What Gives You the Right?!

[Allen Johnson]

Reguarding Singlestick:
This is something I've been pondering on as well. Singlestick was technically a training tool for baskethilt. But I'm not convinced that this is the best training tool for this weapon. In addition, single stick became a bit of a game where they would tie their left arms down at their sides and would try to become the first to draw blood from the opponets head. So you take out the left hand and just do head shots.
Also many of the same arguments could be made in comparing this to SCA play with the round, edgeless rattan clubs that resemble nothing of real weapons. Also the weight of these realativley thin sticks and the leather or wicker baskets arent exactly the closest thing to their steel counterparts.

Yes there are lots of similar principals but the execution of techniques is where the big difference is. You take two cut and thrust blades and depending on the blade size, profile, distal taper, ect...will determine greatly how much you cut and how much you thrust. ( your opponent and his weapon has a great deal to do with this as well).
Things like Angelo's half-circle guards work much more effectivley with a smallsword than a baskethilt-- I've tried! <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> In all of these later manuals (mostly the ones pertaining to scottish broad sword- because thats my focus right now) there are good bits and pieces in most of them. It's exciting to see some semblance of the earlier systems present. However they are often offset by something that just dosent feel as effective.

[Chris Thompson]

I see no reason to think that Page or the other late-period broadsword manuals were based on the use of the smallsword. The manuals themselves directly contradict this, for instance where Hope says that the broadsword/backword is the foundation for all defense with weapons, and smallsword only a side-branch of that art. MacGregor echoes the same sentiments.
The thing to understand is that these are instructions for single combat, and in single combat killing the opponent outright was not always the objective. Both Page and MacGregor state in their manuals that the goal in single combat between Highlanders was first blood. This was because of Christianity's prohibition against murder, and also because Highland society was clan-based, and a death in a duel could lead to a vendetta.
This automatically modifies the techniques from what would be done on the battlefield. However,Page does describe battlefield techniques as well, and I see no reason to think he was misinformed.
Beware of trying to figure out "what the Highlanders really did" without delving deeply into the Gaelic culture and oral tradition, and that includes learning the language or at least seeking out translations. Gaelic dueling lore matches the comments of Page and MacGregor perfectly. I agree that Page's guard is not what we find in the Penicuik sketches, but if you try using Page's sword and targe techniques with the guards shown in the Penicuik sketches, I think you'll find them very effective.
The British fencing manuals don't match some of ARMA's doctrines or assumptions (for instance, they all clearly advocate edge parrying), so I see a tendency to dismiss them out of hand or try to interpret them as somehow not legit. But everything in Gaelic lore about swordsmanship suggests to me that these writers did in fact have access to Highland swordsmanship traditions, even if they modified them in description. If you don't go directly to the source in Gaelic culture, how can you check your own assumptions against reality? I see a circular argument here:
1- "Edge parrying is bad and not historical."
2- "Manual X says to edge parry with the Highland broadsword."
3- "Manual X must be bad and unhistorical, and not really what the Highlanders did."
Well, if the first assumption is flawed then the whole argument is flawed. Figuring out "what the Highlanders really did" will take a lot more than looking at the Penicuik sketches and filtering them through our own preconceptions. We have contemporary manuals of Highland swordplay. These must be the starting point for our research, not modern assumptions.

-Chris Thompson

p.s.- Another example- I've seen it argued that Asian sword systems don't parry on the edge. But, in the words of Yagyu Nobuharu, headmaster of the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu of kenjutsu, "That's such an Americanization." Parries in the Yagyu style are in fact taken on the edge. So should we assume this style is "not really what the samurai did"? I say again, we should rely on our period sources, not on the preconceptions of modern researchers.

[G.MatthewWebb]

Chris Thompson,

Where did you learn about the Scots Gaelic language? Are you an autodidact? Do you read Scots Gaelic? And if so, how well?

