From duel to fencing

[AllenJ]

More good articles on sword legnths and weights:
http://ejmas.com/jwma/jwmaframe.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html
http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

[Inquartata]

It was a period bodkin and a period bow,

Are you sure? Which museum let them use an artifact from their collection in a destructive test?

AFAIK the only extant century bows of the period are those off the Mary Rose and a couple from Flodden and one or two other battlefields. None of those are in any condition to be strung and used. The extant points are in similarly perished condition, I think.

By "period" I don't mean modern reproductions made to duplicate what we think medieval bows and arrowheads were like, I mean actual antique medieval bows and arrows...and actual medieval armors. That is the only completely trustworthy test of the capabilities of the arms of the era. ( And even then there's still the matter of the archer and the testing methodology, the statistical validity, etc. )

[Inquartata]

So, were bodkins made of iron or did they use steel?

JyJy

Probably both, depending on the time period. The bodkin point was known as early as the 4th century AD, and probably earlier. These would certainly have been of iron, but may have been case hardened, which would have made them about as hard as modern mild steel, at least on the outside.

So the answer to your question is, Yes.

[JyJy]

Ah! Theres the reason why it might have been able to penetrate. )

The point was that they weren't able to penetrate.

JyJy

[JyJy]

Are you sure? Which museum let them use an artifact from their collection in a destructive test?

By "period" I don't mean modern reproductions made to duplicate what we think medieval bows and arrowheads were like,

Sorry, I meant reproduction of course, made by professional bowyer. Program was called 'Story of the bow' or something like that, on Discovery Channel. It just got me wondering after reading stories about long bow which are almost like those katana myths.

JyJy

[Teme]

Simply from the physics side of things, if the shaft can't take the impact (it shatters), most of the energy of the arrow is lost. Then it doesn't matter which point it has. On the other hand, if you have a thick, heavy shaft, your arrow is not going to fly very far and will probably have steering issues during release (archers paradigm). Plus the thicker arrow will create more lift, requiring more rotating in flight to disperse the lift thus spilling more of it's initial energy in the air...

That said, I'm willing to believe that at very close range (15 meters) a decent arrow with a great point could penetrate mediocre armor, provided the tip or shaft don't break or deflect

[AllenJ]

possibly- but at 15 meters you better start thinking about dropping that bow and drawing your sword or take to Cobb's traverse! (running away)

[Teme]

Heck, if that armor has a man inside and a trotting horse underneath, I'd be soooo late with barely two seconds to make the decicion and act upon it. Should the horse gallop, I doubt if I had time to turn or draw my sword...

[AllenJ]

Heck, if that armor has a man inside and a trotting horse underneath, I'd be soooo late with barely two seconds to make the decicion and act upon it. Should the horse gallop, I doubt if I had time to turn or draw my sword...

Haha! exactly. Which is why you put the pike line IN FRONT of the archers

There is an intersting image in Jacob De Gheyn's "An exercise of Arms" where he shows a 17th century soldier standing with the butt end of his pike planted in the ground under his right foot and his sword drawn to 'prima'. Seems a very good defensive position for just about any action.

[AllenJ]

Part 7

Mr. Worsfield: “With the advent of gunpowder during the 13th century, the six-foot, two handed sword and heavy armor was discarded, and interest in lighter weapons and increased body movement was addressed.” Again, anyone who spends more than 10 minutes researching armor could refute this statement. First, the issue of “six-foot, two handed swords”. Note to Mr. Worsfield- They didn’t exist in the 13th century. The only real battlefield swords (there were many ceremonial or beheading swords that were 6 feet or longer but are not battlefield weapons) that he could possibly be referring to are the Scottish two-handers (both the lowland style, and the highland weapons, incorrectly known as “claymores”) and the German Zweihander/Bidenhander.
Scottish Lowland two-hander: http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=41&pos=52
Scottish Highland two-hander: http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=41&pos=75
Scottish Highland two-hander, Clamshell variety: http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=41&pos=70
German Zweihander: http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=41&pos=38
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=41&pos=40

There are other types of two handed swords or Great Swords as they are sometimes known as seen here:
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=41&pos=56
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=41&pos=46
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=41&pos=78

