From duel to fencing

[VELISARIOS]

A good article about the fencing history and I want to share it with all of you

http://www.fencingonline.com/academy...gtofencing.htm

[AllenJ]

There are numerous major flaws within this paper. The writer has either not looked at any research since 1970 or failed to do research at all. I will write a full list of these flaws complete with updated documentation to support my claims, within the near future. I do not disagree with the idea of being disagreeable, but in the spirit of educated debate. I hope that my rebuttal will be viewed in this same academic spirit.

[Feraud]

"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. No armor of that time could stop a propulsive missile discharged at such speed."

Not entirely correct, the first effect of gunpowder weapons upon armor was to make it better. Many period armors bear “proof” marks, intentional marks struck by musket balls, fired by the maker, to prove it’s effectiveness. Firearms and body armor co-existed for perhaps a hundred years or so before one finally gained the upper hand.

[AllenJ]

This is going to take alot of work. In just the first few pages of this article there is enough myth and error to fill a small book. I will have to release this in sections.

[AllenJ]

From the Frying-Pan to the Fire
A rebuttal to Gary Worsfield’s “From Duelling to Fencing”
Part 1

In an article entitled “From Duelling to Fencing” Gary Worsfield has submitted a brief history of swordplay and its evolution. Unfortunately, this article is jam packed with errors, myths, misconceptions, outrageous claims and very little documentation. In order to prevent further spreading of these common mistakes, I submit this rebuttal to his article. I do this to forward research and learning of western martial arts and not as a personal attack to Mr. Worsfield.
It is obvious that Mr. Worsfield comes from a sport fencing background and not one of historical martial arts. Indeed just the term “fencing” as used in the title denotes it is exclusively a modern invention. In reality the term “fencing” can mean any type of sword combat, ancient or modern, matched weapons or mixed. It is also clearly obvious that he consulted none of the dozens of historical fencing texts and manuals that exist pre 1500’s. He oversimplifies and fails to address many concerns and holes in his arguments.
He opens with brief comments on the history of Bronze and Iron Age weapons. As that is not part of my knowledge base I will not comment on it further other than if that portion of his paper was researched as poorly as the rest of it, there are bound to be numerous errors.
He quickly jumps from Iron Age weapons to Christian Judicial duel. He states that dueling at this time was, “a system that would allow an exponent to engage in martial exercise, approved use of arms, gave opportunities for displays of personal courage and skill, and justified those activities in the name of Christendom.” This is a huge generalization as there were most certainly duels that existed outside of this system. Indeed it can be argued that any confrontation between two people is a duel. To think that these fights only occurred within this system shows a very narrow avenue of thinking. After the crusades and the idea of the trial by combat, duels and fights still continued in Christian nations on up to today. For that matter, it is very little difference between that and school kids meeting up behind the playgroud for a fight because one kid insulted the other kids mother. Even at the beginning of his article Mr. Worsfield mentions an Egyptian duel that obviously did not need this system- so why corner all fights into the arena of judicial combat? It makes no sense and is an incorrect view of history.

Viking History
Right off, he makes the mistake of calling Vikings, “primarily sword warriors”. It is true that they had and used swords- and that swords made up a good portion of their arsenal, but it was not their primary weapon. Like any army (and indeed any fight) range is a valuable asset. The Viking spear held an even greater importance than even the sword to the Viking. There were two types of spears; throwing spears and thrusting spears. As the enemy advanced, spears (along with bow and arrows) where thrown at the opposing forces. It was not uncommon for a Viking to enter the shield wall carrying 2 or 3 throwing spears in addition to his thrusting one as well as his sword. It was only after all the throwing spears were spent and/or the shield wall and thrusting spears were compromised that the swords were drawn. One has to only glance at the Bayeux Tapestry to see the wide use of the spear. Virtually any book known on Viking weapons and warfare will tell you this. See these links for more information:
http://www.regia.org/spear.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient...apons_03.shtml
http://www.vikingsonline.org.uk/reso...les/combat.htm

Viking Swords
Mr. Worsfield then comments that Viking swords were “particularly cumbersome”. For some reason he feels that a sword of two and half pounds is heavy. Provided he isn’t handling a piece of lead that had been pounded into something Viking-ish, I don’t see how he can come to this conclusion. Viking swords are very quick and handle beautifully, if one uses a sword that has been constructed accurately. Mr. Worsfield makes a mistake that he repeats many times over in comparing this sword to sport fencing tools. Sport fencing foils, epées and sabers in no way reflect historically accurate weapons. Viking and other period swords were never intended to be used like the modern sporting tools. It would be like trying to cut tomatoes with an M-16.
He also comments that Vikings were “usually clad in an over garment of mail” and that an opponent would “attempt to cleave [his] way through such protection.” Again this demonstrates Mr. Worsfield’s ignorance in Viking period combat. Illustrations and texts of the time periods are filled with accounts of attacks to the arms and legs and open face of a warrior. Mail was effective in stopping the cut- even modern tests prove this. Grave finds show multiple time that that majority of wounds were received to the face and extremities and not to the protected portion of the body. This is repeated all through history. Armor is effective, weapons and techniques change to normally get around it- rarely through it. (heavy projectile weapons being the obvious exception)
Finally he states that, “The fundamental fencing principals of Attack and Defence may be clearly apparent but principles of Distance and Timing are still quite obscure.” This is a horrendous error. First of all he has no way to prove this. Or even any reasoning or theory to support this claim. Anyone who fights for more than a few minutes will realize two things; your opponent can’t hit you if you are beyond his reach and you will need to properly time your attack as to not run into his attack. Even dogs and cats demonstrate this when fighting. Vikings understood how to create weapons, homes, sail long distances using the stars as guides, carve elaborate art, and read and write their own history. To think that they did not understand such a basic and base element of combat like Distance and Timing is insulting… and I’m not even one of them!

to be continued...

[AllenJ]

just out of curiosity, is anyone interested in hearing the rest of this? No sense in going though all the work and research if it's not really wanted.

[Tomas N]

Allen,

Sure, I've read what you've written so far...I'll read the rest.

Tomas

[VELISARIOS]

Me too.

[AllenJ]

