Battlefield or duelling?

[M Wallgren]

I´ve been reading alot of the treads on the forums like "The dangers of groundfighting in WMA" and others and I found a question popping up in my head. What are most of the manuals depicting and teach? Is it how to survive on the battlefield primarily or is it how to survive a man on man fight?

This is two quite different things. In a man on man situation there is often alot of room around, on a batllefield this is not the case. (As an example you could think of police dispersing a riot or a demonstrating crowd.) In many cases there is no "frends" around happy to jump in, espesially if it is a duell. According to many manuals the fighting tought is aimed at juridical fights, where a intervention would be not only unlikley but also highly dishonorbly and possible illegal with severe punishment to follow.

I think this is a very relevant question, as the senarios are so different.

MHO is that the manuals are more focused on the duell or man to man fihghting and is not primarily intended for battlefield fighting. I do think though that the students the masters of old had, was experienced in battlefield fighting, at least had trained for it in many cases.

what´s your input in this?

Martin

[GaryGrzybek]

I think a major portion of the manuals show us situations and techniques that occur in a duelling environment. I also think that much of it can easily be applied to the field of battle. Of course we must also concider that on the battlefield with so many soldiers working in close groups, duelling situations may just not apply until one becomes separated from his ranks.

Just some thoughts.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Martin

What are most of the manuals depicting and teach? Is it how to survive on the battlefield primarily or is it how to survive a man on man fight?

In the modern military they teach hand to hand combat in an individual format, meaning to each individual, and it is intended for the battlefield so why would it be diffrent 400 year's ago when the fighting was alway's at "bayonet distance" in modern term's, I think that the common misconception is that you won't go to the ground in actual combat because it is too dangerous and what about his buddies and so on and so forth, to me that is a load of Bull crap.

Idealy you don't want to go to the ground, combat though is never ideal, they have alot of quote's in the military and one i remember well is "Plan for the worst hope for the best" which in this case is learn to fight from and on the ground do your best to not go there, although it will happen eventualy if you are in combat long enough, if you do not know how to fight from/on the ground and you go down you have no advantage over your enemy.

MHO is that the manuals are more focused on the duell or man to man fihghting and is not primarily intended for battlefield fighting

I do not agree i think what we see is advanced individual training or in modern U.S. Army term's AIT, for the time period the manuel was written, combat is combat whether it is a mely or individual duel the skill's are no diffrent it is all combat, If I challenge you to a duel with a longsword even only to first blood we are both going to have the same feeling's as if it were a mely combat for the simple fact that someone will sustain grave bodily harm and possibly death, only dueling to first blood does not gaurentee that it will not result in death and we have a set of rule's which we agree upon to limit thing's it is still combat and anything can happen even accidently.

In a man on man situation there is often alot of room around, on a batllefield this is not the case.

in general combat if you attack a fortified position or a defended position you go in and try to fight each individual not the whole unit it would be man to man because i am not attacking alone i will have the rest of my unit be it a squad, platoon, whatever, we are all attacking and fighting one or two men (hopefuly) at a time, and there will be crap laying everywhere, in a duel you only have limited gear in the arena so in that respect you wouldn't have to worry about it, and remember the police have very diffrent rule's when it come's to the use of lethal force than the military in a war time situation.



this is my opinion and i think it is well qualified having seen a modern battlefield, before, during and after combat. I doubt the battlefield of the 14th-15th century would have been much diffrent except for the gear lying around would have been dead horse's, sword's and shield's as opposed to burned out BMP's, AK 47's and RPG's.

I do not realy think there is a distinction between combat of a duel and that of the "Battelfield" in the way you train to fight.

Jeff

[s_taillebois]

No doubt the comparision between the dueling and combat is apt, in both cases, the end effects are similar, for the winners or losers.
Many of the fechtbuchs, may have been reliant (as M. Gentry noted) on military individual tactics of the time.
But since some of these books were widely disseminated before the development of mass levee' armies (Thanks? to the industrial revolution and Napoleon) , the audience for whom they were written/produced was slightly different. Prior to the press, the armoured aristocracy would have had this type of information as a matter of social right. So excepting as a status item (not unlike an ornate book of hours), they wouldn't have had direct need of them.
However, the printing of books brought new classes into the 'information heirarchy', such as the upper trade classes, and others who were largely the product of the social rearrangement of post plague period. And as likely for dueling, or occasional emergency service in the armies...they needed the techniques in the fechtbuchs. No doubt, the aristocrats were in no hurry to share the techniques, as it endangered their own status. But it happened nonetheless. To paraphrase J. Burke, 'the first generations of the printed book, were able to apply themselves equally to literature, philosophy, science, and the art of the sword...and they were also the last generation for which this extensive generalization was possible'.

