New to the forum; with questions

[Laurent Marshall]

Hey all,

I've been getting more and more interested in the topic of medieval swordsmanship, and just recently bought a copy of Hans Talhoffers fechtbuch. As I try to understand what these techniques are, I'm becoming more and more baffled as to why he does not present any techniques that incorporate handstrikes (punches, palm heel, knifehand, uppercuts, backfist, hammer, etc.). I think I've only seen about two plates where a kick is used. Given all the locks and grappling techniques, it would seem advantageous in many instances to knock your opponent out with a good palm heel to the face, or break their collarbone with a knifehand (once their sword arm is locked up of course, and you are in control). I've been training in American Kenpo Karate for about a year now; which is pretty much the extent of my martial arts training. From my experience, it would seem more natural to use strikes in a lot instances (especiall in the techniques that involve locking your opponents sword arm), instead of grappling. So why so much dependance on grappling?

Thanks

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Laurent,

I think this is a question that just about everyone on the forum has asked over time. The answer is that we really don't know.

Sources on Medieval Unarmed Combat are few and far between and as you say tend to focus on the grappling despitte quite often giving lip service to strikes.

believe that the various medieval methods do make heavy use of striking. It isn't shown because striking isn't exactly rocket science when compared to the science of wrestling. If you really want the low down on medieval striking then you need to get the Codex Wallerstein. It has plates that show and describe precisely the techniques you mention.

Still, at the moment you only have Talhoffer 1467. Take all the dagger plates from this manual and take away the dagger. What do you have?

You have a very powerful system of striking which seemingly suffers from being overly telegraphic in nature.

The big passing attack approach in unarmed combat is mirrored in Japanese systems from the same periods. The bottom line is, that they must have worked......

The way to test this is to get some buddies from your Kenpo school and try out the big hammerfists on them. You will find if you are clever with your attacks and make sure that they have to parry them rather than being able to just slip them (as they can with a straight punch) that they will try to block hard against your attacks which sets them up for excellent grappling counters.

This last point leads us back to why medieval systems look to concentrate on grappling. I believe that it is because the striking systems are designed to set up a safe entry to close distance if they fail to take effect.

Sorry for the disjointed post. Hope I got my idea across. Would welcome criticism.
Cheers,
Stu.

[John_Clements]

Hi,
I agree re the palm strike, and some texts do seem to show or instruct in this. But being able to lift your hand strike down on a collar is just going to be too slow I think, and of questionable effect when a hilt or edge is in right there in his face. However, remember that when close in like this, sword on sword, it's easy for the opponent to release his own hand and block you or trap you, and in plate armor, well open hand blows are virtually irrellevant.

JC

[Laurent Marshall]

I took a closer look at Talhoffer's dagger material, and noticed a lot of the arm locks are extremely similiar to the ones I've seen in kenpo, if not identical.

I'm thinking I might get a of mine freind on the wrestling squad at my school to take a look at the grappling techniques, since I have no practical knowledge of any wrestling concepts or techniques.

I really want to learn these medieval fighting methods as well as I can.

[Shane Smith]

I think that the hilt and pommel makes a better hammer in close than a palm-strike does yet I have had the occasion to incorporate open-hand and kicking techniques in freeplay on occasions when my hilt and blade were bound.I don't know why we don't see more of these obviously effective techniques in the source-texts though(at least in the fencing sections).The "Codex Wallerstein" does show what appear to be open -hand strikes in it's wrestling section however. Have a look here http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/CodexW.htm

Welcome to the forum <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Casper Bradak]

Hey Laurent. I've been AKKI for about 11 years and ARMA for about 4, so I could probably help you out discussing the similarities and principles. PM or email me if you want to.

[Jay Vail]

Laurent,

Stuart is right about the place of striking in medieval unarmed combat. We really don’t know how sophisticated it was or how much it was emphasized, either as stand alone technique, or as set up for wrestling. There are frequent references to atemi, but there are few illustrations of it in the fight books. Why this is so we can only speculate, since so far as I know none of the masters expressed a preference for wrestling or striking. I recall Bob Charron saying that one of the versions of Fiore advocated striking first, then locking, as is common in many koryu jujutsu ryu. But I have not seen that in the translation that is available to me. (However, I would consider it good practical advice, since locks, if they are not performed properly, can be escaped, but an opponent is less likely to be thinking about escape after you’ve whacked him a good one on the neck or the floating ribs first; so you have a margin for error.)

Nonetheless, we know that blows were used in medieval fights. There are contemporary references to them. For instance, in the ballad of Fulk Fitzwarine, Fulk kicks Prince John (the future king) in the chest after an argument over a chess match. There is an account of a French knight ending a duel by reaching under his opponent’s mail coat to squeeze his privates. The coroner’s rolls of London contain many accounts of people being beaten to death (in a few circumstances by women; ie, one woman beat a pregnant woman to death, killing her and the child).

The fight books did not entirely disregard the possibility of strikes. For example, the Codex Wallerstein shows several defenses against the common lead punch.

The ultimate answer is that we can only guess right now. Perhaps further research will shed light on this question.

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi All,

Jay speaks of doing more research. It seems to me however that unless some new and better texts are found in an attic somewhere, we will never know all that much about medieval wrestling. Having said that, I know that ARMA members have access to quirte a few manuals that I don't. Are there any the equal of Codex Wallerstein on wrestling in the collection?
Cheers,
Stu.

[Jay Vail]

Stuart, you should check out Keith Myers' medival wrestling book, which he has privately published. It's an excellent survey of medieval wrestling taken from a variety of sources, primarily the big three, Fiore, Talhoffer, and the Codex, but also drawing from Vadi, Duer and others.

The Codex is cool, though. But so's Fiore! <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

[Casper Bradak]

That's a bleak outlook, seeing as how much wrestling material there is compared to the weapons...

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Jay,

Already have that one, thanks for the tip. Wish I had all the text to go with it when I got it though.
I thought I had some of the Wallerstein plates in Keith's book down pat until I got the translation and realised I was oh so wrong.

Hi Casper,
Yeah, it's a bleak attitude isn't it. It comes from having studied a few 17th and 18th Century manuals recently and then having come back to medieval stuff. It's just alot more difficult to work with isn't it?

Here's some good news though. I took a modern military combatives class last Friday night and honestly believe that the medieval material is for the most part superior. Certainly learned a few things though about how close combat blows are best thrown. Would be happy to go through it in the unarmed forum if anyone is interested.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Casper Bradak]

By all means, share. I agree too that most of this is superior to most military combatives. I certainly wish I knew this stuff when I was active. But you have to take into account that most of this stuff was taught in a more intimate martial arts school setting, while most military combatives are taught to massive groups of people of all skill levels at the same time in a limited time frame.

[Jay Vail]

Stuart said: I took a modern military combatives class last Friday night and honestly believe that the medieval material is for the most part superior. Certainly learned a few things though about how close combat blows are best thrown. Would be happy to go through it in the unarmed forum if anyone is interested.

I'd be interested in hearing what you learned.