Matthew Webb
Oklahoma City, OK

[Allen Johnson]

Chris-
You make a very good point about the Gaelic language dilema. This is something I've pondered and have been fortunate enough to find some local instruction. I'll be starting classes in September. I have your book and from that and other comments you have made on other forums, know that you are no dunce with the Gaelic language. (on a totally unrelated matter I really found that section on incorporating music into training to be really interesting- much to ponder there!)
Without turning this into a "my group is better than your group" thing ( I know this is not your intention- I've exchanged information with you and others not of ARMA and have found it to be very helpful and educational-- I'm stating this for whoever else that may also be reading)- I think some of the large debate that occurs is because a few issues. Most of ARMA focus is medieval and renaissance materials. What is often time argued as support for edge parries is mainly post-renaissance manterial. (i know there are exceptions - but this seems to be the majority) I feel confident that there is much, much less evidence for edge to edge stikes/parries in the earlier manuals which ARMA focuses on. There is much, much more evidence for them in the later manuals which arent the main focus of our studies here.
I personally feel the best way to study these things is to test and try them. I would also venture that there may well be less effective manuals written back then just as there are less effective manuals written today. I would also venture the advice that just because its in print dosent mean its unquestionable. Of course that means it needs to be truly and unbiasedly (is that a word?) tested. I agree that if someone adheres to the formula you stated on refuting manuals, they are not going at it in the most academic way possible. Im heavily paraphrasing here but I believe I remember that Ewart Oakshoot (or someone in speaking about him) stated that if you are a true scholar you must be able to change your mind about something you previously held to be fact. I think EVERYONE could stand to be reminded of this in any avenue of study.
Personally, I have learned alot and have shifted some of my attitudes since starting this thread even. Having read through Paige a few times, MacGregor twice, re - read Silver for who knows how many times <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> and would be finished with Wylde if I could put down my new copy of 'The Steel Bonnets' <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" /> -- I appreciate you comments and hope you continue to offer your comments on this matter as well as other here- Thanks!

[Chris Thompson]

Thanks Allen, I appreciate your open mind and gentlemanly attitude to debate.
One thing to bear in mind is that the basket-hilted broadsword is not medieval in the first place, and that the presence of the basket-hilt changes the method of use automatically, favoring more forward guard positions due to the extra hand protection. Medieval Highlanders mostly used a weapon we now call the "quilloned broadsword," basically a shorter one-handed version of the familiar Highland two-handers. The quilloned broadsword would almost certainly have been used with a buckler, and the buckler would have handled most of the parrying anyway. Also, at that time Highland warriors would have been wearing either ankle-length mail coats or padded aketons, so effective strikes would have been restricted to the lower legs, forearms, throat and face. For that reason, many warriors preferred the sparth ax, an ax with a smallish head, probably for inflicting harm through mail. So as you can see, medieval Highland martial arts would have been very different from the methods used with the basket-hilt.

-Chris Thompson

[Allen Johnson]

True- that is something I've been picking up as I have been working with my new EB Erickson/ATrim basket hilt (so much better than that henious MRL one! <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) I've also noticed a much more guard forward technique when using my mortuary hilt.
I do know that the baskethilt itself is not a medieval weapon but I meant more that the actual blade itself is more medieval than anything else in the 17th and 18th centuries. And I'd love to pick up one of those quillioned broadswords one of these days. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
My qestion on that matter was why bother with the heavier, wider blade if you are only going to be making light, wrist cuts with it? I suppose if that truly was the practice, I can clearly see why the spadroon and shearing sword were so widley praised as the optimal weapon of choice.

[Chris Thompson]

Basically, you can make three types of cuts with this weapon- a "downright blow" on the pass, a cut-over from the wrist, or a moulinet. The stance shown in the Penicuik sketches would clearly have favored a downright blow with passing footwork, and as the Highland Charge was performed at a run, we can assume this was the battlefield method. The target seems to have generally been the crown of the head. The devastating effects of this sort of cut are pretty clear in the descriptions of the aftermath of Killiecrankie.
However, in a single combat you were probably trying to inflict a bleeding injury without killing the opponent. Highland swordsmen frequently challenged each other to duels of skill, and such a fight was not supposed to be fatal, so here we see the cut-over from the wrist, generally targeting the forearm. (In earlier times this would also have been done on the pass, but by 1700 if not earlier the lunge seems to have become the standard type of attacking footwork.) MacGregor and Page both mention this custom, and one example from the oral tradition is Rob Roy's victory over Black Rory the Unjust, a wandering swordsman from Barra. Rob cut Black Rory in the arm to end the combat. However, both swordsmen in such a fight knew that it might escalate to a fight to the death, in which case you could generate power for the cut by using the moulinet. This is far more powerful than most folks realize, even if done from the wrist, and could certainly kill the opponent.
These were actually very light weapons- one broadsword from 1570 that I handled weighed in at 2 lbs 8 oz, and most were between 2 and 3 lbs. Yes they were very broad, but the blades were thin, light and very flexible. The Highland broadsword was far more agile in the hand than any reproduction I've handled.

