I don't think grappling a guy in armor is a great idea either.
J
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
| I don't think grappling a guy in armor is a great idea either.
J |
Armour is a pretty good weapon in its own. ;)
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
| I don't think grappling a guy in armor is a great idea either. |
That's funny, von Danzig disagrees with you.
"Now you should know that, for the most part, all fighting in single combat in harness comes in the end to dagger fighting and to wrestling. Therefore note, when you close with an opponent, then attend to nothing else but the wrestling and let your dagger stay in its scabbard, because you cannot hurt him through the harness as long as he is standing before you and hinders your hand." (von Danzig fol. 71v, after Tobler)
Now, this doesn't cover an unarmored opponent against an armored one, obviously, since that's not a subject really addressed anywhere, but it gives a clear understanding of what to do when you close with an opponent. In that situation your opponent's weapon is much harder to use, and his armor gives him no particular advantage. In other words, you go from an unequal situation in which your opponent is almost invulnerable to your attacks while you are lethally vulnerable to his slightest attack into a situation in which his weapon is almost useless and his invulnerability is moot. It's pretty simple, really, you simply move to level the playing field.
| David Teague wrote: | ||
Armour is a pretty good weapon in its own. ;) |
Not as good as a sword. I'd rather face a possible smash from gadlings than a cut from his sword. And once you've closed with him, his armor becomes very difficult to use as a weapon. He has to make a big swing to hurt you, which is tough to do in a clinch.
| Hugh Knight wrote: | ||||
Not as good as a sword. I'd rather face a possible smash from gadlings than a cut from his sword. And once you've closed with him, his armor becomes very difficult to use as a weapon. He has to make a big swing to hurt you, which is tough to do in a clinch. |
Hugh... when, where, how did you come up with me saying armour is a better weapon than the sword????
Let me count the armoured ways in a clinch: head butt, fist, elbow, knee, sabaton kick , the pain of having various sharp bits drug across the bare face during wrestling and throws. Not all require a big swing.
| David Teague wrote: | ||||||
Hugh... when, where, how did you come up with me saying armour is a better weapon than the sword???? |
You didn't say that (nor, unfortunately, did you say it wasn't, of course), and I didn't imply that you had. Don't look for argument where none is intended. All I did was use your quote as a way to expand on my original point and to head off anyone reading it who might take it farther than they should. I certainly agree with you that armor can be used quite effectively as a weapon against unarmored targets.
| Quote: |
| Let me count the armoured ways in a clinch: head butt, fist, elbow, knee, sabaton kick , the pain of having various sharp bits drug across the bare face during wrestling and throws. Not all require a big swing. |
Right, and most attacks that don't require a large action are not lethal nor even terribly debilitating (albeit highly unpleasant), unlike a sword cut or thrust. Most truly *debilitating* attacks, however, do require some windup and are difficult to do in a tight grappling situation (no, an eye gouge doesn't, just as one example, but then either party can do that just as well, so it cancels out). You can see this in any simple brawl in which men grab each other and then make relatively ineffective (by which I mean no single blow is lethal or knocks anyone unconscious) blows because they can't swing freely. And even if he does manage to get a good unimpeded strike or kick in, you are still better off against that than you are against an unimpeded sword cut or thrust. Hence, my point is that it's better to use grappling on someone in armor than to stand back and try to fight him with weapons if you are not in armor. Yes, you're certainly going to be damaged, but you stand a far better chance of winning than you do if you face his sword.
