Rob Lovett (rob_lovett@hotmail.com)
Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:16:21 BST
I am more than happy to take this privately if people are not interested in
this discussion.
>
>Having said all that, I disagree with your statement. Yes, the manuals
>which have survived define a rigid style. No, this doesn't mean that
>those fighting in the period of the manuals also fought in a rigid
>style. To suggest that they did, just because the manuals survive, is
>ludicrous.
Yes, they describe a rigid style, just like learning to drive, there are
certain things that you should do to remain safe, eg Mirror Signal Mirror
Manouever - One should not think to "Press In" without simultaneously
thinking of "Flying Out" (idea from Silver amongst others) but combat is not
a rocket science - there are things that will be done during a fight that
will never be seen in a period manual but as long as the prnciples that
underline these techniques are adhered to then the fight will be "True".
>
>If indeed manuals were widespread and were used to teach everyone, and
>fighting schools were available everywhere, why is it that we have so
>few copies of them? There are hundreds of manuscripts surviving from
>the C13th and before, and yet there is only one damaged copy of I.33 -
>now this may be because the others were kept by churches and royal
>librarians, but since they also collected some very obscure works, they
>should have picked up on something as important and useful as a fighting
>manual.
There were a lot more manuals available in the past then have actually
survived. This has made the task of rediscovering these ancient skills that
bit more difficult but as time progresses there are more being
re-discovered. Early material was recorded in a small number of books and
manuscripts that have been vulnerable to time, climate and accident. Books
and Manuscripts have been sold abroad where they were stripped down and used
for binding. The Church suppressed knowledge to strengthen its hold on newly
converted societies, vikings ravaged the places where knowledge was likely
to be stored, destruction suffered during the dissolution, vandalism during
the puritan era, during which time leaves from unsuitable books were used
for leaning and toilet paper.
>
>I would suggest instead that combat training was going on all over the
>place. Very little of it was based on manuals - instead, it was based
>on personal experience, of which there was a lot. It was based on
>practice, and personal trial and discovery of what works and what
>doesn't for that person. The basics, like balance, movement and the
>theory of parries, would be similar across most areas. It doesn't take
>a written manual to achieve similarity. Self-study courses are only
>necessary when there is no teacher present.
Yes, combat training was going on all the time, I believe that is has been
ongoing continuously since at least Alfred the Great's reign, and maybe even
was a left over from the Roman Occupation. Of course initially it may well
have been based on personal experience, but when someone sees another person
survive fight after fight they will want to know how it is done - as these
techniques are not intuitive, they have to be learned. Some of the books
that have survived are nothing more, in my opinion, crib notes for a tutor.
Similarity does not equate to being the same. For example - when I was
learning from the school of "re-enactment fighting" I learnt the fives to
block the shoulder I would place my sword away from the body with the point
of the blade pointing at the sky ie, being vertical, now I have changed this
particular ward to being held at a diagonal thus creating a 90 degree angle
when the two blades meet thus making for a totally stronger block then when
I used to do it, - this goes further of course as I prefer to use the True
Gaurd(gathering guard), as this allows me to close distance between my
opponent and myself.
Soory I started to waffle.
>
>
>As for accurate styles being more "efficient", you're on very dodgy
>ground - most of the rubbish which has developed in competitive >combat
>is as a direct result of someone finding that it was quicker, easier,
>less exhausting, and more effective to do it that way.
Sorry I think that you have just lost the plot - authentic styles were
efficient - I do not see where you get the idea that this is dodgy ground. I
feel that you have contradicted yourslef all in one sentence.
> It may turn them
>into rules lawyers who are more interested in their kill count than in
>the accuracy of the overall display, but it can't be argued that they're
>not efficient. Let's just stick with "effective" and "accurate"....
>
Modern re-enators are not effective - I have been re-enacting since I was 14
or 15 to long any how. I was pretty good at holding my own - trained every
week, at least three/four times a week. Since I have been practicing
authentique techniques I have found that they are more efficient, more
effective and more accurate then anything that I was doing before - and
using common sense I have still not hurt anyone.
I am not saying that these techniques will make you into a superman or make
you "bullet proof" ("sword proof" dunno), but they will give an advantage to
anyone using them over any one that is not using them.