thanks for reading

Part 2

Next, Mr. Worsfield jumps suddenly to use of plate armor to deflect sword blows. He comments that swords were made longer and heavier and warriors had to use “two hands to sweep the blade in relatively large arcs that, when contact was made, would smash and crash into the armor to get at the enemy encased within.” There is a host of problems with this statement. It is true that during the medieval years swords did become longer and heavier. However they are still within the 2.5-4 lbs range and not the huge monstrosities that he proposes. I am doubtful that he has ever even held an accurately made longsword as they usually feel a lot lighter in hand than even what their actual weight is. He also paints a picture here that has two major flaws. First, not everyone was in armor. There was probably less that 10% of an average army that was ever “encased” in protection. Many would have partial armor and others would have little to none as all. There are also many techniques for longsword use for against people out of armor as well as in armor. More on this later. Also not all swords were longer and heavier. One has only to glance through a small collection of period paintings and manuals to see that there are many single hand swords in use at this time. This further proves that the sole purpose of the longsword was not to smash and bash its way through armor. In fact, quite the opposite is true. His comment that fighters would have to “sweep the blade in ralativley large arcs” also is very incorrect. Longswords move very quickly and can attack in a wide variety of ways. If you need convincing, check out this page of video clips from The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (http://www.thearma.org/Videos/TPVideos.htm ) The second one down on the left particularly. Longswords are capable of doing short thrusts, small displacements and quick cuts as well as wide sweeping attacks.
Now on to his comment about smashing through armor. One of the worst aspects of Mr. Worsfield’s paper is that he did not consult any of the many medieval and pre 1500’s manuals that are readily available to anyone who even tries to look for them. Later on in the paper he makes the horribly mistaken claim that, “the oldest work on fencing was written in 1531 by Antonio Manciolino, of Bologna…” and then, “Achille Marozzo is generally looked upon as the first writer of not on the art of fencing.” Nothing could be further than the truth. Look at these!:
I:33 sword & buckler manual – circa 1295 - http://freywild.ch/i33/i33en.html
Hanko Döbringer's Fechtbuch," from 1389 - http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/dobringer.html
Fiore Dei Liberi's famed fencing manual of c.1410- http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Liberi.htm
Anonymous German Fechtbuch manuscript from the mid-1400s called ‘Gladiatoria’- http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Gladi...ladiatoria.htm
Hans Talhoffer, one of the great texts of the Medieval German Masters- http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/page_01.htm
Vom Bauman's Fechtbuch. Images from the Codex Wallerstein – a collection of anonymous German text and illustrations on fighting from c. 1470- http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/CodexW.htm
The Book on the Art of Fighting With Swords by Fillipo Vadi
c. 1482-1487- http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Vadi.htm
Anonymous Swiss-German manuscript circa 1500 called, ‘Goliath’- http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/Goliath.htm
In fact, just look at all the manuals here: http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm
And here: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wew/fencing/manuals.html
And here: http://www.schielhau.org
There is no excuse at all for Mr. Worsfield to miss all of these manuals and make the ridiculous claim that the first fencing work was written in 1531. Even the idea of it is ludicrous.
Had he taken the time to look at these manuals, he would have realized the error of his claim that longswords were made to smash through armor. In the case of full plate armor, the preferred method of attack was done with the half-sword. Half-swording is where you would grip the blade portion of your sword with one hand and the other on the handle in order to wind the tip into the gaps of the armor and thrust into your opponent. Let’s just look at a tiny sampling of the literally hundreds of images that teach this.
http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/Dl22.jpg
http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/Dl23.jpg
http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/Dl24.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/168.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/169.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/174.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/hundsfelder.html - <------ a whole manual of just armored half sword
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/VadiN...titled-jv3.jpg
The list could go on for days. Armor was effective- it did its job. These techniques were the answer to the armor as well as more tapering tipped longswords to slip into the gaps easier.
Equally as horrible is his comment that, “tactical fencing principals, such as feints, beats, pressures and their respective deceptions, counter-time and even the parry-riposte, counter-riposte done with second intention, were undiscovered.” Such a narrow view of things is truly disappointing. Again, the answer lies in the manuals that Mr. Worsfield failed to acknowledge. Let’s use Fiore’s manual as an example to counter this argument. (here is a fantastic site on Fiore : http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/fiore )
Keep in the mind that the following dialogue is supplemented with illustrations in the manual:
“Here commences play of the two-handed sword, Gioco Largo (Wide Play). This Master, who crosses with this player, in the point of sword, says, "when I am crossed in point of sword, I immediately turn (volta) my sword and I injure him from the other side, with a fendente downwards into the head and arms, or I thrust him in the face, as you see drawn after.
I positioned a thrust in your face, like the master which was before said. Also, I could have done what he says, that is, retract my sword immediately when I was crossed by the right side: I had to turn my sword on the left side in a fendente to the head and arms, like my Master said, who was before me.
Again, I am crossed at Gioco Largo at the middle of the blade. And immediately when I cross [swords], I let my sword slip over his hands, and if I want to pass with my right foot out of the way, I can deliver a thrust in his chest, as is drawn hereafter.
The play of my master has been completed, because I have done his cover, and immediately done what he said, that first I have injured the arms, then I have positioned the point/thrust in his chest.
My Master, who is before, taught me that when I am crossed in the middle of the blade, I have to immediately step forward (acresser inanci) and grab his sword, to wound with a cut or a thrust. Also, I can incapacitate his leg in the way you can see drawn here by injuring him with my foot over the back of the leg or under the knee.”

Just from these few tiny verses, we can see a wide variety of very calculated attacks, defences, disengages, understanding of distance and timing, attacks with multiple options stemming from it should one not work. There is no way Mr. Worsfield can support his opinion that people of this time did not understand these principals. This and other manuals clearly state master strikes (first intention), remedies to master strikes (parry-riposte) and counter remedy masters (counter-riposte with second intention). And quite frankly there is a much wider range of counters, parries and ripostes in historical fencing than in the narrow confines of the modern sport. Here ends Part 2. Notice that this second part is commentary on only 5 sentences of Mr. Worsfield’s work. It is no exaggeration that his paper is just PACKED with inaccuracies.

[kalivor]

Now on to his comment about smashing through armor. One of the worst aspects of Mr. Worsfield’s paper is that he did not consult any of the many medieval and pre 1500’s manuals that are readily available to anyone who even tries to look for them. Later on in the paper he makes the horribly mistaken claim that, “the oldest work on fencing was written in 1531 by Antonio Manciolino, of Bologna…” and then, “Achille Marozzo is generally looked upon as the first writer of not on the art of fencing.” Nothing could be further than the truth. Look at these!:

I'm amazed by this ... even assuming that he is a sports fencer, I believe that the FIE website linked to this, recently: http://www.fencingbibliography.com/ (by my first fencing coach!) ... not too hard to find pre-1531 titles ...

[GorillaSmile]

AllenJ

Thanks for all the work. That makes for good enjoyable reading.

[JasminaJ]

Many thanks, Allen J!
Excellent reading.

[striker]

just out of curiosity, is anyone interested in hearing the rest of this? No sense in going though all the work and research if it's not really wanted.

AllenJ,

I personally appreciate the work that you are doing. I feel there is a need
for more indepth and more well researched posts such as this. Great post.

[AllenJ]

Many thanks to you all. There is just so much bad information out there and I used to be one of the ones that repeated this kind of rubbish to others unknowingly. It wasnt until I actually started doing some research and learning with an open mind from people much smarter than me that I saw the errors of my ways. Now it is my responsibility to pass that on to others!
Hopefully Part 3 will be ready later on today
(the 12th)

[VELISARIOS]

Great job (εύγε) Allen J.

[VELISARIOS]

Good, we wait the next part.

[AllenJ]

Part 3

Next he goes on to more supposed details about armored fighting. He mentions that the Viking mail “had been sufficient to give reasonable protection to the…blows of his adversary.” Of course, it was not only the Vikings that had mail and it stopped the cut. The blow could still injure. It is true that the mail could not stand the blows of an axe, as he states- or an arrow. Though the arrowhead had to go through a change where is evolved from a sparrow tail – looking head to a bodkin style that could fit between the links. He still fails to mention the spear, the mainstay of the Norsemen’s arsenal which could also thrust through mail. I failed to mention it before but here are some video links with testing sword blows against mail. It is clear that it is quite effective.
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvid...dmaterials.htm
Many clips on this page, including test cutting against a variety of materials.
Mr. Worsfield states, “The eventual result was the fully armored man, carrying some sixty pounds of sheet metal on the surface of his body.” Sheet metal is a modern invention and was not available to period armorers. Because there was no sheet metal, the armor would sometime have varying levels of thickness. It was paramount to have a good armorer. He misleads us further by stating, “…when he fought on foot that mobility was considerably restricted.” Again, it is obvious that he has had no experience in armor or at least in well made armor. Properly made and fitted armor does not restrict much movement. Even the sixty or more pounds is less that in supposed. If you just heft sixty pounds in your hands, sure, it’s a little heavy. But this weight is spread over the whole body. Six pounds here, ten pounds there, five pounds there… ect. When compared to some of the 100 lbs + packs that some of our modern military carry on their backs, 60 lbs over the whole body is not so immobilizing.
The bigger answer is, of course, within the manuals themselves. The armored images shown earlier depict movements and positions that are perfectly attainable with or without armor. The manuals also make no mention at all movements being restricted by armor.
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Gladi...orie_part2.htm
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/175.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/181.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/190.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/192.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/193.jpg
It is obvious from these images these people are quite mobile. There is a fantastic article in the July 2005 issue of Military History Magazine, entitled "Medieval Armor: Myth of the Cumbersome Knight". Available here: http://www.historynet.com/mh/contents_07_05 - well worth it.


One Paragraph at a time This one was a little shorter so I should be able to get in Part 4 today as well- but the next paragraph is a doozie!

[AllenJ]

Part 4

Mr. Worsfield correctly states that the increase of defense produces new weapon designs to overcome it. He says, “The period of heavy personal armor was accompanied by the development of weapons that would crack (axe, morning star, war hammer and mace) it or slip through its gaps (misericorde dagger), to penetrate the body inside.” It is true that these weapons were capable of going through armor. It is interesting though that there is remarkably little mention of it in the manuals. With all the work that was produced on armored combat, not once do we see a warhammer or mace in use. We do see the antiques and read mention of them but their use seems to be relatively uncommon. This thought may change with more discovery and research, but at this point in time we have very little info as to their use. Using the longsword in the halfsword grip seems to be the preferred method of attack and defense. He also makes mention of a dagger called a “misericorde”- though it is understood what it is, most call it a rondel dagger. Rondel daggers are very capable weapons that are as good for fighting in armor as without. One of the more surprising things about the manuals is that there is almost more wresting and dagger instruction than sword work- much of which is done with the rondel.
Here is a typical rondel dagger reproduction:
http://www.armor.com/dagg110.html
And an antique:
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=14&pos=137
Most have round discs at the hilt and pommel and a thick, triangular blade. Usually sharpened only on one side. The manuals are just packed with instruction on using these knives both in armor and out of armor:
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/61.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/60.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/178.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/179.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/VadiN...led-vadi3B.jpg
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/VadiN...tled-vadi4.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0127.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0133.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0143.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0191.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0282.jpg
http://mhewer.club.fr/Library/Talhoffer/kamp0285.jpg
and so on…