[Michael J Pierce]

I have an honest question:

Would there be guards or strikes you could not use in [battlefield] combat in fear of hitting your allies? [the question assumes that in battlefield conflicts everyone would be bunched together. Would that be true or would everyone spread out? Not that their splitting up into one on one senarioes, but rather just trying to distances themselves a little for an unpredicatable throng of swords and clashing armor.]


Thanks

Michael

[M Wallgren]

In a battle line I would not use any "mittelhau" or any other horisontal attacks exept trusts or slices! I feel that your footwork will also are limeted in the line! this make alot of what you do in a man on man situation almost impossible to do in a battleline. As soon as you get some space yes but not in the press. This is my point in this discussion. There is so much in the manuals that demands some space! Sidestepping, attacking around the point, Wide strikes like the Shiller and Shwerhau.

Martin

[Mike Chidester]

It is my understanding that it was common in the Middle Ages for armies to quickly dissolve into small groups of men, who'd engage other small groups. So you'd only have a few buddies around, and a lot more room to swing.

[M Wallgren]

What is your sourses on that?

And what period of time are we talking about. As soon as you Have more than a couple of hundred people there is going to be a pressed situation according to the fact that the colliding persons move slower than the ones behind. The in many ways unrealistic movie Kingdom of heaven portraits this in a good way in the scene when Sal al-Dins forces breaches the wall! Of course it is depending on situation topografic and geografic structures, people involved, the skill of generals, etc. I don´t remember though who, but it was one of the italian masters who supposedly said that he had been in several battles and a couple of duells, and he prefered the battles because it was so mush more up to the skill of the fighter in a duell or something like that. It could be I remeber totally wrong here and my good friend Joachim Nilsson could probally give us the correct reference.

Martin

[TimSheetz]

In a battle line, I would not be using a sword... unless my polearm broke or got lost... then I'd use my primary short weapon until it was broken or lost (an axe or mass weapon)... then I'd use my sword.

Not suggesting that some folks didn't use swords as their primary weapons, but I think we need to remember the primacy of the polearm in massed formations and then the mass weapons. This cerainly is true even if it is merely "more weapon for your buck" reasons. An axe or mace has to be cheaper than a sword, simply looking at required man-hours and material qualities that make them.

Tim

[Axel Pettersson]

I would say that most manuals are foremost intended for appliance in duels, or atleast 1on1 combat ( I also believe that the actual background in some manuals depict duel "rings" to mark the ara of combat, suggesting it is a duel we see depicted). It could be that 1on1 was more frequent than a battle (which I believe, think duels, robberies, bar brawls etc, it could happen anytime and therefore perhaps more worthwile to learn), but also that it is the easiest way to learn to fight (as many of us first learn the longsword and then go on to other weapons, as the longsword provides a good base to stand on, same thing with 1on1 and then battle training).

If the manuals were primarly to learn battlefield combat, I think we would see more techniques against multiple opponents, for example (although I know there are some), or how to work together in groups (and all of a sudden we are into tactics and not techniques), but that would be too broad a spectrum (as I believe mr Wallgren stated, what time, what army, against what type of opponent and so on), better then to first learn how to fight 1on1. As group combat is more restricted, you simply do not use the techniques not suitable, learning to march in line, move in formation and such is learned in the army, not in a salle.

As mr Gentry and others also pointed out, it is perfectly possible to apply then much of what you have learned in duel training on the battlefield (what is not working I think you would be informed on by your fellows beside you in the line, should it be your first time on the field. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Not having been on an actual battlefield as mr Gentry, I would still assume that the situation around you can change pratty fast, at one moment you are in close formation, a few minutes later you find youself almost alone, you halberd shattered, (with room to swing your langesmesser or whateverer) until you eventualy get back to a group of comrades, pick up a pike, and so on.

