Really spear techniques or preparation for other weapons?

User avatar
Hugh Knight
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:49
Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
Club:Die Schlachtschule
Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
Contact:
Re: Really spear techniques or preparation for other weapons?

Post by Hugh Knight » Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:30 pm

Roger Norling wrote:And is that a hairy wart that the guy on the right in the third image has on the nose?
I think you're seeing the other side of his moustache.
Regards,
Hugh Knight
http://www.schlachtschule.org
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Really spear techniques or preparation for other weapons?

Post by Roger N » Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:17 pm

Well, I would be glad to experiment with this and see how many of our clubs 100 members that EASILY can move inside of my spear point with a shorter weapon. Even with training specifically for it it is a serious risk, moving against a thrusting spear, out of armour. I strongly maintain that it is not easy, although it certainly can be done and by some with less risk. Of course in close combat you are at a disadvantage with a spear, but managing distance and moving backwards and shortening the grip can certainly help in such a situation, as well as using the spear as a vertical barrier and grabbing your dagger.

Your assumption about the lack of use of strikes is based on the suggestion that the spear would break too easily. This we do not really know. Although there are techniques for breaking a spear that suggest that it could be done with some spears at least, we really have too little material to base such broad claims on. With the spears shown in the images above I am less convinced of such a tactic. In fact, I would suggest that striking would work very well with the weapons shown. And of course, striking and thrusting with a staff is quite effective. As you know, both Silver and Svetnam praised the staff as being very effective and difficult to approach with a shorter, or much longer weapon.

Then again, the Thott manuscript DOES show a spear breaking against a leg... :)

Once again, using the staff to practice the spear is not my advice, it is Meyer's and Mair's. Mair even calls the staff "spiess" or "hastula". Meyer is vague and states that his quarterstaff is the basis for all long weapons. This is where this thread originated from. Although the context is quite different in the mid and late 1500s, we are not looking at a very large distance in time, about 60-70 years from Talhoffer. With Fiore, it seems to me that he strongly ties the spear to the longsword and halfsword. What is your opinion on this?

Regarding the Thott-images they actually DO show spearwork out of armour, which I find very interesting, even if the specific techniques are difficult to identify. But apparently it was done and it not shown in any symbolical way for use in harnischfecthen. Just as with the duel between a man and woman it is hard to judge to what extent this was practiced, though. But, that gives you quite a few more openings to target, doesn't it? And I assume the same techniques and principles would be used, only with consideration for the added openings.

There are so many undefined variables here that I think it is much too early to make bold statements about how things were done in a broad perspective. We only have glimpses of a much larger picture. The field is still open for a lot of reasonable speculation. The lack of techniques for the spear in the fechtbuchen can have so many other explanations than your interpretation that is was not effective enough, which to me seems to be an unlikely explanation.

Other explanations I can think of:
  • Traditions - Yes, most certainly. The spear obviously was thrown in armour to initiate combat and this may have very old roots, especially since the whole system of judicial duelling may have very old Germanic and Scandinavian roots in "holmgÃ¥ng". Traditions may certainly also have dictated what weapons were used.

    Multiple weapons skills - There may have been little need to practice the spear specifically, since the warriours already knew how to handle it based on what they learnt with the longsword, staff and halberd. There are of course differences in handling, but many of the principles and techniques can be transferred quite easily.

    Social class - In armour, the spear is naturally of less use, but then again it could pierce quite brutally as shown in the text you linked above. Still, many weapons had little effect on full armour and it seems as if fights not rarely ended up on the ground with a daggar acting as a tin can opener.
    Perhaps the spear was more used by lower classes in judicial duels, as seen in the Talhoffer images above? As the early fechtbuchen didn't target this group, it is not surprising that they rarely show the use of spears.

    The staff and spear were used similarly - At least in the Renaissance fechtschulen this apparently was true. They were thought of similarly and the staff was used as a simulator to learn other weapons, including the spear. Another reason why I included the images, is that they appear to show fairly thick spears, as does Kal. Again, I agree about the use of strikes but not fully for the reason you state.
The main difference between you and me, appears to be that you focus more and solely on the techniques shown and you use the principles to understand them. I see the techniques as embodiments of the principles and am very much focused on the principles behind. As a result I don't see myself as limited only to the portrayed forms of the techniques, as long as the same principles are employed. This works fairly well for me in sparring as well. And even I have limits... I still use the described techniques primarily. And I am not "making things up". I try to draw conclusions from various sources to get a broader perspective. There is a big difference there. In fact I consider such a statement as a bit rude and insulting.

You and I have very different perspectives here and although I can understand yours, I don't share it. I fear that we will end up with endless side discussions as a result of this and I will therefore try to avoid getting deeper into such discussions.

I wish I could polish this post a bit more, but my five-year old son wants me to read for him... :)
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
User avatar
Hugh Knight
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:49
Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
Club:Die Schlachtschule
Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Really spear techniques or preparation for other weapons?

Post by Hugh Knight » Sat Jan 23, 2010 10:31 pm

As for getting inside a spear's point, I can say from more than 20 years of full-speed spear fighting, it's easier to get inside someone's spear point with a shorter weapon than it is to back up and choke up on the spear. Not that it can't be done, I practiced doing it all the time, it's just not easy to do against someone charging in. Believe me or not, it's up to you.

But the question to which I replied was whether spears can be used like staves. The answer is that they were *not* used like staves because staves were used for both striking and thrusting, and there is *zero* evidence for striking with spears. Even the thrustsing is different: The thrusts with a stave require more emphasis on force, and there's no evidence for (nor need of since it's all unarmored material) a "place and push"-type thrust with the stave such as was sometimes used in armored spear combat.

Moreover, we have no documentation for how to use a spear out of armor, and without documentation, the form shouldn't be practiced. There's a guy who wrote a book about Ringeck's longsword, but he was only working from a small bit of the text--he didn't have the part that showed halfswording--but he knew the art was supposed to be used in armor, too. As a result, he tried to show Bloßfechten techniques for use in armor. We have to stick with what we can document.

Before I translated Gladiatoria, I was surprised that there were no Absetzen techniques with the spear. It seemed so logical that you could Absetzen with the spear as easily as you could with the sword. But since there was no documentation for it, I didn't do it. Then I translated Gladiatoria and found an Absetzen with the spear, so now I include that in my studies because I can document it. Before finding evidence for it it was *wrong*. After finding evidence it's *right*. Without documentation we're just making things up.

As for the pictures you posted from Talhoffer 1459, none of them show spear techniques, they show a scant handful of techniques to use *against* a spear; not quite the same thing. Oh, and the picture doesn't show a spear breaking against a leg; in fact, it seems likely it was broken by a cut with the sword. There *are* some plates in Talhoffer's Ambraser Codex that *might* show unarmored spear, but then again, they might also show armored spear techniques demonstrated out of armor, the way he shows some halfsword material in his 1459 Fechtbuch. Either way, it's moot because he didn't give us any instructions to go with the pretty pictures; in many of the shots (and there are only a few), it's difficult to even tell which figure is doing the technique the plate is supposed to be showing! Neither source gives us enough to develop a system of unarmored spear combat.

As for that bit from Froissart: Don't trust the part about punching through armor. Froissart wasn't there, and he's notoriously bad about details. Another source suggests the spear slid between the lames of the victim's fauld, it did not penetrate plate. Based on what we know from other contemporary sources (including the Fechtbücher) and from modern experiments, this is much more likely. Moreover, for all Froissart's gratuitous talk about gushing blood, note that the victim continued on and finished his bout; it couldn't have been that severe (although I bet it hurt like the devil!).