And that doesn't even count the *advantage* an unarmored man has in grappling an armored man: The armor makes for lovely levers and handles to assist in grappling, and it is *much* more painful, if not actually injurious, to fall hard in armor.
| Hugh Knight wrote: | ||||
Not as good as a sword. I'd rather face a possible smash from gadlings than a cut from his sword. And once you've closed with him, his armor becomes very difficult to use as a weapon. He has to make a big swing to hurt you, which is tough to do in a clinch. |
Hugh, I thought you were familiar with close quarters combat. Everything an armoured man is wearing can be used to increase the damage his actions can inflict on an unarmoured man, even the breastplate. Grind the guy's face into it, it will distract him immediately. Then an elbow, a forearm, an knee; well anything you would do if neither of you were wearing armour. Its all better wearing armour. :lol:
Sure weapons are better than no weapons. With or without, an armoured man is a weapon if he knows how to fight in close. ;)
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
| You didn't say that (nor, unfortunately, did you say it wasn't, of course), and I didn't imply that you had. Don't look for argument where none is intended. |
Your response surely reads like contradiction, which IIRC is a form of argument. :)
| Quote: |
| and it is *much* more painful, if not actually injurious, to fall hard in armor.
|
This is possibly too far off topic, but in doing a little mounted training in armour with a pair of very serious professional equestrians, they began to wonder if armour==plate armour--had a design element intended to protect the rider in a fall. I know that my falls from horseback in armour--quite hard--seem much easier to take than falls on hard ground without armour. But perhaps I've just been lucky.
But as a thought experiment about armour--would you rather fall from a bicycle wearing a helmet, or not wearing a helmet? In badly fitted armour, I suppose the armour would hurt you. But in well fitted armour with the appropriate arming garments....I'm pretty sure you'd rather have it on, in a hard fall. And as a novelist, I'd be delighted to be proven wrong--this is just my very limited experience.
Its nothing to fall in harness - provided it fits you. Falling badly, like head first off a horse or twisting your knee as you go down - yeah that's a problem. One of the first things we do to new armour trainees is to make them fall backwards, sideways, face first on our hard wood floor. Sure, it will wind you but there are no injuries. Anyone who gets hurt falling from a standing position simply hasn't spent enough time in harness as far as I'm concerned. How can you practice wrestling in harness if you never take falls? :lol:
| Kel Rekuta wrote: |
| Its nothing to fall in harness - provided it fits you. Falling badly, like head first off a horse or twisting your knee as you go down - yeah that's a problem. One of the first things we do to new armour trainees is to make them fall backwards, sideways, face first on our hard wood floor. Sure, it will wind you but there are no injuries. Anyone who gets hurt falling from a standing position simply hasn't spent enough time in harness as far as I'm concerned. How can you practice wrestling in harness if you never take falls? :lol: |
In my experience, the added weight of the harness makes you hit the ground harder. In addition, the helmet can cause your head to whip down into the ground faster, thus being more injurious to the neck. I'm not saying that a fall in armor is death, merely that it can be worse than falling without it.
| Kel Rekuta wrote: |
| Hugh, I thought you were familiar with close quarters combat. Everything an armoured man is wearing can be used to increase the damage his actions can inflict on an unarmoured man, even the breastplate. Grind the guy's face into it, it will distract him immediately. Then an elbow, a forearm, an knee; well anything you would do if neither of you were wearing armour. Its all better wearing armour. :lol:
Sure weapons are better than no weapons. With or without, an armoured man is a weapon if he knows how to fight in close. ;) |
I agree, Kel, that armor can be an effective weapon in grappling. I said that. Here are my exact words:
"I certainly agree with you that armor can be used quite effectively as a weapon against unarmored targets."
That being the case, why would you take me to task for thinking armor can't be used that way? Did you fail to read that? What part of that statement makes you think I don't understand close-quarter combat and the advantages armor brings to it?
My only point was that it would be better for an unarmored man to grapple an armored man rather than stand at range and fight him with a sword. How do you get from that to a slur against my knowledge of close combat? Did I say it was *better* to be unarmored? Of course not. In fact, I said that: "Yes, you're certainly going to be damaged..." making it clear that I knew that the unarmored man was at a disadvantage.