What ever good marks Mr. Worsfield gets for including the dagger against armored opponents is wiped out with his next comments. He states, “The rough and basic fighting tactics of mounted knights in heavy armor, hacking at each other in medieval Europe with two-handed swords reflected the reign of "brute" force in the life of that time. The strongest arm and sword won the day…” First off, no true two handers were used on horseback. There are some cases for bastard swords being used, but they are not true two handed swords. If anything, the manuals teach us that brute force is a quick way to get yourself killed. The German manuals talk about defenses against “buffel” (buffalo) fighters who just rely on sheer strength and not skill to win. They constantly talk about having a clear mind, not being angry or impassioned. There is a concept that is at the core of all fencing and especially in longsword that the German masters called "Fühlen" (feeling). This concept is at the moment the blades make contact, you must sense whether your opponent is hard in the bind or soft. If he is hard in the bind, you go soft and thus are able to do the equivalent of a disengage. If he is soft in the bind, you go hard and press in a thrust or strong cut. This idea of feeling is not one based off of brute strength and is used with almost every blow of the sword. Just read the manuals- they are so clear on how much thought and strategy go into medieval swordplay. It is so much more than ‘hack and slash’. Just look at this brief into from Sigmund Ringeck’s commentaries on Johan Liechtenauer’s techniques- circa 1389-1440:

“When you engage at the sword ("binden") with strength and your adversary pulls his sword upwards and strikes at your head from the other side, then bind strongly with the true edge and strike him on the head.

You must notice immediately, if someone is weak or strong at the sword if he binds at your sword with a strike or a thrust. If you have noticed that, you shall know simultaneously, if it is better to fight him in the "before" (Nach) or the "after" (Vor). But don’t engage rashly in close-combat (Krieg), this is nothing else than Winding (Winden) at the sword.

In close-combat you should do the following: if you strike him with the strike of Wrath and he displaces it, lift up your arms and, at the sword, wind the point to the upper opening. When he displaces (Versetzen) the thrust, stay in the winding and thrust to the lower opening. If he follows your sword in the displacement (Versatzung), lead your point through under his sword (disengage under – "durchführen") and thrust to the other opening on his right side. This is how you can defeat him in close-combat.

Mutieren and Duplieren against the four openings:
These are the four openings you should aim at in combat. The first opening is the right side, the second opening is the left side above the belt. The other openings are the right and left side below the belt. Already pay attention to the openings when you are closing in, aim at the ones he (your adversary) exposes.
Thrust with the "long point" (Langer Ort), use the "traveling after" (Nachreissen) and all other opportunities. Don’t pay attention to what he’s up to, fence securely and you’ll hit so outstandingly, that he’ll not be able to get through with his own techniques.

If you want to break one of the four openings by force, then "Dupliere" at the upper opening, against the Starke (strong) of his sword, and then "Mutiere" to another opening. Against this, he cannot defend himself and he will not be able to either strike or thrust.”

There is no way this stuff can be watered down the just brute force hacking and bashing. Strength is certainly a big part of medieval swordplay, but certainly not the only element as Mr. Worsfield supposes.

btw- questions and comments are welcome

[Mark W.]

btw- questions and comments are welcome

Well done rebuttal thus far. As a historical fencer (only), I run into this type of stuff from time to time, and it will be nice to have a thread to refer to if something like this ever comes up again. In fact, I registered just to give you encouragement in this endeavour.

As an aside, here is an article which should be read in tandem to your rebuttal: http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm

Best regards,

-Mark

[AllenJ]

Well done rebuttal thus far. As a historical fencer (only), I run into this type of stuff from time to time, and it will be nice to have a thread to refer to if something like this ever comes up again. In fact, I registered just to give you encouragement in this endeavour.

As an aside, here is an article which should be read in tandem to your rebuttal: http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm

Best regards,

-Mark

Thank you very much! And yes! That article is by far one of the best sword related myth-busters available in the free world! Seriously, anyone who has even a passing interest in anything sword related should read, memorize and preach that thing. Mr. Clements work is second to none. In fact the vast majority of my knowledge comes from his research.