And yes, you're making up techniques. That's neither rude nor insulting, it's a description of what you're doing; I have not been rude or insulting. I'm actually being very positive and friendly here because you are too--a very refreshing and welcome change, I have to say (not a change for you, for lists in general). But a thing is what it is: In my lexicology, taking a technique from one form and using it in another, especially when it's across the armored/unarmored boundary (because we know there are *major* differences between the two), is making up a new technique. I don't see how anyone could call it anything else.

Believe it or not, I, too, am a believer in applying root principles across different forms: I consider the Nachreisen to be one such universal principle, and not (just) a set of discrete techniques, and I teach the Nachreisen with all forms. But when I apply the principle of Nachreisen, I do it with a documentable technique already included somewhere in the canon for the form I'm using, I don't develop a new technique by taking a technique from a different form with which to do it.

If you came to me and said that you have to fight a life-or-death duel for real in six months, and that the terms of the duel required you to fight with spears out of armor, I'd say, go ahead! Take some halfsword techniques (or pollaxe, or whatever) and modify them for use with the spear--this is a real situation in the modern world and you need to survive. But that will never happen to any of us, and so there's no reason to do things we can't document.

Bottom line: You can't just apply staff techniques to develop a system of unarmored spear combat because staff techniques are too different from spear techniques. The spear isn't used to strike, and the way you thrust is different since a staff thrust requires great force. Moreover, we don't have any good documentation for unarmored spear techniques; not enough to build a system out of, anyway. For example, The Talhoffer 1459 plates show techniques against the spear, not spear techniques, and the Talhoffer Ambraser Codex plates might be unarmored but there's nothing to tell us what they mean.
Regards,
Hugh Knight
http://www.schlachtschule.org
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Really spear techniques or preparation for other weapons?

Post by Roger N » Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:33 pm

I am a bit grumpy today, so hold on to your hat, Hugh. :)

I agree that it is easier to move inside the spearpoint than retreating with a spear and shortening the grip. However, that is not the same as claiming that moving inside the spear point is easy and as a consequence, a spear is useless in single combat against shorter weapons. But, I would certainly be glad to see you demonstrate such skills in sparring out of armour. Perhaps you could send me a video clip where you do this repeatedly against different opponents, preferrably also some from another school than yours, since all schools emphasize different styles? :)

I am sure you do not intend to insult, but rather try to be clear about your opinions. But your choice of words can sometimes be interpreted as insulting, since you seem to refuse to recognize that we all are making interpretations and there are too many loose variables to make any final claims yet. We still need to be open to other interpretations. You have your interpretations and I have mine and although I can understand your reasoning I simply don't agree that your approach necessarily leads to a valid portrayal of actual historical combat, but possibly for technique training as it was done historically. I definitely oppose that you can claim to do so with any more valid claims than mine.

I bet you have much more basis for your claims than what you show in online forums, but what you present here seems to rely on assumptions that could very well be quite wrong and can just as well be explained by different theories.

"Making things up" can imply that it is completely new and invented without ties to anything else, which is NOT what I am doing. I am studying the source material and try to connect the dots. Sometimes we have series with gaps like A B ... or A ... C. That is where interpretation comes in, and of course recognizing and acknowledging the gaps, which can be difficult but is hugely important on a fundemental level. With understanding of similar series and a other broken series that attach to the one we study like "E F G", we can certainly make educated guesses, which again is not really making things up.

Based on what I understand of your stance I would say that no sparring or freeplay should be done at all. None. We simply can't know for sure how medieval and renaissance fighting looked like. There are simply still too many loose variables in play. Consequently we should only show how historical techniques were trained, not how one actually fought. Even then we still have some very loose ground...

Beyond all this, you need to learn to manage distance, keep both yourself and your weapon in constant motion, both to find openings and to confuse your opponent, use feints and misdirections, lure your opponent into a disadvantageous position and much more, all of which are vital skills for a warrior, but is really not often spoken of in detail in the manuscripts although certainly are advised. This has to be learnt and used as well, to create a reasonable picture of what the original HEMA looked like. Textbook techniques are NOT enough and in my opinion is most likely very far from what fighting looked like both in private or judicial duels, on the battle field or in fechtschulen.