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
| You didn't say that (nor, unfortunately, did you say it wasn't, of course), and I didn't imply that you had. Don't look for argument where none is intended. |
| Quote: |
| Your response surely reads like contradiction, which IIRC is a form of argument. :) |
No, Kel, it wasn't a contradiction. He said armor could be dangerous, and I expanded on that thought, that's all. I didn't say anything to imply he meant armor was more dangerous than a sword, and I didn't say anything abut him being wrong. If I'd said anything insulting like " I thought you were familiar with close quarters combat" *then* you could take me to task for misunderstanding David as you *obviously* have misunderstood me, but I didn't. So any contradiction is only to be found by someone who *wants* to see it there.
| Hugh Knight wrote: | ||
That's funny, von Danzig disagrees with you. "Now you should know that, for the most part, all fighting in single combat in harness comes in the end to dagger fighting and to wrestling. Therefore note, when you close with an opponent, then attend to nothing else but the wrestling and let your dagger stay in its scabbard, because you cannot hurt him through the harness as long as he is standing before you and hinders your hand." (von Danzig fol. 71v, after Tobler) Now, this doesn't cover an unarmored opponent against an armored one, obviously |
Yeah... obviously. Von Danzig doesn't disagree with me Hugh because I never said anything about grappling when both opponents are in armor. The rest is your opinion. Have you ever tried it sparring?
J
| David Teague wrote: | ||
Armour is a pretty good weapon in its own. ;) |
Uh, yeah ... exactly !
J
I can honestly say ultimately, I don't really care. If you are fighting a guy in armor and you are unarmored, you are in big trouble, running away is probably the best option. And if anyone disagrees with me on that, ok fine I pre-emptively concede the point.
Maybe we can agree that if you have to strike an armored person with a sword, striking with the pommel or the cross is more effective than trying to cut them or slice with a draw-cut as you usually see in TV / Movies. And the scenes in the Nat Geo show with Aaron and John were the best parts of the show, in my opinion. Your opinion may differ of course and I concede that whatever you say about your opinion is correct.
That is my $.02, and I hereby give up on the thread :)
J
Maybe we can agree that if you have to strike an armored person with a sword, striking with the pommel or the cross is more effective than trying to cut them or slice with a draw-cut as you usually see in TV / Movies. And the scenes in the Nat Geo show with Aaron and John were the best parts of the show, in my opinion. Your opinion may differ of course and I concede that whatever you say about your opinion is correct.
That is my $.02, and I hereby give up on the thread :)
J
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
| I can honestly say ultimately, I don't really care. If you are fighting a guy in armor and you are unarmored, you are in big trouble, running away is probably the best option. And if anyone disagrees with me on that, ok fine I pre-emptively concede the point.
|
With equal skill at grappling the guy in armour might have the advantage even if unarmed since the armoured guy could hit effectively while the unarmoured one would have to depend more on joint locks or throws and has to get up close before he can do anything. (The guy in armour is also maybe not stupid. ;) )
Now running away without armour might be faster than running in armour assuming equal levels of fitness: For short sprints probably not much difference in speed but I assume the guy in armour would tire a little faster and be disadvantaged in broken terrain with the visor down. ( Not see where he is stepping and run out of air faster ).
No armour I would want a shield and a spiked mace like the one made by A&A and maybe then speed and agility might give me a chance.( I guess one can call a shield armour in a way and it is cheating if the discussion is only about someone in armour fighting someone unarmoured, but I think a shield increases the odds of the unarmoured guy considerably by making closing possible against the treat of a sword or other weapons and be in range to use the mace ).
Anyway, one could imagine a whole bunch of theoretical asymmetrical fighting scenarios. ;) :lol:
http://www.arms-n-armor.com/pole004.html
I have to agree that overall this was more good than bad, all of the issues taken into consideration. (For me the tank and the armoured vs. unarmoured were really the low points.) I'm hardly John's biggest fan, but I thought he did a very solid job in this, and in fairness, even without reading his production blog, he's known what "maille" is since we met in the mid-90s. Ditto on how to throw a mordschlag.
Sean is right about the "Nova" factor: we just have to remember that shows like this are for much more of a generalist audience; and the "expert consultants" are really just the hired help. They can only shape the program so much. Not to mention that finding said "experts" is still a bit vague for this topic. After all, there are plenty of very well-respected medieval military historians who will get armour terminology, weapon weights, etc flat out wrong, before we even get to the cottage industry of WMA instructors.