With almost no exception these weapons are 15th-16th century inventions. A far cry from the 1200’s that Mr. Worsfield mistakenly assumes. Even with these weapons, they were often times shorter than 6 feet as they were custom made to the user. Many historical texts talk about “perfect length” for certain types of weapons depending on a person’s stature. (read George Silver: http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/GSilver.htm & http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/BriefInstruct.htm )
The second half of that sentence also mentions the heavy armor being discarded. The opposite is true. Armor covered more and more on up through the 15th and 16th centuries. Here is a brief overview of the armor of the 15th and 16th centuries, which is boasts more coverage than the 13th Century.
13th C.- http://www.varmouries.com/vcat_03.html
15th C.- http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_gothic_armour.html
16th C.- http://www.varmouries.com/vcat_11.html
Clearly Mr. Worsfield is mistaken in this claim. Again at the end of that first sentence he is mistaken in that people in armor did not have free range of motion. This idea of the cumbersome knight has been refuted many times over in the above sections. The other problem with this statement is that gunpowder did not become a major factor in warfare until around the 16th century. In fact, it wasn’t until the mid 18th century that it was widely accepted as being the mainstay of a modern army. Even then, swords were used on the battlefield up to the American Civil War.
Mr. Worsfield continues, “No armor of that time could stop a propulsive missile discharged at such speed.” It has been shown that obviously that he is mistaken on when and what armor is being used during this time period so his statement is already flawed. 13th Century armor never had to face serious gunfire nor was it made to do so. Assuming he was talking about 15th or 16th century armor, (the stuff that would have been worn when guns start making a statement of the battlefield) there are too many variables. What kind of projectile is it? How far is it being shot from? Is it a stationary target or a moving one? As mentioned before, there are several examples of breastplates with dents from bullet testing on them. Of course, these tests are also subject to the same criticism of range and position. But generally speaking, armor was made to displace sword blows (and other melee weapons).
Mr. Worsfield further demonstrates his ignorance of medieval swords by stating, “ Up until this point almost all swords were heavy and required more strength than skill to maneuver.” Apparently 2.5 lbs is too heavy for this guy. At this point I don’t even know what kind of swords he’s talking about. He thinks he’s talking about 13th century 6 foot swords, which didn’t exist. So do I comment on the use of the real 13th century swords, or the 15th-16th century greatswords? Either was he is mistaken in the fact that it takes more strength than skill to maneuver. I’m not an incredibly strong guy- I have no problems wielding these swords. Why? Because I know the SKILLS on how to use them. They do not weight 10, 15, 20 lbs as some people think. They are around 4-6 lbs and actually feel lighter than that with the way they are expertly balanced. See here for more details on two handed sword weights: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm , http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html. Mr. Worsfield solidifies his lack of insight into the nature of real weapons and armor with this statement: “The controlled bio-mechanical finger manipulation of the point as required in modern sport fencing would be impossible given these restrictions.” First off, I really don’t know what he is trying to say by using the word “bio-mechanical”. Biomechanics is just the mechanics of muscular activity. Literally anything done with the body is biomechanical. I just think it is further proof that Mr. Worsfield has no idea what he’s talking about. But real heart of the matter is that he is trying to do modern sport fencing with medieval weapons. He is trying to hold and use weapons (provided he has EVER held or used even an accurate replica of such a weapon) like they are sport foils, epees, and sabers. That’s like driving a Dodge Neon and saying, “This is a really crappy tank.” Its apples and oranges. The modern tools carry only the slightest echo of what real weapons are. Even its closest relatives like the smallsword and rapier are still no where near comparable to a foil or epee. And don’t even get me started on sabers. Even a silhouette drawn by a 5 year old should be able to prove that it’s nothing like the sport tool. Mr. Worsfield has demonstrated that he neither understands how period weapons were used nor even the nature of what they were intended to do. This a grievous error and lies at the very heart of his ignorance on the subject of swords and swordplay.

Im once again amazed at how much bad info can be packed into just a 5 sentence paragraph.

[AllenJ]

I just recently found out that our friend Gary Worsfield is a fight choreographer who did the recent version of Peter Pan. This disheartens me even further because people hire him on the grounds that he is knowledgable about swords and swordplay. This keeps getting worse and worse...

[Feraud]

Maybe it was “War Walks” or some other show on THC but they came to an interesting conclusion about why fallen men in armor weren’t able to get up at Agincourt. It wasn’t the weight of the armor, it was the suction effect of mud against steel, pretty much glues you to the ground.

[AllenJ]

I have a REALLY hard time believing that. I think that conclusion was made by people who either had never been in armor, seen someone in armor or were some of the worlds weakest people. Im not a very buff guy. I'm in decent shape but I'm no gym rat. I have about a 3/4 suit of armor and I can do dozens of push ups and sit ups in it. I cant imagine that a medieval knight, whose had infinite better and longer training than me, and in all probablility, MUCH better shape than me, would be unable to pick themselves out of mud. I just can't buy that. Armor is just not that heavy. Theres no way it would have stayed in use if you couldn't move in it. Everything we have proves it; the manuals that show dexterious movement in armor, the period accounts of people in armor, the actuall pieces themselves in museums, and the period iconography that depicts people manuvering unhindered in armor. Anyone supporting the armored fighter as a clumsy, unbalanced, tank that couldnt get up if felled is completley wrong. It's not a question of debate. It's just fact.

[Dev]

I don't. Not that I disagree with your argument on the nature of armor--that makes sense. It's more the nature of mud. When the English tried to launch major attacks in Flanders during the rainy season in the First World War, many an infantryman was unable to get out of the mud--even unencumbered by armor. That much liquid mud is a vile, horrible thing for anyone to try to fight in.

[Gav]

I have to admit that my recollection of War Walks is hazy. I haven't seen the series in a long time. What I do remember is that it was a very impressive set of programmes - I liked the one about the Ypres in particular.