>The problem is not our English comprehension, but your historical
>comprehension. There are several factors at play which make your
>suggestion of extrapolating backwards non-sensical:
Now now that is getting a little bit insulting, there is certainly nothing
wrong with my English or Historical Comprehension. I think that any good
historian will say that researching is a subtle balance between researcher
and detective - and from any sort of research you have to draw conclusions.
>
>1. Iron quality - the quality of sword blades changed dramatically in
>the early C10th, when it was no longer necessary to use pattern-welding
>to ensure the blade could survive blows. This was a direct result of
>better smelting techniques, which ensured a more even quality of the
>iron with fewer and smaller impurities. As a result, weapons could be
>made longer and with sharper points, making thrusting a valid attack
>again (as it had been in the Roman period, when iron quality was also
>high). This also led to an explosion in armour - the more efficient
>processes produced more iron, and the increasing industrialisation of
>towns allowed professional armourers to set up dedicated workshops. >The
>result was that swords, mail and helmets became much more common towards
>the end of the C10th than they were at the start.
You are correct of course, iron quality did improve, but the basic weapon
remained the same. The improvement in quality of iron gave the ability for
the sword to be relied on for defense - instead of just the shield. I am not
saying that the sword was never used for defense before the 10 century,
archaelogical evidence prooves this, but the techniques would not have
changed, only added to.
I understand here you are talking of broad sword techniques. Do not be
tempted to throw in arguements about the use of hand and a
half/bastard/long/war/great swords as these are a different class and when
these ame into existance then styles were discovered for the use of these
weapons (based on quarter staff techniques).
>
>2. Armour developments - the development of plate armour from around
>1250 (knee and elbow plates, then lower limbs, then upper limbs, etc.)
>gave protection to the vulnerable areas where mail didn't really help
>much. This forced the fighting style to change, so that blows were
>directed at a completely different set of target areas from before. The
>prevalence of mail also forced blows to change, making heavier attacks
>essential to get some effect through the mail and padding.
Yes Armour did change - so new weapons were developed based on older ones to
deal with this - the broad sword in my opinion was never a primary weapon.
The English towards the end of the middle ages relied on the bill for foot
soldiers and this was still in use towards the end of the Elizabethan era -
this can be seen by referring George Silver and DIgrassi t name but two, but
the style is bassically an extension of quarter staff.
>
>3. Polearm development - weapon use has changed considerably, from the
>Roman period of sword and pilum, to the Saxon/Viking period of spear(s)
>and a sidearm which probably wasn't a sword in most cases, to the Norman
>period of spear and sword, to the C13-14th with either a long spear (for
>the lower classes) or a sword (for the upper classes). As these changes
>occurred, the balance of battlefield requirements also changed - and yet
>none of the manuals deals with fighting someone with a loing pointy
>stick with a sharp bit of steel on the end. They all deal with
>one-to-one combat in a fencing or duelling style.
Again I have to disagree - Silver referred to the Bill as one of the most
effective martial weapons - he actually preferred the quarterstaff as he
felt that the speed of the weapon made it more advantageous to use over the
Bill. The manuals in their majority were not there to deal with military
formations and tactics of the mass battle - just to improve the skill of the
individual. There were other books/manuscripts that deal with this
particular area.
But this argument has nothing to do with the main one of whether re-enactors
should try to use authentic techniques.
>
>4. Social developments - by the end of the C10th, the Huscarl was more
>or less a professional warrior. They were fully supported by their
>employer/leader, and were expected to be well equipped. They probably
>trained extensively, to improve their skills and teamwork, but not using
>either a written manual or a prescribed method. With the introduction
>of tournaments, combat became more stylised at the upper end of the
>social scale, but probably stayed very similar at the lower (and
>untrained) end. Although tournament combat was very stylised, warfare
>wasn't - any suggestion that one was training for the other may be valid
>until about 1300, at which point it rapidly becomes a completely
>different activity with very little relevance to warfare.
I think that you are again a little bit confused. A martial art is a martial
art - if you are taught to use a technique that is effective for a tourney
then you would use it for the battle field. I think, however you are putting
the cart before the horse in this arguement. The skills that were used in
tourney were ones that were taught for war, the rules came in to make the
tourney safer and cut down on fatal injuries.