I think what we need to do is be grateful that this material is working its way out there to the point that such a program even exists.
On an unrelated note, I'm with Kel; from experience, about the last thing an unarmoured man wants to do is close to grips with one in harness. The von Danzig quote is speaking to the likely outcome of two fully armoured men fighting in the list of a judicial duel, and should be taken as such.
Sean is right about the "Nova" factor: we just have to remember that shows like this are for much more of a generalist audience; and the "expert consultants" are really just the hired help. They can only shape the program so much. Not to mention that finding said "experts" is still a bit vague for this topic. After all, there are plenty of very well-respected medieval military historians who will get armour terminology, weapon weights, etc flat out wrong, before we even get to the cottage industry of WMA instructors.
I think what we need to do is be grateful that this material is working its way out there to the point that such a program even exists.
On an unrelated note, I'm with Kel; from experience, about the last thing an unarmoured man wants to do is close to grips with one in harness. The von Danzig quote is speaking to the likely outcome of two fully armoured men fighting in the list of a judicial duel, and should be taken as such.
This is a FYI on what the liner should have looked like:
Cheers,
DT
Cheers,
DT
I don't understand why almost everyone is so against grappling an armoured opponent? Assuming running away is not an option, I think grappling is an excellent option. Yeah you might get scuffed up, even smashed by gauntlets etc, but there isn't any point trying to fence, since a sword is all but useless (whereas the armoured swordsman's weapon if still lethal). I can think of a multitude of submissions that would work against an armoured opponent much more effectively than a sword would. Keylock/kimura/americana type movements that isolate his weapon would be especially effective imo.
Of course I fully admit my own bjj experience no doubt makes me biased here. :lol:
Of course I fully admit my own bjj experience no doubt makes me biased here. :lol:
In grappling with a man in full armour when you're not in full armour, you risk more than just getting a bit "scuffed up"--getting one's fingers caught in the large wing of an articulated elbow or knee defense can easily result in multiple broken fingers; pointy gauntlet cuffs and points on couters, etc. can strike your temple and really mess you up. In addition, an awful lot of submissions--particularly those that target the knees and elbows-- simply don't work as well on an armoured man because the articulated limb defenses make it impossible to hyperextend the joint and get the pain compliance or injury that you're trying to achieve with the technique. Large pauldrons, like those on later harnesses, make it difficult to manipulate the shoulder as well.
I'm not saying that you can't grapple an armoured man, but it's best done if you are fully harnessed yourself as well, and should generally be done with an the intent of exposing an opening in his harness into which to place the point of your weapon. In general, though, I would expect a grappling match between a man in full harness and one with no harness to result in the unarmoured man getting absolutely shredded.
I'm not saying that you can't grapple an armoured man, but it's best done if you are fully harnessed yourself as well, and should generally be done with an the intent of exposing an opening in his harness into which to place the point of your weapon. In general, though, I would expect a grappling match between a man in full harness and one with no harness to result in the unarmoured man getting absolutely shredded.
| Taylor Ellis wrote: |
| I don't understand why almost everyone is so against grappling an armoured opponent? Assuming running away is not an option, I think grappling is an excellent option. Yeah you might get scuffed up, even smashed by gauntlets etc, but there isn't any point trying to fence, since a sword is all but useless (whereas the armoured swordsman's weapon if still lethal). I can think of a multitude of submissions that would work against an armoured opponent much more effectively than a sword would. Keylock/kimura/americana type movements that isolate his weapon would be especially effective imo.
Of course I fully admit my own bjj experience no doubt makes me biased here. :lol: |
| Josh Warren wrote: |
| In general, though, I would expect a grappling match between a man in full harness and one with no harness to result in the unarmoured man getting absolutely shredded. |
Maybe I'm off-base here, but I don't think anyone is arguing that this isn't the case. What I think people *are* saying is that grappling an armoured opponent when oneself is unarmoured may be the lesser-of-two-evils. I'm not sure I agree, but I could be persuaded.
Dustin
Page 4 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum