| Author |
Message |
|
Aaron Schnatterly
|
 Posted: Wed 09 Nov, 2005 4:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Stephen Hand wrote: | | One of the biggest inaccuracies in both re-enactment combat and western martial arts is that scary terror weapons like the falx and the Danish axe can't be used as they were historically without the risk of historical results. |
That's putting it bluntly...  Sorry... I just couldn't resist.
It is true, though... we can only get an approximation - sometimes a very good one, other times, not in the same ballpark. In the group I used to reenact with (1066 era), mass battles did not allow hafted axes and the like - clubs, swords, yeah, but axes were deemed too risky. Even with hand-picked fighters, if a "special weapon" were to be used, a "special routine" would have to be worked out ahead of time to insure the safety of everyone, they were typically "called on the carpet" one-on-one or small group "fights", and even then, punches were pulled.
| Stephen Hand wrote: | | Legs, particularly lower legs should be defended by distance, not with the shield. That's why we have pictures of knights fighting with heater shields with guige straps on, physically incapable of covering their legs with the shield. If you try to defend the legs with a shield (other than a kite shield or similar which is long enough to cover the legs) then you'll get into all sorts of trouble. |
It takes a change in form from what a lot of us are used to, based on what I have seen. Shield out, legs in, not the other way around. In this stance, the shield both feels and works differently. It was hard for me to get used to the idea - felt all strange... but I did start seeing less bruises on my shins! It's been a while since I have done any significant shield work... I'm starting to miss it here. Hopefully, I'll have the opportunity to again soon.
-Aaron Schnatterly
_______________
Fortior Qui Se Vincit
(He is stronger who conquers himself.)
|
|
   |
 |
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Nov, 2005 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | It must also be noted that the battle of Visby was a fight between very uneven sides;
A heavily armoured feudal/mercenary force attacking local peasant levies.
It was more a masacre than a battle.
Having the luxury of armour, vs a mostly unarmoured foe, the danish forces would press their advantage, going to close combat, and attack under the opponent's shield (if they had any...I have not studied the battle that well... But I've been to Visby...)
Many of the attacks could also have come after the fighter in question had already fallen. or from behind, as he was fleeing....
|
I agree that Wisby was an uneven battle, and the defenders lost badly. The defenders' armour that survived seems to have been out-of-date, but they did have it. Thordemann notes some 200 coifs were found in the graves, as well as the well-known coats-of-plates and gauntlets. Thordemann also details the defenders' wounds with considerable precision. It is easy to tell is a bone was struck from the front or the back (unless it is completely severed), and Thordemann details injuries for the tibia (the major shin bone) as 37 from the front, 27 from the inside, 8 from the back, and 26 from the outside. (He breaks this down into left and right legs, upper, mid, and lower thirds each). Of the skull injuries, 78 come from the front and sides, and only 19 from the back and sides. These men were not killed while running away. The arm injuries corroborate this - they are not randomly distributed. The left forearm bones were most often injured - 38 times, the right forearm 31, the left upper arm 18, and the right upper arm only 3 times.
The development of plate armour also suggests the leg may have been frequently hit. Of all the parts of the body, some of the first ones to be protected by plate are the knee, the elbow, and the lower leg. This is obviously not because these are vital areas. It may be because these areas were frequently hit.
|
|
|
|
|
Micha Hofmann
|
| Posted: Wed 09 Nov, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Felix Wang wrote: | | The development of plate armour also suggests the leg may have been frequently hit. Of all the parts of the body, some of the first ones to be protected by plate are the knee, the elbow, and the lower leg. This is obviously not because these are vital areas. It may be because these areas were frequently hit. |
My opinion would rather be that the joints and the lower leg were those body parts where plate armouring would help most against blunt trauma, against which chain is pretty useless ( Or: Those body parts where blunt trauma would do the most damage - the head, the joints and the areas where bones are close to the surface ). Think skateboard protectors... 
And, regarding the "leg attack or no leg attack issue": I think that combat between just two fighters is very different from a battle.
Leg hits will have occurred in battles, maybe even a lot.
But I also think that it's a very bad idea to leave ones upper body totally uncovered to attack ones opponent in a "duel", as Stephen pointed out very nicely.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Nov, 2005 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aaron Schnatterly wrote: |
It is true, though... we can only get an approximation - sometimes a very good one, other times, not in the same ballpark. In the group I used to reenact with (1066 era), mass battles did not allow hafted axes and the like - clubs, swords, yeah, but axes were deemed too risky. Even with hand-picked fighters, if a "special weapon" were to be used, a "special routine" would have to be worked out ahead of time to insure the safety of everyone, they were typically "called on the carpet" one-on-one or small group "fights", and even then, punches were pulled.
|
We use them regularly, both one handed and broadaxes. The lack of head hits and and general brutality limits them quite a lot, but they look great on shows, when the other guy is playing along
"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
|
|
 |
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Nov, 2005 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
In a group fight, you wil seldom hit the legs unless you are very close to your opponent; Typically when you are rushing him.
If the lines are more spaced, the head is much closer.
When rushed, most untrained or stressed people will instinctively lift their shield to protect the face, wich is not a very good idea, since it 1) blocks your view 2) prevents you from attacking, and 3) opens up your legs.
But the distribution of wounds that you describe would point to a lot of the defenders using spears; Otherwise there would be less wounds to the lower shield arm.
this also makes sense when it comes to the leg wounds; The classic "spear hunt" involves slipping your sword under the opponents spear, stepping in, and hiting him across the tights or belly. (the belly hits not showing up on the bone.)
Alternately, hiting the spear down, and closing with a blow to the left arm, or head. The lack of hits in the right shoulder could be due to the fact that these guys obviously fought left arm forward, and that if you had the head thus was closer than the right shoulder...
"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
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Nov, 2005 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Kelly wrote: | | I don't think chopping a rigidly mounted shield with any weapon is a valid test of anything. |
Especially in the case of falx vs. scutum--would the legionary even present the top rim of his shield in that manner?
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Nov, 2005 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tyler Weaver wrote: | Sword-n-shield is a nasty combination, but it's hardly invincible. The most dangerous thing any sword-and-shield fighter has on a single-sword (whether European longsword, Japanese katana, or any kind of single-handed sword) fighter is the ability to be where he is and where he isn't, simultaneously. This is intimidating when you think about it, but this ability depends on the targeteer creating a very specific kind of geometrical situation in the fight and using his weapons to maximum advantage. By simply keeping him from doing that by how you set up your techniques, you're already halfway to victory. If you're actively keeping him from parrying you with his shield and killing you at the same time, then a double-handed swordsman will win by simple superior speed, power and maneuverability and a single-handed swordsman has a shot at winning by virtue of superior technique.
The usual advice to winning any fight - dominate completely and refuse to allow yourself to be dominated.
Easier said than done, but that applies to everything and hence means nothing.
As far as specifics go, the guy's shield is on his left arm, opposing all the instinctive and powerful right-to-left cuts. Left-to-right and inventively-thrown vertical cuts will fall outside of his protected zone, and either force him to maneuver, move his shield so that it interferes with his sword (not to mention making for a damn awkward shield parry and blinding him for a moment), or try a losing proposition in parrying with his single-handed sword against your more powerful two-hander. |
Historically, there were indeed times when Japanese swordsmen faced opponents armed with sword and shield--particularly in the 16th century. Sino-Japanese wako, of whom even the Chinese members frequently made use of Japanese swords and fencing methods, fought against Ming Chinese swordsmen armed with saber (dao) and round rattan shield (tengpai). In addition, some Filipino swordsmen made use of a round shield of their own (the taming), and they likewise fought the wako. Also, bushi proper fought against Ming swordsmen during the Imjin War from 1592-98.
I once inquired to kenjutsu exponents on another forum if there are any surviving "Katana vs. Chinese Saber & Shield" kata. The answer was "no".
Thus, I would like to know, Tyler, how exactly you have worked out your anti-shield strategy? You have pushed for the supposed superiority of kenjutsu, and yet there are no classical kenjutsu ryu that feature the use of the katana against a sword-and-shield combo.
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
Tyler Weaver
Location: Central New York Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Nov, 2005 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Thus, I would like to know, Tyler, how exactly you have worked out your anti-shield strategy? You have pushed for the supposed superiority of kenjutsu, and yet there are no classical kenjutsu ryu that feature the use of the katana against a sword-and-shield combo. |
I sat down and thought, "Hm, what would I do if I was fighting someone who was very convinced of the supposed superiority of sword-and-shield techniques and who was very actively trying to prove it to me?"
Aku. Soku. Zan.
|
|
 |
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Nov, 2005 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tyler Weaver wrote: | | Quote: | | Thus, I would like to know, Tyler, how exactly you have worked out your anti-shield strategy? You have pushed for the supposed superiority of kenjutsu, and yet there are no classical kenjutsu ryu that feature the use of the katana against a sword-and-shield combo. |
I sat down and thought, "Hm, what would I do if I was fighting someone who was very convinced of the supposed superiority of sword-and-shield techniques and who was very actively trying to prove it to me?" |
So I take it that we agree that there is no existing established JSA method for dealing with a swordsman armed with sword-and-shield?