>
>To try another analogy, rapiers were popular in the C17th. Their main
>attack was the thrust. In Roman times, the gladius was almost
>universal, and its main attack was the thrust. In Norman times, swords
>were used for thrusting. In the later medieval period, swords were
>still used for thrusting. QED, any sword user should be taught to
>thrust.
Yes it is a valid attack, in my opinion not an efficient one, and that is
based on physiology, the human body reacts quicker when swinging in arcs
rather than in telesopic moves. I won't go into all the arguements of this
as I do not think that it is particularly relevant.
>
>Unfortunately, since Dark Age blades were spatulate on the end (i.e.
>they were blunt, because making them pointy would result in the blade
>being very fragile), this doesn't hold. A thrust with a Dark Age weapon
>is almost unheard of, and when the documentary evidence does suggest it,
>it is as a desperate last-gasp measure with a broken sword.
Then, if the thrust is unheard of in Dark Age times do Regia Anglorum and
NFPS use this attack with swords.
The broad sword was used for a thrust - do you hav any idea how easy it is
to rupture the insides with a thrust from even a blunted weapon. In any
event, the act of thrusting would help gain distance from your opponent.
Ignoring those two arguments - the broad sword/sabre/backsword is a cutting
weapon, althoug it can and was used for thrusts and this is illustrated in
many techniques from many different practitioners from the 13th century to
the early part of the 20th with Hutton's techniques.
>
>Its only because we have direct archaeological evidence that we can
>disprove this theory. Your argument of extrapolating backwards is based
>on the assumption that there's nothing you've missed, and therefore you
>must be correct. My problem with this is that I assume that there must
>be something you've missed, and therefore while I am willing to listen
>to your ideas, I don't have to accept them. I've suggested some of the
>things you've missed - others can add to the list.
I seem to remember that a large group once made a ruling that there can be
nothing in a show that had not been referenced 50 years either way. A man
pointed out at the first show after thius ludicrous ruling that there
should be no children in the village as there were no historical
documentation recorded to proove that there were children in villages. A
stupid rule don't you agree.
I feel that your arguement is basically on the same wavelength as this.
There has been so much cross referencing that, things have been missed due
to not being available ie missing destrooyed lost etc, but they will not
change the nature of what has been discovered, they will just add to it.
To bring it back to your statement wht exactly do you feel that we have
missed in this arguement, or is it as I suspect some way for you to sound
knowledgable about a subject that you are not completely sanguine.
>
><snip>
>
> >Those people re-enacting combat from a period before the first
> >surviving manual (1300) can either extrapolate from the techniques in
>
> >early fencing manuals written by fencing masters who witnessed and
> >took part in combat,
> >OR they can extrapolate from techniques developed during their own
> >experiences in back-yards with blunt weapons, fighting with no true
> >martial intent.
>
>OR they can extrapolate from techniques developed in back yards with
>blunt weapons using their intelligence and experience and an intent to
>land the blow in a position which would cause death or serious injury
Yes this has been done - and although some of what I discovered was correct
the majority was not and proved to be inefficient especially when I looked
at sources.
>
>OR they can combine this with reading of the later sources as a sanity
>check
This is what made me question what re-enactors have been doing combat wise.
>
>OR they can give up and go home, leaving the whole period before 1300
>an "un-re-enactable" because there are claimed to be no sources.
If they do not have the commitment to do the research and the hard work then
maybe they should do just that. If they are prepared to spend two hours on a
Sunday training and making stuff up then whay aren't they prepared to
practise the "real" techiniques instead and do the research that re-enactors
aare so prepared to do in other areas of the hobby. After all in the end
they are just trying to rediscover the wheel.
If the answer is they prefer to concentrate on other areas of their hobby
then fair enough
>
> >Throughout this thread there has been a suggestion that it is wrong
>to
> >extrapolate knowledge from one period to another. Quite so, and if it
>
> >were not necessary then people would not do it. Why then are the
> >people who are most vocal in arguing against extrapolation back from
> >the writings of experts in 1300, sanguine about extrapolation back
>from
> >the experience of rank amateurs in 2000?
>
>You contradict yourself - you've stated above that it is wrong to
>extrapolate from one period to another, and then say that it is
>necessary. You've consistently argued that Dark Age re-enactors who
>don't work from the later manuals must therefore be doing it wrong.
I think that you need to re-read this. He is trying to say that on the one
hand you have said that it is wrong to extrapolate backwards but then, and
in the same mail - you have said that the only way to rediscover techniques
is to extrapolate backwards. This part of the arguement has become confused.
If we take a modern day boxing manual and tried to extrapolate backwards to
bare fist fighting in Anglo Saxon times then you will not get a very
accurate portrayal. If you went back 200 years and check out the bare fist
techniques then - during the decline of the Stage Gladiator then you would
find that there are no rules and every means of hurting your opponent is
used. Then extrapolate this backwards you would get a lot closer to the
"real" Anglo Saxon technique. If you then compare this tehnique against
earlier ones and nothing much then changes in the way bare fist fighting is
being done then you could safely say that if the same technique is being
used in the 18th century as in the 15th Century and the 13th Century then it
is reasonable to assume that the same technique will be used in the 9th and
10th centuries. In my researh this has certainly proved to be the case.
>
>Why are we happier with our own experiences rather than the writings of
>experts? There are two reasons:
>
>1. We do not necessarily believe that they are experts. Charlatans
>exist in all periods, and if I wrote a manual today on quantum physics
>which was the only one to survive into AD.2500, people like you would
>assume that because I wrote a book, I must be an expert. As a result,
>they'd believe that we had some bloody funny ideas back in the C20th...
>But they'd have the advantage of being able to prove that my version was
>incorrect, whereas we can't prove that I.33 is an accurate or inaccurate
>representation of 1300.
What a load of tosh - people have been pratiing these techniques today -
practised martial artists - they have found that they do inded work
effectively - if they didn't then people wouldn't have bothered righting
books about them and I certainly wouldn't be wastng my time on this mail.
>
>2. We are not "rank amateurs" - no-one would claim to be
>professionals, but neither are we bumbling no-hopers stumbling around in
>the dark. Where the intention is to get it right, and the incentive is
>there to do so, we have the opprtunity to try different styles and
>approaches until we get something which doesn't contradict the primary
>evidence,and which seems to the best of our judgement to be close to
>what must have happened. Having done so, we represent that to the
>public as indicating what it was likely to have been like, rather than
>being "100% accurate". They may not see the distinction, but we still
>try to make it.
>
But you don't. You have systematically argued against using primary sources
basing this arguement on the supposition taht all historical combat manuals
have been made up and have no relevance. So you base your judgement on that
dictated to you by your own flawed experiences and modern fencing. I would
even be prepared to belive that you think that quarterstaff fighting is the
one that is depicted in Robin Hood a la Holly wood style.
> >So you have studied I.33? Then you would see how vastly it differs
> >from the styles of most re-enactors. Please tell me if your
>conclusions
> >differ from mine. I would be very interested in your interpretation of
>the
> >partially missing fifth ward where the MS. is damaged.
>
>Attempting to take the moral high ground is the last refuge of someone
>in retreat. I'm sorry to see you take this approach, since its not
>worthy of your usual standard of argument.
>
>Yes, I have seen I.33, but I have not "studied" it. I have consulted a
>copy out of interest (Cambridge University library being a good
>repository of facsimiles of most early manuscripts), but I saw nothing
>in it which was a surprise to me. I have also consulted Talhofer,
>Silver, et al, as a result of a general interest in weaponry and its
>usage of all periods.
I have seen a submairine but i couldn't drive one. I have read a cookery
book but I couldn't make a baked alaska.
>
><snip>
>
>
> >So are you saying that in combat re-enactments you only represent
> >people who would not have known how to fight effectively? If so then
> >that's fine, ineffective fighting styles are historically accurate for
>all >periods of history. However, if you represent a knight or a soldier
>(i.e.
> >someone who would have learned to fight effectively) then you are
> >saying that you're happy to fight in an inaccurate manner. You are
> >happy to knowingly do something that is not historically accurate.
>That's >just bad re-enactment, whether you're wearing inaccurate
>clothes, >doing the wrong drill or any of the other myriad things
>re-enactors re-
> >enact.