DCMT Richard Holmes

[AllenJ]

I don't. Not that I disagree with your argument on the nature of armor--that makes sense. It's more the nature of mud. When the English tried to launch major attacks in Flanders during the rainy season in the First World War, many an infantryman was unable to get out of the mud--even unencumbered by armor. That much liquid mud is a vile, horrible thing for anyone to try to fight in.

Well how much liquid are we talking about? And if its the nature of mud - not the armor, then why didnt the other army have that problem? And even then, if that much mud is keeping a 250 lbs guy (armor included) stuck in the mud, then I'd suspect a 200 lbs guy with no armor would be stuck as well. Either way the discussion ceases to be about armor.

Here is a few videos that were shown to me recently. The testing of a 1200 lbs draw crossbow bolt on 3mm armor in slow motion. Its in German but the clips are at the bottom of the page (Videodatei):
http://www.plattnerwerkstatt.de/beschuss.html

[Dev]

The other army didn't have the problem mainly because they were standing at the top of the hill, firing arrows. I doubt that all of the armored French knights got completely stuck and were totally unable to move, but you've got to grant that anybody climbing up a muddy hillside is going to be hampered. Feet slip, hands lose purchase--they'd be unable to move inasmuch as it might look like they were climbing on a treadmill, not that they were paralyzed.

Men climbing down would have no such problem actually getting to them, and would probably have an easier time in hand-to-hand combat with men who were covered in mud, exhausted from climbing, and wounded by arrows.

[AllenJ]

Agreed, but wouldnt anyone, with or without armor have the same problem? At any rate, the story now turns to superior tactical positioning and not an armor weight issue. Even on a perfect day, its more difficult to advance uphill than down.

[AllenJ]

Part 8
Mr. Worsfield’s broad generalizations haunt him further- “The noblemen who once relied on the safety of armor now needed education in the use of the sword. This pressure produced a new class of sword master.” It takes very little thought to realize that noblemen were not the only people who used swords.
He claims that people relied on armor for safety, implying that their swordplay was not defensive enough. As has been shown previously, there is a strong tradition for unarmored swordplay (called blosfechten to the Germans). If they relied on just armor for safety they all would have been chopped to pieces. The facts are that swordsmen relied on their skill and training in the ART of swordplay. Anyone who studies the historical manuals will see the understanding science, physics, geometry and psychology that went into the training of medieval swordsmen. These people were not cavemen.
Not only that, there had already been much education and training through the hundreds of years prior to the Renaissance -as evidenced by the many manuals just shown here- not to mention that this is only a tiny sampling of what we have left and have been able to discover! If one actually reads the texts they can realize that there were many skilled, renown fencing masters in the medieval ages. This link (http://www.chicagoswordplayguild.com...themasters.asp ) is an informative article about various Italian fencing masters- first and most notably Fiore Dei Liberi who was doing his thing in the early 1400’s. Not only that, it is mentioned that he learned swordplay from other notable German and Italian masters. Obviously the tradition of education and sword masters is a very old one indeed. Mr. Worsfield goes on further to claim, “Fencing masters initially were regarded as shady characters who specialized in secret tricks which they would sell for a hefty price…” Not only does he have no proof to support his claims, but there is ample evidence in the contrary. The aforementioned article on Fiore states, “…he had been practicing the art of swordsmanship for more than 40 years at the time of its writing. The son of Sir Benedetto dei Liberi, a scion of a minor noble family who had received their ennoblement from the Holy Roman Emperor in the 12th century, and had settled in Premariacco, also in Friuli.” Would this be the type of person who parents would allow him to be trained by shady low-lifes who specialized in tricks? This is just one man’s story. The art of swordsmanship has been studied, taught and trained by rich and poor, noble and common for as long as we have record of. Mr. Worsfield continues in this vein, claiming that, “The professional fencing master was classed with rogues and vagabonds, and with such a stigma didn’t encourage lively, analytical and discriminating minds into the profession.” As with the rest of his paper, he has no sources to back up his claims. Where he gets this idea from is completely beyond me. It is continually obvious that no rational thought or thorough research went into his paper. At the end of this paragraph he briefly mentions the Marxbruder, a 14th century association of fencing masters that tried to regulate teaching of swordplay. This was not a complete monopoly as he suggests but training went on at various other locations. In fact, rivals between different fencing masters and their students seem to have been a part of the industry. From Fiore’s words, “And I was especially wary of other masters and their scholars. And through envy, these masters challenged me to play with sharp swords in arming doublets, without any other armour but for a pair of chamois gloves. And I endured this all because I had not wished to practice with them, nor to teach them anything of my art. And five times I was required to undergo this ordeal; and thus five times my honor compelled me to play in strange places, without family and without friends, and without hope in anything but in God, in the Art, in myself, Fiore, and in my sword. And by the grace of God, I, Fiore, have always come away with honor and without injury to my body.”
Mr. Worsfield’s misconceptions on the origin of the fencing masters and indeed the very nature of medieval swordsmanship stain all further reasoning he tries to make.

[AllenJ]

anyone still reading?