Have you tested your ideas against sword-and-shield exponents?
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Nov, 2005 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I should remind that the issue of the debate is not "JSA vs Shield" but "Shield and sword vs Single sword "
For shield defeating purposes a Katana and longsword is pretty much the same. A sharp metal stick is a sharp metal stick.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Hand
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Nov, 2005 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The grip on a scutum also may tend to put the shield in this unfavorable position. It is held with a horizontal grip in the middle. It seems to me that this makes it rather difficult to raise this shield up to cover the head: the whole heft of this large shield is held up with only the wrist muscles to maintain its position. If the shield were round, it could be switched to a vertical grip, which might be stronger once over one's head. Turning the scutum sideways would put (with only a hand grip in the center) over one's head seems very clumsy. Arm mounted shields hold the shield high with the shoulder muscles, a much stronger and more secure method.
|
|
|
|
|
Tyler Weaver
Location: Central New York Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 44
|
| Posted: Thu 10 Nov, 2005 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So I take it that we agree that there is no existing established JSA method for dealing with a swordsman armed with sword-and-shield? |
At the present time? No. However, as I originally said, it's very important to be able to use the techniques of your style to effect against any opposing weapon - whether there are kata revolving around said opposition is irrelevant. Warriors must be flexible. Moreover, given the extreme rarity of European manuals on the subject as of the present time, I hazard that there is "no existing established" European method either.
| Quote: | | Have you tested your ideas against sword-and-shield exponents? |
No, but given the similarity to what's been described by people with more practical experience in the field of fighting targeteers than I have here, the question is irrelevant. If there is any obvious flaw in my approach to the problem, by all means, point it out and contribute to the discussion.
| Quote: | | The grip on a scutum also may tend to put the shield in this unfavorable position. It is held with a horizontal grip in the middle. It seems to me that this makes it rather difficult to raise this shield up to cover the head: the whole heft of this large shield is held up with only the wrist muscles to maintain its position. If the shield were round, it could be switched to a vertical grip, which might be stronger once over one's head. Turning the scutum sideways would put (with only a hand grip in the center) over one's head seems very clumsy. Arm mounted shields hold the shield high with the shoulder muscles, a much stronger and more secure method. |
It seems to me that with a shield-grip of that type, a Dacian falxman might be able to simply tear the Roman's shield out of his hand with a sufficiently powerful blow, or at least rotate and jam it down for his buddy behind him to finish off the Roman on the receiving end of all this.
Aku. Soku. Zan.
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Nov, 2005 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stephen Hand wrote: | | David Black Mastro wrote: | | would the legionary even present the top rim of his shield in that manner? |
If the images on Trajan's column and the Tropaeum Traiani in Adamklissi are to be believed, yes. |
Okay.
I just took at look at some of those illustrations--the shield is held at a slight angle, but the top rim is still in a vulnerable position to a downward blow, as you indicate (it just looked "different" in the falx demo, for lack of a better term).
Still, I suspect the cut in the demo is more extreme, due to the rigid mounting.
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Nov, 2005 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | I should remind that the issue of the debate is not "JSA vs Shield" but "Shield and sword vs Single sword "
For shield defeating purposes a Katana and longsword is pretty much the same. A sharp metal stick is a sharp metal stick. |
Except that a longsword is usually... longer.
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wolfgang Armbruster
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Nov, 2005 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Wallgren wrote: | | Tyler Weaver wrote: | | Quote: | | I just feel that a double edged straight sword with a crossguard would be far superior to a single edged curved sword with no crossguard. That was the focus. |
I totally fail to see your point. A crossguard may be useful for some "bind and wind" techniques (aren't those mostly blade-work anyways?), but it would seem to be to be a hinderance when trying to deflect an enemy's weapon and a simple cruciform guard provides next to no real hand protection in an unarmored fight. Later complex guards provide more hand protection, but they also bind up your hand and force you to grip in a certain narrow range of gripping styles - and in any event the best basket-guard in the world is useless against forearm cuts.
As for false-edge cuts, the attack angles and powering involved are nothing new to in an Eastern context (let's not forget the existence of numerous double-edged Eastern sword designs that were systematically rejected over time), and any Eastern stylist should be familiar with analogous deflections with his sword's blunt back. If anyone's getting surprised here, I would say that many curved, Eastern sword designs allow circular thrusting, which is much more difficult with straight swords.
Moreover, a good swordsman, especially in the modern day, should be ready and able to use his weapon and the techniques of his style against literally any conceivable opposing weapon. That's part and parcel of being competent. I know exactly what I would do to defeat a rapier or sword'n'shield fighter. |
I think that one thing that differ alot between at least the japanese sword arts and the western is the halfswording and the use of the quillons and pommel. Could it be that they where there more as agressive parts of the sword than defensive? |
I second that. There's no other martial art that uses the sword in such a way. However, there are techniques in JSA that somewhat resemble half-swording (IIRC).
Once I saw a documentary about India where they showed one guy that teaches Indian martial arts. He was using a sword that looked like a longsword with a blade widening at the tip. The hilt looked a bit like a saber-hilt (knuckle-guard, but no cross)and was only long enough for one hand but had some kind of a tang-extension. This way the sword could be gripped with both hands.
But back to halfswording: The guy mentioned above showed some flourishes/katas where he gripped the sword with one hand on the ricasso (which seemed to be almost 1/3 of the blade) and the other hand on the normal grip.
The techniques looked like little stabbing and slashing movements, very narrow, no exaggerated big movements.
Maybe someone with more knowledge than me about eastern martial arts could comment on that 
|
|
|
|
|
Mikko Kuusirati
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Nov, 2005 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wolfgang Armbruster wrote: | | Once I saw a documentary about India where they showed one guy that teaches Indian martial arts. He was using a sword that looked like a longsword with a blade widening at the tip. The hilt looked a bit like a saber-hilt (knuckle-guard, but no cross)and was only long enough for one hand but had some kind of a tang-extension. This way the sword could be gripped with both hands. |
A khanda?
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Nov, 2005 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David Black Mastro wrote: | | Except that a longsword is usually... longer. |
For whatever it's worth, this is a generalization. Both the words longsword and katana are too generic to necessarily say one way or the other. Some longswords are essentially single handers with long grips, for instance.
I think for Tyler's point, we can be generic and say that, for all intensive purposes, longsword and katana can be treated with the same basic concepts, particularly since we're just talking through text.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caleb Hallgren
Location: DeKalb, IL Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 64
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Nov, 2005 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tyler Weaver wrote: | | Quote: | | I just feel that a double edged straight sword with a crossguard would be far superior to a single edged curved sword with no crossguard. That was the focus. |
I totally fail to see your point. A crossguard may be useful for some "bind and wind" techniques (aren't those mostly blade-work anyways?), but it would seem to be to be a hinderance when trying to deflect an enemy's weapon and a simple cruciform guard provides next to no real hand protection in an unarmored fight. Later complex guards provide more hand protection, but they also bind up your hand and force you to grip in a certain narrow range of gripping styles - and in any event the best basket-guard in the world is useless against forearm cuts.
As for false-edge cuts, the attack angles and powering involved are nothing new to in an Eastern context (let's not forget the existence of numerous double-edged Eastern sword designs that were systematically rejected over time), and any Eastern stylist should be familiar with analogous deflections with his sword's blunt back. If anyone's getting surprised here, I would say that many curved, Eastern sword designs allow circular thrusting, which is much more difficult with straight swords.
Moreover, a good swordsman, especially in the modern day, should be ready and able to use his weapon and the techniques of his style against literally any conceivable opposing weapon. That's part and parcel of being competent. I know exactly what I would do to defeat a rapier or sword'n'shield fighter. |
If you ask me, although the crossguard might not give HUGE degrees of protection, the amount of defense it provides is indeed noticeable. A guard such as the kron guard of the Liechtenauer tradition uses the guard to an effective quality that would be imposible with a disc guard. Also, it in no way hinders a skilled user of european swords.
The europeans used every part of their sword in offensive uses, the quillons, pommel, and blade. I have yet to see an east-asian art use them with any focus.
Also as far as modern practitioners being prepared against all weapons, I must refer to personal experience and Lance's post. WMA practitioners generally use cross training on a MUCH more regular basis than asian arts practitioners do. Most JSA schools don't use any combinations besides Katana vs. Katana. While in your ideal world everyone would be prepared against anyone, in real life, WMA practitioners are much more practiced in this regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Fri 11 Nov, 2005 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tyler Weaver wrote: | | Quote: | | So I take it that we agree that there is no existing established JSA method for dealing with a swordsman armed with sword-and-shield? |
At the present time? No. However, as I originally said, it's very important to be able to use the techniques of your style to effect against any opposing weapon - whether there are kata revolving around said opposition is irrelevant. Warriors must be flexible. Moreover, given the extreme rarity of European manuals on the subject as of the present time, I hazard that there is "no existing established" European method either. ....
|
There are no European manuals known from the heyday of sword + shield combat, but there are a number or later works which do describe some issues of sword + shield combat. Marozzo and McBane discuss these issues. Of course there are a number of works dealing with sword + buckler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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