Yes, of course there are major differences between armoured and unarmoured fighting, but I would suggest that the root principles used were very much similar no matter what arms or armour, although the application differs. For instance, Mair does what could essentially be called a versetzen with the forward end of a staff and strikes with the back end. In spirit, it is a versetzen, but done with consideration of the weapon's unique characteristics. Of course, there are similar techniques where you wrench away the opponents hands with the pommel and strike or slice with the point of the longsword. Even Ringeck tells us that "All fighting comes from unarmed fighting". There is much more to discuss about this, but unfortunately I need to work a little...

I think that the masters are teaching us fighting principles that must be applied with adaptability and which can be used with different weapons in various situations. They teach this by showing how these principles work through given techniques. You do not need to properly invent new techniques, but rather figure out how to apply the principles to any situation, preferrably with a given technique. The most important thing is to keep safe while hitting your opponent, not to perform form-perfect techniques. And please understand, we are speaking of basic principles here e.g, working from the bind, absetzen, versetzen, winden, nachreissen, duplieren, mutieren and wrenching, all of which can be performed in numerous ways, depending on the situation.

You do not really adress several of the points I made, but instead you continue to argue against the spear being used as a staff. AGAIN, this is not my suggestion, but rather Mair's and possibly Meyer's. Please reread the original question.

And in relation to that, doesn't Fiore actually show a small comparison between longsword and halfsword stances and the spear? I am not saying that you should use a spear like a halfsword, but it could very well be one of several reasons why the spear is so little discussed in the manuscripts.

I AGREE about primarily not striking with the spear. The original question pertained to how to look at Mair, Meyer and Fiore primarily, when looking at what they call their spear techniques.

Finally, I could very well imagine using some of Mair's short staff techniques with some of the spears shown in Talhoffer's 1459 manuscript. So, perhaps Mair isn't that far off? Also, some spears were reinforced in the tapered part with various forms of metal bands, which certainly would make them considerably stronger.

And I really doubt that the Talhoffer images really only show techniques for armoured fighting. For instance, the use of throwing a hat at the opponent's face seems to imply actual blossfechten. Of course, you could also wear a hat with armour...
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
User avatar
Hugh Knight
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:49
Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
Club:Die Schlachtschule
Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: Really spear techniques or preparation for other weapons?

Post by Hugh Knight » Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:18 pm

Roger Norling wrote:And I really doubt that the Talhoffer images really only show techniques for armoured fighting. For instance, the use of throwing a hat at the opponent's face seems to imply actual blossfechten. Of course, you could also wear a hat with armour...
Go back and re-read it: I was talking about the spear plays in Talhoffer's Ambraser Codex possibly being armored techniques demonstrated out of armor, not the plays from Talhoffer 1459 (the one with the hat). Moreover, I didn't suggest that strongly, merely said it might be so and that we didn't know either way.
Regards,
Hugh Knight
http://www.schlachtschule.org
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Really spear techniques or preparation for other weapons?

Post by Roger N » Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:05 pm

Actually, earlier you said that "Yes, the plates you posted from Talhoffer 1459 seem to show unarmored fights against spears", which I guess I half-consciously interpreted as you meaning that they might show armoured fighting. But you are right. I got a few earlier posts and posts in other threads mixed up. My appologies!
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
User avatar
Shay Roberts
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:42
Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:56 pm
Location:Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Really spear techniques or preparation for other weapons?

Post by Shay Roberts » Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:21 pm

Roger, if you or anyone else runs across a good European medieval source for unarmoured spear combat, please post it right away. I am dying for more info on this!

