Battlefield or duelling?

[Joachim Nilsson]

I think Jeff, Tim and Stacy have but it best so far and I totally agree with what they have said.

I'd also like to add that I think that any man trained in martial arts in those days would know what techniques to employ on the battlefield -and thus also when not to employ them. They were no less smart in those days than people are now and could think for themselves.

[s_taillebois]

M Welch, the authors of the fechtbuchs really wouldn't have had to specifically state what group these were written for...the mere fact that they were meant to be read limited these to the upper orders.
Concerning general tactics...often it was a matter of the distance weapons being employed (ie longbows) and having the mounted units move in as a shock force once the oppositions lines had been compromised by the longbows, arbalests and such. (or that could be a perception on my part, encouraged by too much time reading about the Agincourt era)
One of the reasons the mounted aristocrats really hated the pike square formation was that it often denied them that shock tactic-and too often the pikemen were those (()&^(^^ free townsmen or their mercenaries. Took most of the glory out of aristocratic butchery. A pike square, could often take the fire, and they had an astonishing ability to manuever en masse. Sometimes the effectiveness of these type of weapons had as much to do with standing shoulder to shoulder with their townsmen, as the weapon itself.
Movies have done a bit of a disfavor to the perception of history about the sword era...obviously the lone fencer wasn't the one, who always won.
Ironically, one of the most effective weapons against the pike square was the gun...and when they combined the pike square with the gun...that was the end of the effectiveness of the armoured knight.

[JeffGentry]

Michael

We have alot of tacitical knowledge left around, look at the modern military tactic's, most are derived from Rome and the 14c European's used these also, look at the pincer movement in maneuver warfare of modern time's, use ground force's to slow the enemy advance then come around the flank and crush the enemey with mounted force's.

Vehicle mounted troop's now are used alot like horse cavalry in Rome/14-15c Europe.

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.

I realy think this is the job of the fight master's who were usualy employed by the Baron's, Duke's and such to train his peasant army which he was required to maintain, some were better at maintaining there's than other's so some were better trained than other's.

These people had no real standing army, some employed merc's and they were fairly well trained because they were "professional" warrior's, most were farmer's and had little or no money to pay for fencing lesson's, I would bet if they were trained it was at the expense of there Liege.

They had more to do than sword fight all day, even the noble's had to see to the administration of there land and such.

Jeff


Jeff

[Bill Welch]

I agree with Joachim that someone trained in the fighting arts if the day would know what to do.
In the Doebringer 1389 text he talks about a generic fight against multiple opp. and how you might run away and hide at the side of the road to leap out and attack your opponant as he runs by.
So apparently he was not writing for battlefield, or duel specifically he was just teaching how to fight.

[Bill Welch]

Sorry I did not make myself clear. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /> I meant to say the fight masters that wrote the books would have specified if the books were written for the battlefield, or the duel. If it made any differance.

[Jeffrey Hull]

The wrestling of Hans Talhoffer circa 1467, as advocated by that master-of-arms for a German duke's army of that time, shows us almost exclusively that you do not go to ground with the foe (Buben is about only exception). He meant his teaching for both battle and duel.

You destroy foe while you are upright with breaks, locks, strikes, and throws. You hurt him and/or get rid of him. You do not go to ground with him and put the hurt on him. You put the hurt on him while you stand and/or by heaving him away. You stay upon your feet while foe gets hurt and/or put down.

[Joachim Nilsson]

Jeffrey Hull wrote:

You destroy foe while you are upright with breaks, locks, strikes, and throws. You hurt him and/or get rid of him. You do not go to ground with him and put the hurt on him. You put the hurt on him while you stand and/or by heaving him away. You stay upon your feet while foe gets hurt and/or put down.

With the exception of some plates dealing with judicical combat of course. There he finishes (puts the hurt on <img src="/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />) his opponant once he's gotten him to the ground. Usually with a dagger to the base of the skull or something equally interesting.

[Shane Smith]

Alot of armoured texts show dagger fighting with both men on the ground as well but I'm sure that was not the ideal ;

[Joachim Nilsson]

Well, on a battlefield it would certainly not have been the ideal <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> , but within the confines of a kampfplatze -with only you and him present- I am quite sure that one goes for the opportunity if it presents itself. Talhoffer has a few plates were a deliberate take-down is executed. This is often followed by dagger to the head/face area. And Talhoffer shows this both in and out of armour.

[Shane Smith]

I would agree that there was certainly a greater likelihood of pulling a ground fight off in the duel,yet even there, I would just as soon put my dagger under the other guys visor as I throw him to the ground while my own nails remain unsullied and I remain standing to hear the breathless swooning of the maidens in the crowd <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

In all sincerity, it seems to me that if ground fighting were the ideal in WMA, the plates depicting that form would far outnumber those that depict the standing fight.

[Joachim Nilsson]

So no mounting and penetrating him when he is on the ground then? <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

In all sincerity, it seems to me that if ground fighting were the ideal in WMA, the plates depicting that form would far outnumber those that depict the standing fight.

I agree with you there of course. I'm absolutely not saying it is the ideal, but it is something that does occur from time to time -something that the fechtbücher, as well as the Masters themselves, seem to acknowledge. And a fighting man should be trained to deal with all scenarios, no? And he should know when to go to the ground and when not to too (which they back then in all likelihood did know).

[Scott Richards]

I recently asked a similar question and recieved similar answers. One thing I discovered while researching the answer myself was that the sword was the least used weapon on a battlefield when looking at the overall scope of battle during the Medieval and Renaissance period. Typically, more action was given to the spear, bow and arrow, pike, or lance -- you know, weapons that keep your enemy at a distance and give you the advantage of killing him before he can close to strike at you.

Clearly its true that swords were used on the battlefield, but that is when the others weapons were exhaused or broken. Plus, the image of battle from this time in our minds created by Hollywood -- that of equally trained warrors pairing off to do indivdual duels to determine the battle -- is false. Battlefields at this time were a question of mass versus mass, the two lines clashing while keeping cohesion, striking at whoever happened to be in front of you. Individual duels allowed the enemy to penetrate the line, which would mean defeat.

Just like in the modern Army, hand to hand combat is taught, but it is hardly the main tactic; it is the option of last resort. Killing the enemy at great distance is much prefered.

So to answer the question: I'm truly not certain. I personally believe the fight book was developed for personal combat in mind, whether that be in formal duels (for whatever the reason), in competitions, or simply for personal protection during a time that was much more violent and less just and less forgiving that our own.

Just my opinion, hope it helps,
Scott

In Ferro Veritas