Medieval "Ignorance"

[Guest]

I've recently been doing a bit of spring cleaning, as it were...and I came across one of my slightly older books: Methods and Practice of Elizabethan Swordplay.

Here's one memorable line:
"The technique or medieval sword fighting was hardly subtle [as if running someone through with a rapier is somehow more "subtle" than an edgeblow]. The winner was usually the biggest and strongest knight [I suppose no yeomen or other commoners used swords...apparently] who could continue pressing the attack, an attack consiting almost exclusively of slashing, smashing blows [I guess they missed all the thrusts in Fiore, Talhoffer, and others]. This was the time of the two-handed or the "hand-and-a-half" (bastard) swords [It seems the arming sword had fallen completely out of use...]. (The two hand sword, due to its enormous length, [hmmm] required and extra long grip for both hands. [Perhaps that's why it was called a greatsword?] The [bastard] sword was shorter, though still heavy, [apparently, around 3 pounds maximum is HEAVY] and had a grip that could accomdate a one or two-handed swinging style [yes, thrusts were completely out of the question. It just wasn't done. Medieval people were too ignorant to excute thrusts effectively. They could only "swing". For more information, watch "Conan the Barbarian"] Great strength and endurance, not skill, was praised...

<img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

[Shane Smith]

I was wondering where some of our more mis-guided fellows in the HES community were getting their silly notions and mis-information.I think you have inadvertently stumbled upon one of their primary "source-texts"...Mystery solved! <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Shane,

I don't think we can consider chaps that take this tripe seriously to be "in the community" really.

The really sad thing is that this type of rubbish is still being taught to children in schools.
Cheers,
Stu.

[John_Clements]

It is sad, but I wouldn't blame the authors of that book entirely, a these views were held firmly by classical/sort fencing masters going back to the 18th century as I attempt to document in one of my forthcoming books. There opinions were supported by 19th century writers and have been widely accepted as gospel by most modern fencing masters as well.

JC

[Jeffrey Hull]

Fellows:

Indeed, this sort of dimissing of the "hewers" by the "thrusters", as it were, goes back to the Greeks and Romans regarding the Celts.

The Romans seemed to have had an arguably rather derivatively repeated if not ill-founded disdain for Celtic swordsmanship and swordcraft. Such was ironic to say the least, considering their adoption of Celtic-spawned pattern-welding, as well as the derivation of the Roman cavalry spatha from the longer cleaving sword of the Gaulish horse-lords. "The Celtic Sword" by Pleiner discusses this at length.

Such Celtic-derived spathae proved their worth at the Battle of Adrianople (378 AD), where the Goths wielded swords of this basic design to devastate the Byzantine Romans. A brief analysis of this battle is included in "Archaeology of Weapons" by Oakeshott.

For some illustrations of such swords and summary of early Celtic-Classical conflicts, one might find the colourful "Celtic Warrior: 300 BC-AD 100" by Allen &amp; Reynolds to be enjoyable.

Good luck!

JH

[Jay Vail]

a these views were held firmly by classical/sort fencing masters going back to the 18th century

Perhaps we should refer to HEMA methods as "classical" rather than the small sword, Olympic fencing approach? We have the better claim as ours is more ancient . . . <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Jay,

I would like to point out here that the "smallsword" method is barely comparable with modern sport fencing. Smallsword manuals contain all the passing, traversing, grappling, and commanding of the blade found in earlier manuals.

The smallsword co-existed with the duelling epee. The DE was a weapon for use in a duel where the combatants were forbidden from doing most of the things I listed above by the code of the day.

I have only read Scottish smallsword manuals, but believe me, Hope in particular is as combative as any manual I have ever read.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Guest]

I do not think the Romans were wrong in their approach to swordmanship if we limit this to infantry, if an infantry is to be efficient on the battlefield, it has to fight in close order, this prevents effective use of long slashing weapons for lack of room on the sides.
There are strong reasons to believe that the slashing sword can't be the primary weapon of any efficient infantry, the pike proving ideal in many intances, better if supported by missile weapons.
I do not remember which author, but a greek author recommended the machaira for the chivalry, because the slash was better than the thrust on horseback.
Anyhow tactical reasons for avoiding the long slashing sword as primary infantry armament can be found in many cultures which had winning infantries, one not so secondary is the cost of the weapon, the money being better used for armors, shields, spears, bows.

[Shane Smith]

Thats an insightful and interesting thought Carlo.It rings true in my mind.

[Jeffrey Hull]

CP:

Somewhat in line with your thinking, I would admit and point out that the primary pairing for mass infantry, across all ages and cultures in Europe - whether Greek, Gaulish, Roman, Gothic, English, Irish, Norse, and so forth - was some sort of spear and a big shield.

So your point is well taken, though we both might be diverging from the topic. Good luck!

JH