There are so many different types of spears, and I'm sure that some of them can be used for striking. But I don't believe that the armoured dueling spears from the German material were really intended to be used that way. I have seen too many hardwood pollaxe shafts break to believe that the thinner spear shafts would have much of a chance.

Displacing a spear in armour, using techniques from the manuscripts, is relatively easy because you really only have to protect your face.

Out of armour, however, those same techniques can be perilous. I don't believe those entry techniques were ever intended to be used out of armour. If your entire body can be struck, the spearman only need target something like your legs, and that's going to be tough to clear with halfsword. Not impossible, but not easy either.

I've gotten into trouble trying to mix and match techniques designed to be used in and out of armour, so I tend to be on the lookout for that in my own work.
Shay Roberts
Academy of Arms

Audacity is the virtue that makes this art.
Fiore dei Liberi, 1409
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Really spear techniques or preparation for other weapons?

Post by Roger N » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:11 am

Shay, well that is the question, isn't it? Does Mair actually show techniques that can be used with a short, sturdy and possibly reinforced spear, like the ones in Talhoffer 1459? Other fechtbuchen also appear to portray non-tapered, fairly thick spears, at least as thick as a bo-nana, with hewing capabilities. And has such techniques ever been employed? If so, in what context? I know of no fechtbuchen apart from the Talhoffer that clearly can be interpreted as such. Perhaps one could look into other artwork?

Then again, it depends in your perspective here. Are we aiming at portraying martial arts training or actual combat? Can we assume that someone trained in our beloved traditions would meet soldiers with different weapons and less armour or no plate armour? If we think so, how can we imagine that such a warrior would approach such a situation? Are there any similar or identical situations in the fechtbuchen and contemporary artwork and literature that can help our understanding? What about traditions with similar weapons in other parts of the world or other eras? What does medical reports tell us? I believe there are many ways to triangulate a close position here.

Displacing a spear out of armour is probably difficult with halfsword and I would rather stay just ut of reach and wait for a high thrust, then rush forward with a schielhau, krumphau or streichen.

Separating techniques for harnisch- and blossfecthen sounds wise, although there are certain sections where we are not so sure of which we are seeing... :)
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
Bobo Krustev
Is on speaking terms
Is on speaking terms
Posts:6
Joined:Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:31 pm
Club:School of Medieval Swordsmanship MOTUS
Weapons:Arming sword, Buckler, Longsword, Spear, japanese weaponry
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Really spear techniques or preparation for other weapons?

Post by Bobo Krustev » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:59 am

I have tried to enter in close combat against my instructor and than against one of my co-students, both with an arming sword and a longsword. Both are extremely difficult to do, no matter the speed of th spear or the sword. And even when entering, the spear was in no way helpless - nor was the spearman. Backing out, shortening the grip, striking with the other side... Especially in Krieg it was hard to avoid. While one may be able to train and manage to enter, it is still extremely hard. No protection, that time, except gloves. The spear itself was 2,20 m long.

The spear definitely can be used for striking in unarmed combat, at least. If it is made from good and durable wood it would withstand the force. In harnischfechten it is ridiculous to use the spear in such a way - why try to bash something with a stick that even a sword has a very hard time piercing? A full plate is almost impenetrable to cuts.

I would disagree that a staff requires much greater strength to thrust. It is easier to penetrate with a spear, but a thrust from a staff with the same speed and impact would deliver a different, but equally devastating amount of damage (again, speaking on blossfechten).

I agree about using the principles in all the weapons. After starting HEMA, I've found that all the basic principles can be also applied when fighting with Japanese weapons, be it sword, staff or spear.

About why different masters connect the spear to different weapons - all weapons are connected, and almost all masters agree that the longsword is encompasing them all, so this is more like a style of teaching than 'which idea is better'. We should also put in context the fact that Fiore was on a battlefield and in duels, while Meyer taught fencing at a time when it started to get have a sporting manner, and soon after him it turned in a dueling art for civilian use.
Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “Open Discussion”