-Chris Thompson

[Allen Johnson]

Thanks- another thing I wondered from the Penicuik Sketches is that it appears to have a strong "unterhau" cut- possibly being done on the pass as well. I suppose it also could be a sort of "in action shot" of a really aggressive moulinet?
This is kinda starting to get off topic from the original thread but since I started it i guess its ok <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> But another thing I was questioning was McBanes two versions of his Hanging Guard in second. One with the point more "on" the opponent and one with the point almost straight down. In my sparring it seems like the only time I enter the version where the tip is almost straight down is as I'm in the process of displacing a blow that I originally caught in Hanging with the tip more "on" (the first variant) To enter with the tip directly down dosent make much sense to me. Is there some martial sense to this or how do you feel about the McBane illustration on this being an "in action shot" where he's started to slip back after the parry (being Hanging in Second with the tip more "on" the opponent) to counter with the strong outside cut? Thanks again.

Also- I'm pretty familiar with the weights of the broadswords but how does that compare with the shearing swords, spadroons and smallswords of the time? I cant find many stats on the spadroons and especially cant find any stats on the ambiguous "shearing swords".

[Chris Thompson]

>it appears to have a strong "unterhau" cut- possibly being done on the pass as well>

Are you talking about the picture that shows two dueling swordsmen? The way I interpret this picture is that both fighters began in the open guard with left foot forward. Fighter A cuts at the head on the pass. Fighter B parries with his targe and begins a cut to the head. Fighter A slips off the line, covering his own head with his targe to avoid the attack, but Fighter B converts the attack into a thrust in second (a technique known as "counterpoint"). If Fighter A hadn't slipped off the line but had gone straight back with his targe covering his head, the thrust would have gone under his targe and hit him in the face. It is unknown whether this was a fight in earnest or whether they were just practicing or maybe even posing for the artist.

>and one with the point almost straight down>

That's a lot like Silver's True Guardant Ward. As Paul Wagner points out in one of his books, the True Guardant Ward survived as a variation on the hanging guard in Highland broadsword play, long after it had stopped being used in England. This is more evidence that Highland broadsword fencing did derive from earlier British systems, not from smallsword play.
The idea (I think) is that it supposedly prevents the opponent from beating your hanging guard aside, and protects from a thrust to the leg, called the "pope's eye". Personally I prefer the standard hanging guard.

>how does that compare with the shearing swords, spadroons and smallswords of the time?>

Much heavier than a smallsword, a bit heavier than a spadroon. The spadroon (at the time, I think "shearing sword" is just a synonym for spadroon) is a shorter weapon, so when facing a spadroon fencer, take the spadroon guard (half-circle with the left hand supporting the elbow.) If he takes the bait and cuts at you, the spadroon guard will cause his weapon to blow right through and off to the side, allowing you to counter immediately against your now-exposed opponent. I've tried it, and it works like a charm.

-Chris Thompson

[Allen Johnson]

>Are you talking about the picture that shows two dueling swordsmen?

No, this is on the page with a bunch of single images of guys- possibly depicting the different wards. Almost all of them have a targe. These images also have the highlanders drawn with a few of the curved baskethilt blades (turcaels) and interestingly enough- several left handers.

I think I may have misscomunicated some of my thoughts on the broadsword to smallsword relationship. I didnt intend to imply that baskethilt technique was derived from smallsword play. My thoughts at the moment are: I believe that the technique that was in use by the Highlanders prior to Culloden did derive from earlier systems (english and no doubt other European techniques that would have been picked up during continental campaigns). As Highland regiments and Scottish culture in general became more incoporated into the British military and into British fashion- these manuals were written. Mostly, these manuals are not written by Highland born AND trained men. (The argument for McBane is that yes he was born Highland but recorded that he recieved his training from non Highland sources). I feel at this point- and especially after the Disarming Acts- the style changed into a more smallsword/ spadroon style. So my big burning question is- Is the techniques taught in these later period manuals that we have, the most effective technique for this weapon? Part of that, I feel, has to include the credibility of our sources. Im not going to go to a Chevy dealer and ask him to teach me the finer parts of Ford technology <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Likewise, I'm wondering how much these men were catering to their more English audience, who were more prone to the smallsword and spadroon at the time. I would feel that these manuals really arent for a Scottish audience seeing the horrible illiteracy rate being what it was - not to mention the Gaelic barrier.
Now these are just my thoughts on the matter and I fully expect them to shift and change as I learn and practice more. I've recently found that context of a fight will dramatically change things. The idea of fighting to the first cut does change the mentality and techniques used for these weapons. Even the thought of killing your opponent but the rest of the clan would seek violent retrebution from yours is a significant thing to work into the equation. Much more comlicated than the earlier 'kill him before he kills you' attitude.

Anyway, I hope that kind of clears up my thoughts on this a little. Thanks again for contributing.

[Chris Thompson]

>and interestingly enough- several left handers>

There have been some recent studies suggesting that societies with high rates of violence and pre-modern weapons tend to have disproportionately large numbers of left-handers, possibly because the familiar advantage left-handed fencers are said to have.

>(english and no doubt other European techniques that would have been picked up during continental campaigns)>

Rather, I would say that both English and Scottish broadsword/backsword play belonged to a common "British" fencing tradition. They developed in tandem, and were thus highly similar.

>Mostly, these manuals are not written by Highland born AND trained men>

The Highland Officer was a native Highlander named Sinclair. He received his training in the Black Watch. The first broadsword master of the Black Watch was the famed Donald MacLeod, not only a native Gael but a member of the "daoine-uaisle" or warrior class. MacLeod trained daily with the broadsword from childhood, receiving his training before 1700 in the Highlands. He lived long enough to fight in the French and Indian War, and was responsible for teaching new recruits the art of the broadsword, so it's very plausible that the Highland Officer learned his method from MacLeod or someone trained by MacLeod. MacLeod was still alive (at a very advanced age) when Sinclair's "Anti-Pugilism" was published.

>I feel at this point- and especially after the Disarming Acts- the style changed into a more smallsword/ spadroon style>

If you read McBane's spadroon instructions, they're quite distinct from his backsword instructions stylistically. And other than the use of modern fencing footwork, I can't see any similarity to smallsword.

>So my big burning question is- Is the techniques taught in these later period manuals that we have, the most effective technique for this weapon?>

It is perhaps the most effective technique for what those fencers were trying to do with that weapon. As for its battlefield effectiveness, this was proven many times on late 18th through mid 19th century battlefields. There were many instances of Highlanders using this system cutting down multiple opponents in battle with every other nationality of swordsmen. However, if your primary interest is in the pre-Culloden method, I think the best way we can try to approach this is to take Page's tactics for sword and targe and perform them from the Penicuik guards.

>Part of that, I feel, has to include the credibility of our sources>

See above. There is reason to believe that there was a direct lineage of instruction between the pre-Culloden clan warriors and the later Regimental broadsword instructors.

>I would feel that these manuals really arent for a Scottish audience seeing the horrible illiteracy rate being what it was - not to mention the Gaelic barrier>

Many educated Gaels were literate in English- for instance, the Highland Officer. And literacy rates in Scotland as a whole were certainly no worse than in England. Yes, Mathewson and Angelo were Englishmen writing for an English audience about the Highland weapon, but Angelo based much of his work on Anti-Pugilism, which was written by Sinclair, who was possibly trained by MacLeod. As for Mathewson, he studied under several swordsmen with Gaelic surnames, including the same Archibald MacGregor who wrote the "Lecture on the Art of Defence."

>Much more comlicated than the earlier 'kill him before he kills you' attitude>

Yes indeed.
And thank you as well. BTW, I've used the Regimental Highland broadsword system in loose play with swordsmen from a wide variety of styles, both European and Asian. It repeatedly emerges victorious. I wouldn't suggest it's a "superior" system, but I believe I can prove with my sword that it's no inferior one. That's not a challenge, I just thought you might like to know how well the system stood up under trial.

-Chris Thompson

[Allen Johnson]

I appreciate your time and comments- The stack of things to read, study and try out grows faster than I can knock it down. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> I have Sinclair, Mathewson and Angelo but still have yet to get to them. I'm sure I'll have more questions when I get to them.
Thats really inetersting about the prominence of left handers in violent societies. Do you happen to have a source for these studies or an article or anything?
I can see the battlefield stuff has a much different style to it than dueling situations. Obviously you arent going to charge a line only to stop at distance to start striking and slipping. I suppose I should rather think of this as a specific single technique as opposed to a completley different style of use.
Whats your oppinion on using messer techniques as a possible source for ideas on a pre-Culloden style. I read about that in one of Paul Wagner's articles and it seemed to make some sense.
Just out of curiosity what specific baskethilts are you using in your loose play?
I am having a bit of an issue with singlesticks. Dont they seem way too light and fast to give decent baskethilt training? I know just singlestick it self developed into its own art- but I just dont seem to find it optimal as an accurate waster for the baskethilt.-- Your thoughts <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Many thanks again.

[Chris Thompson]

> Do you happen to have a source for these studies or an article or anything?>

Sorry, it's just something I remember reading, but it was sometime in the past few months and was probably posted on Ken Pfrenger's Western Arts mailing list or on the SFI.

>Whats your oppinion on using messer techniques as a possible source for ideas on a pre-Culloden style>

The theory of Highland swordplay, as of all British swordplay, was mostly defensive. The theory of German swordplay was offensive. So personally I don't think so. To my mind, the ideal progression of study is as follows:

1- The Regimental style as described by Angelo, Mathewson, Sinclair etc. This will teach you how to fence effectively with this weapon, including really essential skills that it would be more difficult to focus on if you also had to deal with a targe at this stage.
2- The sword and targe method described by Page. This uses the Regimental footwork and Outside guard, but adds elements of the older footwork, for instance some of the techniques are performed on the pass according to Page. This will also add the skill of using the targe to bind the opponent's weapons, which is fundamental to sword and targe play.
3- In the final stage, continue to practice Page's plays, but perform them from the Penicuik guards. For instance, from the open guard pass forward with a cut at the opponent's arm. He slips the cut, and you thrust to his belly as an invitation. He responds by passing forward with a cut to the head while parrying with his targe. However, your thrust was in fact a feint, and you pass back, using your targe to drive his sword to your outside as you cut to the outside of his neck. As you can see, this is essentially the same as one of Page's plays, but it is performed with the pre-Culloden guards and footwork.
The big advantage of this progression of training is that it relies only on period sources for the Highland broadsword, so it can hardly be called "speculative"- yet it eventually produces a swordsman trained in both the Regimental Highland style and in a system of sword and targe play based on the guards shown in the Penicuik sketches. A "Highland sword and targe method" based on the messer, I33 or anything else would essentially just be speculation, and "Highland" only insofar as it involved Highland weapons, but not in any concrete historical sense.

>Just out of curiosity what specific baskethilts are you using in your loose play?>

I use Popinjay heavy saber blades remounted in basket hilts taken from old wallhangers. The result is a weapon that weighs about 2 lbs, a little less than the real thing but not too much.

>Dont they seem way too light and fast to give decent baskethilt training?>

It's more like they're too poorly-balanced and awkward. I'm not thrilled with them, which is why I use remounted heavy sabers. But they were used historically because they were cheap and easy to acquire, and new students of mine often use them for the same reasons.
BTW, I don't want to poach members from any other group, but if the ARMA doesn't mind, perhaps you'd like to join the Cateran Society as well. After all, this is what we do!

-Chris Thompson

[Jon Pellett]

Re: left handers - it was discussed on the western-arts list under the subject "Evil Lefties." See this article.

Cheers

[Allen Johnson]

Thanks for the lefty article Jon!

I appreciate the invatation. obviously I wouldnt be able to physically be there but I'll consider it.
Thats seems like a reasonable progression- I'll see what I can do with that - thanks again.