Finally, as mr Sheetz said (I seem to agree with everyone in this thread, very neutral of me),a long pike or halberd would be my prefereble weapon i mass formation, and should I lose it or it is broken by some giant of a doppelsoldner, the massformation itself is probably disrupted, and a sword, mace or whatever is perfectly in order (and recommended).

There, a many words that say very little, my point is that it is simply easier to learn first how to fight only one opponent in a enclosed space, to then move on to battle combat seems logical, as you allready then carry with you alot of skills. I would also argue that a battle is more rare to participate in than a duel or other mentionend incidents, where you find yourself facing one opponent.

Axel, ARMA Falun, Sweden.

[Axel Pettersson]

I just remembered something: these manuals were, as stated, for the use of the upper social classes, who probably did not function always as an ordinary rank-and-file soldier.

Were you from a lower social class and recruited into a pikeman formation, there would probably be more focus on group combat than individual combat. A manual from Lichtenauer or Meyer would likely not be distributed to you and your fellow grunts.

[Bill Welch]

As well as some of the fightbooks are written, would you think that the authors would say(if they thought there should be a difference) what the books were specifically for?

I also agree with Tim that I would want a pole arm(in a formation situation.), just to keep my opponant as far away as possible.

Wouldn't armoured combat tech(even against an opponant that was not in armour) not be useful in formation since most of them are halfswording, grappleing, and close combat?

[JeffGentry]

Hey Martin

It is a difficult task to keep a formation on line if everyone is not on the same sheet of music, if my training is diffrent then your's i may not have a clue as to what you are doing, that is why the Roman's trained the way they did with there shield wall and were so effective at it they all knew when the legionaire blew his whistle in a certain manner then the it was time to change the front line an dhad a standard procedure to do so.

In a mass formation once you have a breech it is much easier to exploit it as men are killed and not replaced or you put your men into there line and once you have men breaking through it is then time to go to man to man hand to hand combat.

The difficulty lie's in making a hole big enough to get more than one or two men at a time through, if you must go through a breech single file then it is easy to stop each individual as they try to come through, a situation such as in Kingdom of Heaven the men in front were pretty much dead from the word go and everyone behind trampled there bodies I do think it was a fairly accurate portayel of breeching a keep or castle though.

In an open enviroment a field or plain then you have a game of tactic's between general's and indvidual combat skill with any weapon will be somewhat important to your survival in that the longer you can fight and defend your self the easier you can stay with the formation as the guy's right and left of you are killed or wounded, if three guy's right and left of you fall then you better be ready to depend on your skill's to defend yourself and get back in a formation.

In the European way of fighting it was difficult to control a formation, and not all your people were dependable remember they were usualy conscript armie's and quit often guy's would break and run leaving you to defend yourself or join in the footrace.

Alot of these fight master's were employed by a Noble a Duke, Baron, who ever because he was required to provide troop's when necessary and they had to have some training and i bet that was part of the responsibility of the fight master just like a drill instructor.

Jeff

[Stacy Clifford]

One thing to remember about training, whether it's for duelling or the battlefield, is what kind of skills are being honed. For every fancy krumphau-type move you learn that would only work in a duel, you are also improving your timing, distance, perception, footwork, cutting form and blade angle, reaction time, reducing panic, increasing your range of options, committing actions to reflex, and a whole host of other basic things that I think couldn't help but be useful on the battlefield. You may never use that krumphau at Poitiers, but if you can turn and throw that zornhau a split second faster than the opponent who came up on your right expected, or his edge turns on impact but yours bites true, then I'd say your duelling training just paid off. I would say battle requires knowledge of the basics, and duelling requires mastery of the basics. If you're trained well enough to fight in a duel, then I think you should be fully ready to fight in a battle as far as your skills are concerned. Tactics are another matter.

[Michael J Pierce]

I find it odd that we don't have manuals on tactics, if that is, in fact, the case.

Also, what knowledge do we have of the actual procedings of the medieval, rennisance etc battlefield? Did it happen like it does in the movies with men run at each other like NFL linebackers trying to make a sack? Or were they more cutious, approaching each other like two large rival gangs?

With these questions in mind, I wonder if anyone knows of any resources that can explain these possibilties into fact or fiction. Let me know. The answer could very well give us a greater understanding of how the duel training applied to battlefield combat. If it doesn't I induce that their must be manuals somewhere to act as companions to our fighting manuals for the purpose of training soldiers.

Michael