>
>Not at all. Your paragraph above suggests "effective" warriors are
>such only if they stick rigidly to the period manuals, or to
>extrapolated versions of them.
>
>I'd argue that anyone who manages to walk off a battlefield has proved
>themselves to be an effective warrior, whether they were trained
>formally or not.
Maybe they were just lucky? On a field where everyone is fightin
ineffectively then it is quite easy to survive using in effective
techniques.
>
>Again, the point is that even someone with formal training will not
>restrict themselves to the stances, attacks and parries published in a
>manual. If they did, anyone who had studied the manual and then
>developed a few tricks to work against those styles would always win.
>Experimentation is part of every period of sword use, and in our period,
>should be encouraged rather than denigrated as inaccurate.
This again shows how little you know about the combat that was describe in
these manuals. I am not saying that experimentation is not good, just your
arguement about making up tricks and always winning.
>
>You always seem to conflate "accurate" with slavish following of combat
>manuals....
No but it has to be the basis and the foundation.
>
> >Let me ask people a question. If you were to re-enact a dance, would
> >you expect to use the correct historical moves, or would it be OK to
>use
> >moves thought up by someone who had never danced before in their >life
>and say it was an accurate historical dance? This is exactly what
> >people are doing in combat, making up their own moves (which look
> >absurd to anyone who has studied historical sources) and passing
> >these off as the real thing. If you did it with dancing, you would be
> >caught out and bagged by every re-enactor from here to eternity.
>
>I refer you to the Morris Dance tradition in the UK; you've just
>described most of it perfectly.
What a load of old tosh - the Morris Dance tradition was srewed by the
Victorians - remember this was based on a fertility dance with its origins
way back when... I refer you to my boxing/bare fist fighting arguement.
>
>You seem to insist on forcing all periods to conform to the sources of
>one period - how can someone "who has studied historical sources" decide
>that what I've found works in Dark Age combat (for which there are no
>historical sources) is "absurd"? Yes, some people use systems which
>include such rubbish, but others don't, and you seem to be fixated on
>the assumption that everyone is closer to elves in tights with rubber
>ears than to historical accuracy.
Have you been reading - the sources quoted have ranged from the 20th century
back to the 13th - if you like I will even start pulling Saxo Grammitcus out
of the bag as well (12th I belive) As one period - that is a pretty large
one - we must be looking at geologial eras - they last at least 10,000
years.
>
> >Until
> >recently though, in combat, people did exactly this in total
>ignorance.
> >Now there is no excuse for that ignorance, but it would appear that
> >some people would prefer to deliberately do shoddy re-enactment
> > than to make a bit of an effort to get it right. It sounds to
> >me like the bad old days of desert boots and knitted string. Maybe
> >that's why I'm increasingly viewing re-enactment combat as bad
> >slapstick and as an embarrasment to re-enactment as a whole.
>
>On the flip side, there are those in re-enactment who have thought
>about what they're doing and why they're doing it, who have experienced
>the arguments of those from so-called fight schools who insist that they
>are experts at everything despite having never handled a weapon of our
>period. Some of these teach stage fighting, and some claim to be
>historical fencing/swordsmanship schools.
Have you researched this or are you just making this up. Those schools that
teach stage fighting clearly state they do. Those shools that teach
historical fencing/swordsmanship quite clearly do. What you seem to forget
that people are also learning full combat systems - these cover a large
range of weapons, but I would suggest that you look at John Clements,
Martinez, Terry Brown etc. before you make such large statements
>
>Our opinion is therefore coloured by these experiences, and the result
>is that many are simply filed away under "clueless", or perhaps worse,
>"dangerous and clueless". While I wouldn't want to suggest that you
>fall into this category (having never met you), you should understand
>that there are issues on both sides, and good and bad efforts on both
>sides. Credit us with some intelligence and pride in what we do,
>please!
>
I do understand that there are issues on both sides but you seem no to be
able to identify them - instead you have spent most of this time rubbishing
and ridiculling historical sources and sying that anyone that believes them
are idiots as there is something that, you haven't stated, that has been
missed.
Maybe you are right - hey perhaps the Anglo Saxon chronicles were made up
just for a laugh to wind up people living a thousand years later.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue 30 Jan 2001 - 02:30:27 GMT