Harnischfecthen - proper equipment to better understand

This forum is open for everyone to read, but only for registered users to post in. The discussion should still mainly concern Historical European Martial Arts and especially polearms, but is held openly, as opposed to the other forums.
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: Harnischfecthen - proper equipment to better understand

Post by Hugh Knight » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:55 pm

Roger Norling wrote:Reading the manuscripts I am mostly interested in understanding the principles and how they were "embodied" and applied through techniques. I respect your stance here, but I myself see no problem in practicing with a broader picture in mind, since I believe that the principles of combat are the most important, not necessarily the specific techniques, although they of course are vital in combat.
It seems clear that the techniques are an expression of those principles, and I see no reason to go past them.
Focusing only on the techniques described in the manuscripts can just as well give us a very false picture of how real combat was performed during the Middle ages. Some argue that the longsword was only used in halfsword against armour, and some argue that all the regular longsword techniques were used alongside of the halfsword techniques and there are numerous other topics like this.
Those who make such arguments do so without evidence to support their belief, and without evidence, their arguments have no weight whatsoever.
Also, in free play there are many cuts and techniques that happen naturally but really aren't specified in fechtbuchen. A cut inbetween a zornhau and a mittelhau, for instance. What do we call that? A cut inbetween a schielhau and a zwerhau?
What do we call that? Bad technique contrary to the instruction of the masters. A bad technique that lands through luck isn't an example of a good technique, it's an example of luck or of bad technique on the part of the victim.
Personally, I believe that we need to use your understanding of fighting principles and techniques and constantly adapt to the situation we are facing; types of armour and weapons, the environment, physical and mental characteristics of our opponent etc. Some longsword techniques work better against a shield and sword, some against a spear etc. I believe this was also the case when this was done "for real".
Since we can't accurately experiment with such ideas I would argue that we have no basis for these beliefs. How can we know which longsword techniques work better against sword and shield when the subject isn't ever discussed by the only people who can truly know? Our experiments aren't accurate enough to tell us anything meaningful. At best, we can only hope to make our experiments accurate enough to understand the principles we have been expressly given.

I see mistakes arising from this kind of thought process all the time. For example, one widely-read author talks about how to make a sword cut work better so that it can be used to cut through armor. That's pure nonsense, swords *didn't* cut through armor, so his attempts to develop a style of swordsmanship well suited for doing so are *inherently* flawed. There are just too many variables for us to think we can recreate real combat well enough to find new truths, so we should stick to recreating what the experts told us.
It is an interesting discussion, really and no easy answers...
I think there are some things that are unclear, but most answers at this level are quite easy: We do what we can document because that's all we're justified in doing. I recognize, however, that people don't want to do this, so I won't continue to press the point.
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: Harnischfecthen - proper equipment to better understand

Post by Roger N » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:40 pm

Just a quick reply, then I really have to move away from the keyboard... :)

I am not convinced that the cuts "inbetween" are examples of bad technique, but rather faithful applications of principles. Sometimes these applications work just as in the fecthbuchen. Other times they need to be modified in reach or angle so that you actually hit your target in time at the right spot while offering required amount of protection. They still work according to the principles taught by the masters.

Maybe I am not expressing myself well enough here. I am not advocating inventing new cuts, guards or whatever. But reality is more complex than the fechtbuchen and all techniques have to be adapted to the combat situation, just as a tennis player needs to adapt his strikes. In that sense, the principles are much more important than the actual techniques.

While you seem to prefer to rely only on the given techniques I prefer to look at both the techniques and the underlying principles and try to apply them to different situations, since I believe that the techniques are meant to serve as examples of how to apply certain principles. While this may lead me to faulty conclusions at times, I really do believe that it also can help me understand more properly what medieval and renaissance combat might have been like. I do not think that the techniques given in the fechtbuchen give us a complete picture and if we assume so we can just as easily end up pretty far from the historical "reality".

We differ in opinion here and I don't think anyone of us will change our minds soon, so I will leave it at that. It's been good talking to you about this, but I think we have come as far as we can at this time. :)
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
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: Harnischfecthen - proper equipment to better understand

Post by Roger N » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:24 am

Oh, and with "shield" I meant buckler. The way we "know" is simply by trying and analyzing, keeping the context in mind, just as we try fechten in harnisch with non-lethal weapons, in a friendly environment, based on our current understanding of the manuscripts that at any moment may turn out to contain numerous misinterprations.

Cutting through armour as a conscious strategic decision is silly. On that we agree both. :) However, there appears to be plenty of pictorial suggestions that especially helmets were pierced by both polearms and swords, both in the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance. This I find curious, although I can think of a whole lot of explanations as to why it is so.

http://utu.morganlibrary.org/medren/sin ... A000098358

http://utu.morganlibrary.org/medren/sin ... A000077751

http://utu.morganlibrary.org/medren/sin ... A000077754

http://utu.morganlibrary.org/medren/sin ... A000077755

http://utu.morganlibrary.org/medren/sin ... A000077756

http://utu.morganlibrary.org/medren/sin ... A000077766

http://utu.morganlibrary.org/medren/sin ... A000077773
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
Eric Hejdström
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:18
Joined:Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:29 pm
Club:Wisby Historiska Fäktskola/Gutniska Gardet
Weapons:Longsword, sword & shield, dagger, misc. polearms, 19th century sabre etc.
[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: Harnischfecthen - proper equipment to better understand

Post by Eric Hejdström » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:33 pm

I've been pondering the question about weapons cutting through armour a while. The pictures above reminded me again and I have a little suggestion. Can't it be that simple that it's the artist's way of illustrating killing blows occured when the assailant strikes a gap in armour? I mean, it's kinda hard to properly illustrat how one can strike an opening when the opponent wears full suits of armour. It would be a very simple way to show that you can kill a man in armour for those not accustomed to the wear and use of it. A bit off the topic but maybe we can discuss this further elsewhere?
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: Harnischfecthen - proper equipment to better understand

Post by Roger N » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:57 pm

That is certainly one possible explanation. Another would be that the artists possibly had little experience of the battle fields and just illustrated how knights received a killing blow to the head as best they could, without understanding how such a blow needed to be delivered.

On the other hand, you can also often see dagger thrusts to the eyes, not the face, which is a pretty specific detail, and shields being pierced by spears. It could be argued that some armour could have been weaker, either by construction, iron ore of lesser quality, battle damage or rust. For soldiers with lesser means, arms and armour often were handed down through the generations, at least in certain parts of Europe.

When this topic comes up I strongly argue against armour being cut through by swords for a whole bunch of reasons, but I must admit that these type of illustrations puzzle me a bit. Still, I doubt that it would be a good strategy to try to strike through a helmet with a sword. The blunt trauma is another thing, though. I haven't tried a spangenhelm so I don't know what the impact of a full force sword blow to your head, when wearing a spangenhelm is like.

It would be great to see some real pictures of any broken helmets from the middle ages and not just illustrations...
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: Harnischfecthen - proper equipment to better understand

Post by Hugh Knight » Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:28 pm

Eric Hejdström wrote:I've been pondering the question about weapons cutting through armour a while. The pictures above reminded me again and I have a little suggestion. Can't it be that simple that it's the artist's way of illustrating killing blows occured when the assailant strikes a gap in armour? I mean, it's kinda hard to properly illustrat how one can strike an opening when the opponent wears full suits of armour. It would be a very simple way to show that you can kill a man in armour for those not accustomed to the wear and use of it. A bit off the topic but maybe we can discuss this further elsewhere?
I think you're close, but it's simpler than that: We know from modern experiments that it's ludicrously unlikely for anyone to cut through armor. Hell, there's a helmet cutting contest in Japan in which helmets are set in racks to hold them perfectly rigid then cut with huge, overblown strokes of the sort you'd never manage to land in real combat, and even so they barely penetrate the helmet--usually not enough to touch the wearer underneath. And yet we have art showing actually helms being cut through, and with one-handed swords, too. So what does this mean?

Simple: Medieval art was far from photorealistic, yet it had to depict blows that had an effect on the victim. Those blows didn't cut through the armor, but could knock him senseless. So how do you distinguish between a blow that the armor negated and one which had a telling effect? You depict blood. Medieval viewers would know you can't cut through armor, but they were also used to art that was representational rather than photorealistic, so they would understand what they see.

I ran this interpretation by Professor Steve Muhlberger (author of several books on deeds of arms) and he agreed it made a lot of sense from a medieval viewpoint.
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: Harnischfecthen - proper equipment to better understand

Post by Roger N » Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:14 pm

I do agree with this. But, I have a few more factors to weigh in on both the plus and minus side:

First, writers describing heroic acts have a tendency to enhance the stories with superhuman deeds, not least when describing the heros of "old".
Also, when I mentioned "many" sources depicting cuts through armour above, I really should have been more specific, since I really only know of a handful sources containing a lot of such pictures.

On the other hand, I really haven't seen any tests made on battle worn armour, rusted armour etc, and none of mounted knights coming from completely opposite directions and striking powerfully at a helmet. Maybe, just maybe, mounted combat with battleworn armour could be different from what we see in modern tests. Unfortunately, and a bit surprising, there are few good, reliable tests done with good replicas of swords, polearms, bows and arrows and armour.

Also, I have a vague notion that these depictions may be older, before full plate armour becomes more common, but this may be wrong.
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: Harnischfecthen - proper equipment to better understand

Post by Hugh Knight » Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:33 pm

Roger Norling wrote:I do agree with this. But, I have a few more factors to weigh in on both the plus and minus side:

First, writers describing heroic acts have a tendency to enhance the stories with superhuman deeds, not least when describing the heros of "old".
Also, when I mentioned "many" sources depicting cuts through armour above, I really should have been more specific, since I really only know of a handful sources containing a lot of such pictures.

