Dissertation results!

[TimSheetz]

Hi Steve,

Here is another possibility worth thinking about.

Soft tissue trauma would be invisiible as it has rotted away. think of how many arrows left people lying in agony on the field. The only nice thing to do is to roll them over (so they don't see the death strok and you don't need to suffer the trauma of watching their eyes, and then you club them or cut them in the head.

Tim

[Steve Thurston]

I agree that it is a possability, however, it still makes it difficult to explain the high %'s for graves from none battlefield sites.

I know I've still got a lot of research to do, I'm planning on getting some excavation expierence in over the next year and then I want to go back to Uni to do postgraduate study so I can develop the ideas.

As I said before the pattern is there it just needs interpreting, which I think is what I have done. I'll get the chapters sorted out and send them to be vetted and you'll have to see for yourselves.

Steve

[Joachim Nilsson]

Are you saying they would employ Roman tactics? To me your German example could support the theory that they wouldn't; why use a formation that had proved to be less effective than one from your own culture (ie sub-Roman, it was pretty much the same all over Europe)?

No. I am saying that the tribes of Europe learned from the Romans. Adapt, overcome, improvise. It was in some instances also common for the Romans to employ prominent men from the tribes in their own forces. The leader of the Goths(?) who beat the Roman legion in the Teuteburg(sp?) forest was in fact a defectee from the Roman army. And as for the Adrianople example: the Romans didn't use heavy cavalry in the same sense as the Goths began to do.

I don't think its the "chaos" I think it is part of the Martial Arts Traditon that is missed in the books on the interpretation of fighting styles 1380-1500/1500. Looking at Tolbers stuff he acknowledges the basic priciples of footwork and then uses them as the basic method (IMHO conforming to a more familiar post renaissance tradition).

Are you saying that Tobler is wrong, or somewhat off, on his footwork? He's not the only one who uses that kind of footwork. I don't agree that this would be of any kind of post-renaissance tradition. To do that is, again, to downgrade the abilities of the historical, medieval masters. And there's only so much variation to be done with basic footwork. I have never viewed the footwork we employ (when doing medieval longsword for instance) as anything else but medieval. It's simple, basic biomechanics. Screw around too much with that and you loose effectivness.

According to an English guy called Oz, and (I think) Steve Hicks, the timing put forward for Silver would not only allow but suggest a half step with the lead leg before moving the rear. Oz used to teach in Bradford and this intrepretation brought attacks to the back of the head, its was what got me interested when I started looking at the Towton stuff.

However, to use this in a battlefield environment would require more space, and therfore I feel the lines were not the formation we see in medieval re-enactment in the UK.

Once the two opposing lines clash, and clash for real, and the true melee beginns -all bets are off. Lines might become jumbled and start to break and as the fighting gets more intense and confusing people might start to "wander", or rather disperse somewhat. Blows to the back of the head might also be born out of flanking manuevers by the enemy, thus opening up for more lines of attacks from different directions. There's just too many variables and possibilities in a battle to make too narrow assumptions. Have you ever participated or been involved in a street-fight? Although not quite the same thing, but still showing the trademarks of fighting on a larger scale (chaos, confusion etc etc), it's a situation were almost anything can (and will) happen.

And as for the archaologist remark: I was, like I stated, only speaking from personal experience. And this have been accquired when dealing with Swedish archaeologists. And yes, although OT, they are somewhat too PC sometimes.



Regards,

[Joachim Nilsson]

Have you tried standing behind a man and hitting him on the occipital bone (where a pony tail is tied in the hair)?

If they were running away when hit I think you'd probably find a lot of skeletons with a foot missing.

It was quite common for fleeing troops to be cut down by cavalry, not foot-soldiers.

[Joachim Nilsson]

And you actually said it yourself: polearms were more common than swords. A properly swung polearm (such as a halberd) have a greater chance of hitting the running individual in the back of the head (since it have a slightly longer reach and the blow comes from above). As opposed to the foot.

[Steve Thurston]

At Towton it is known that they fought on foot, even the Yorkist King dismounted to fight along side his men.

This is a common occurance in English tactics post 1400 and appears to have been used pre 1400 a bit, so the chances of cavalry causing such wounds are severly limited in England.

Steve

[Steve Thurston]

Towton documents refers to people drawing their swords to enter the chase.

Also I suggest that there are about 6 times the number of archers than men-at-arms in a national army and that the majority would carry a sword of some kind and would be used like infantry in close quarter combat. Charles the bold insists that his archers carry a two handed sword for thrusting (Contamine 1984). Contamine also suggests that it is the German Towns that first start becoming trained on mass for battlefield warfare during the early-mid 16th century.

Steve

[James_Knowles]

... whether arrows will go through armour on footsoldiers, certainly the Brigandine at the royal armouries has what looks like minor damage from an arrow that has not completely penetrated.

Forgive me for not being precise. I'm probably wrong on details. I'm running off of memory here. Armor and weapons adapt to what they're presented with.

In the early North American colonies, there was a switch from the muskett-ball-deflecting metal cuirass to a brigadine-type of armour because of the indian arrows.

Who some time ago mentioned the account of the colonists proudly showing off how the armor would deflect a mustket ball, only to have an Indian punch an arrow through it?

I believe the same reference mentioned later battles in brigadine-type of armour, where a colonist looked like a porcupine because of the numerous arrows embedded in the brigadine.

[James_Knowles]

... the COMBINED ARMS concept works!

I found the 600 A.D. Byzantine "Strategikon" to be fascinating for this very reason. It's a very interesting work that hammers the combined arms concept from many different angles. Archers (mounted and on foot), light and heavy infantry, light and heavy cavalry all work together.

