regards,

Harry

[Mark Millman]

Gentlemen,

[Aleksei Sosnovski]

[quote="Vincent Le Chevalier"]