On the other hand, I really haven't seen any tests made on battle worn armour, rusted armour etc, and none of mounted knights coming from completely opposite directions and striking powerfully at a helmet. Maybe, just maybe, mounted combat with battleworn armour could be different from what we see in modern tests. Unfortunately, and a bit surprising, there are few good, reliable tests done with good replicas of swords, polearms, bows and arrows and armour.

Also, I have a vague notion that these depictions may be older, before full plate armour becomes more common, but this may be wrong.
While some sources show "mythical" beings in combat, this explanation for the phenomenon has long been shown to be invalid simply because of the large number of ordinary figures so shown as well. Consider this plate from the Manessa Codex:
http://www.tempora-nostra.de/tempora-no ... 03&tfl=112
Sir Dietmar is hardly a mythical figure, and yet we see that he's chopped halfway through his opponent's helmet. And while this is, as you say, an older picture (c. 1290-1300), note that he's still cutting through plate--that is, a helmet.

Again, had the blow been a good, telling blow--that is, one that stunned the victim--how could the artist have shown it? How would such a blow look different from one which had no effect? The answer is that the artist had no way to depict such a distinction accurately, hence his need to go to unrealistic lengths in order to make his point.

Interpretating medieval art is not simple. Modern people tend to try to take the artwork as if it were done by a modern artist working for our modern eyes. In fact, medieval people were quite different from us and expected artists to use artistic conventions to represent things that couldn't be shown photorealistically.

And, by the way, there've been plenty of experiments with attacking armor; look at the cutting test I referenced above as one example. You do *not* cut through armor.
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: Harnischfecthen - proper equipment to better understand

Post by Roger N » Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:51 pm

Well, I am certainly not claiming that you can cut through armour and I normally don't act as the Devil's advocate on this topic. I just have a tiny concern that we may be too eager to write off these illustrations as symbolical without taking it under serious consideration that they might just have some truth to them.

I have gone through several tests, but all I have seen are flawed in one way or another. Many use replicas that aren't historically correct, using modern steel. Some cut to fixed objects with extreme cuts. Most use undamaged and new armour and swords. I have seen no mounted tests. And as a result, some tests appear to show that different types of armour CAN be penetrated and some show the exact opposite. I can not help but feel that the test are unconciously rigged to provide a result. I would be glad to be referred to proper tests that have valid results, so please share what you've got. :)

And remember, I am only saying that a helmet that has been whacked repetedly with various swords and polearms, and have been worn for perhaps a decade or two, perhaps a little rusty from a prolonged campaign in bad weather, rivets starting to get worn out, such a helmet may be weak enough to unravel when a forceful sword is struck against it by a mounted knight. Many "ifs"... and not a reasonable strategy, but it could just be that we are writing this off prematurely. Perhaps some armour was in worse shape and weaker than we imagine, especially early on and in certain regions and periods of time.

Another aspect to keep in mind is that many other things in medieval art appear to be very detailed and realistic, so it is hard to evaluate exactly what is symbolical and what is not.

Anyhow, here are a few links related to the topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h0e0NSwYNg

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/t ... erials.htm Way down they are cutting helmets.

http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/TestCu ... Event2.htm

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread ... t=test+cut

http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html

http://kenjutsu-ryu.livejournal.com/tag/battojutsu

http://www.oakeshott.org/metal.html

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_bladehardness.html

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... chive.html

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8023


One can also wonder about messerlike weapons and their effects, which probably are better at messing up already damaged armour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfes9jAmNNI

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread ... aciejowski

http://www1.tip.nl/~t401243/mac/mac14vB.jpg

And a final fotnote... Interpreting "historical" art is difficult indeed, and very amusing at times. I have quite a lot of wonderful images of bagpipes played by ass-creatures, monkeys practicing sword and buckler, wonderfully weird helmet decorations, elephants in European battle scenes and more. The popular image of the Middle Ages is pretty far from reality... :)
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: Harnischfecthen - proper equipment to better understand

Post by Hugh Knight » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:10 pm

Hello Roger,

Anything's possible; sure, helmets were weakend, damage occurred. Note that Edward III had to pass a law forbidding the covering of helmets with fabric because this was being used by poor armorers to cover flaws. Did a sword *ever* cut through armor? Sure, of course it happened, somewhere, sometime. But was it common enough to be depicted in normal artwork about medieval fighting? No. Just look at the video from Mike Loades: It shows a perfect situation--one more perfect than you'd ever get in a real fight because the helmet was braced and still, and yet he doesn't even come close to penetrating the helmet. End of subject!

I'm sure in lots of the threads you posted people are arguing for routinely cutting through armor. That doesn't mean it actually happened; people often misinterpret medieval art. I have seen lots of tests of the sort you posted above, and never yet seen one with realistic circumstances (i.e., proper gauge metal, etc.) in which a cut went through armor.
Regards,
Hugh Knight
http://www.schlachtschule.org
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”