It talks about the problem of single lines, since they are so prone to crumbling as has been described here already. It also talks about the problem of just infantry, just cavalry, etc. as so many of their warring neighbours were unbalanced.

That manual goes through all kinds of combinations, when-tos, and why-fores depending on terrain, opponent capabilities, etc.

Some time ago I read a nice summary at the Air War College's site. Here's a relevant portion:

The smallest tactical unit, the tagma, derived its striking power from its combined use of fire (from horse archers) and shock (from lancers), an innovation that no Byzantine adversary could match, being proficient in one or the other, but seldom both together. Well in advance of the rest of the medieval world, as the Strategikon reveals, the East Romans discovered that fire prepares the way for shock more through suppression than attrition and that the effectiveness of suppressive fire depends less on accuracy than on sheer volume and high trajectory. For when the enemy has to worry about avoiding the missiles raining down on him, his attention is diverted from what is happening directly ahead, and he becomes vulnerable to the shock of a charge.

[Joachim Nilsson]

Steve, please excuse my bewilderment, but could you be so kind to perhaps summarize your points and present your basic idea and standpoint once again? Thing are becomming somewhat cloudy with all the involved posts and postees.

[Joachim Nilsson]

I am fully aware that it sometimes was common pratice to dismount and fight on foot. And despite my earlier comment about polearms I still say that it would be quite possible for me to hit someone in the back of the head with a sword while he's running away. As for Towton: According to this (http://www.castleford.org/history/cas015.html) site it was the cavalrymen who gave chase.

Perhaps I've been misreading your posts -if so I apologize- but a while ago it seemed like you were stating that blows to the back of the head would not occur due to individuals breaking and running away -and now it seems like that's just what you're saying. So please: make a small summary of your standpoint and what you've based it on because I'm losing track on what's really the issue here. Since most battles lasted hours it's no wonder people get hit in the back of the head. The longer you fight, the more exhausted you get. And the more exhausted you get, the easier it is to stumble or even collapse and get hit in the back of the head.

[Steve Thurston]

Sorry I haven't posted for a while, I've been really busy making kit for the me and the family as we have our first event of the season this weekend! <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

I can't stop to chat just now either I was just checking out what had been happening, I'll get on sometime next week and reply to the posts when I've had a good think about how to phrase things! <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

Steve

[Steve Thurston]

OK, so it's been a bit longer than a week but things are pretty hectic at the moment.

I've got my results and I got a 2:1 over all, and 75% for my dissertation, so with a bit of luck I should beable to get my conclusions and stuff published at some point in the future (both markers said it was publishable with a bit of modification!)

As to my stand point

Blows to the back of the head.

You really need to look at the case studies in Blood Red Roses to see what I mean, the blows would rarley be made by being stood behind, Towton 6 is a good example as the wound runs almost parallel with the line of the shoulders and is made from above.

I was asked if what I was saying about Tobler was that he was wrong. To state that he is wrong is pushing the point too far. I think that most of the interpretations have confromed to post renaissance traditions using a linear motion due to that being what people have been used to. This is sort of supported by stuff in Toblers book. In his section on the basics he tells us that the sword should be held with the right hand at the cross and the left on the pommel to get greater leverage, yet every photo shows him holding the sword with the hands together, which is what we are all used to seeing!

I propose that initial attacks are made using the half step I mentioned previously. This can also used in some counters, especially displacements, although most counters would follow the methods proposed by Tobler etc. As swordmanship continued to evolve the longer timings of the half step were discarded leaving only the linier motions we find in modern fencing. There is nowhere in the manuals I've studied that state this method, but with many of the basics being viewed as general knowledge its not supprising. The sources which gave the best insights to this were Ringeck and Vadi.

In Toblers work there were some areas I felt the interpretations weren't quite right.

p41s crooked strike uses the tip of the sword to hit the hands, yet it would seem to me that using Toblers footwork would not cause the tip of the sword to conect with the hands. This is due to the length of sword Tobler uses being smaller than those represented in the manuals, a longer sword would would require the user to move further to the side which would be facilitaed by the half step.

p23 The Strike of wrath. What is the difference between a strike of wrath and an Oberhau? I would propose the oberhau uses the half step and the S of wrath doesn't.

This half step also means your in a good place for countering after the parry as you are slighty to your opponent left so when working inside the sword you are less vunrable to his attacks and he is more open to your attacks.

Vadi also gives some good insights as to what came before him, reffering to the slower methods of his ancestors and his quiker steppings.

What I therefore propse is that during the late C15th there is a development away from an older style based on sword and shield towards the styles you are more familiar with!

Due to this I would theorise that warfare was also changing during this period. It certainly was in England and it appears to change on the contintent. To some extent this was due to the rise of black powder but I also think it was to do with the break from the feudal system during the mid C14th.

I can't say what the way of war was in this period but I feel that it wasn't the regimented units that IMHO start at the end of the C15th/ early C16th. I would however suggest that these earlier methods were more relient on a system where the individual 'warrior' played a more significant role.

If this is percieved as meaning that these armies were less intelligent then I would disagree entirely, these people developed a way of warfare that lasted for over 500yrs in Euirope and developing something new takes far greater intelligence than sticking with what was known. I would also suggest that as the C15th was a time of great change in many of the areas of life that it is probable that the system of warfare was also changing.

Ultimately the manuals which we study may bring vast new insights to the medieval way of war. As there are a vast number of manuals instructing on the uses of a limited range of weapons and these appear to have been produced for the training of troops we have toexcept that werebthe methods used onthe field of battle. This said all the weapons depicted in the manuals require a certain amount of room, whether sword or poleaxe, so I personally can't see how the regimented unit could incorporate such methods.

I can't think of anything else at the moment, and sorry it took me so long to get back to you all

Steve