the messer

[nathan featherstone]

thanks for the links
steve do you have links to any of the ones you mentioned??
and any links at all for info on single short sword please send thats my main focus just got distracted by the 2 swords for a bit.
also to steven do you have any links to the work you mentioned??
please any links and info i can get please all send them my way and thanks to those who have and do

[Stacy Clifford]

I agree, especially on Di Grassi since that's my current focus, that you need to be familiar with the whole manual to truly understand individual sections of it. The 1594 English version does get the job done if you read it carefully enough, but it has taken Wes and I months of arguing over the text to come to a satisfactory interpretation of just the single sword and sword and dagger sections. I would dearly love to get a good modern English translation though to compare notes with. Now that we've figured out how to read it properly though, I think understanding of the later sections will come more quickly.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

No direct evidence of course, but it makes logical sense that a man who, for instance, learned to duel properly with two swords would thereafter favor two swords in most instances just as a man who learned to duel with a pollaxe would be particularly in favor of using the pollaxe in any other situation that required combat.

Actually, I don't think so, at least not in the case of two swords. Remember that the two-sword system never seems to have existed in medieval or Renaissance Europe except as part of a comprehensive combat system that taught the use of other weapons besides? A man skilled in two swords would almost certainly have been skilled in the use of single sword, sword-and-buckler, sword-and-target, and/or two-handed sword as well, and probably also in some sort of polearm (most likely halberd or spear)--any of which would have been more suitable for a massed battlefield than two swords, and the swordsman's tutor would most likely have told him baldly about this in the first place. Otherwise we would have had an actual account of somebody trying to use two swords in battle and dying in the attempt.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

As for online sources on the Messer, I don't know why I forgot to dump these links from the schielhau.org collection.

Talhoffer's (1467): http://www.schielhau.org/talmesser.html

Lebkommer's: http://www.schielhau.org/lebkommer.html

Lignitzer's sword and buckler (which ought to be applicable to Messer and buckler as well): http://www.schielhau.org/lignitzer_swrd-bcklr.html

While we're at it, can anybody here comment on the interpretations made in the translations there?

[Stacy Clifford]

Actually, I don't think so, at least not in the case of two swords. Remember that the two-sword system never seems to have existed in medieval or Renaissance Europe except as part of a comprehensive combat system that taught the use of other weapons besides? A man skilled in two swords would almost certainly have been skilled in the use of single sword, sword-and-buckler, sword-and-target, and/or two-handed sword as well, and probably also in some sort of polearm (most likely halberd or spear)--any of which would have been more suitable for a massed battlefield than two swords, and the swordsman's tutor would most likely have told him baldly about this in the first place. Otherwise we would have had an actual account of somebody trying to use two swords in battle and dying in the attempt.

Yes, both Di Grassi and Marozzo wait until more than halfway through the book before describing two swords, and almost every other type of single sword combination (dagger, buckler, shield, cloak, etc.) is described before that in Di Grassi at least. You can't just skip to the middle of the manual and start there like a buffet, the stuff that comes before really is necessary to build the level of skill required to wield two swords. As for preferences, everybody finds a favorite weapon when they've learned enough of them (and it may change over time), but you could have different favorites for different situations very easily, such as mass combat vs. dueling.

[nathan featherstone]

well from what i have seen many manuals deal with dueling and so on not just combat on a battlefield so maybe there was some reason for the choice of two swords for this system. eg most people would not be good with two swords and might be more fair in single combat. i may be totally wrong but it seems logical to me.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

basically he jumped into the dead center at a run using the two swords inverted as hooks and pried the center two men apart and he got inside.
once past he used both swords to stab these men from behind he then turned and was able to kill the other shields with ease as they were in a tight formation unable to turn quickly. the spears by this stage were on him but singly they are no challenge as all you need to do is get past the point and your done.

Now that I've reread this passage several times over and imagined how it goes, I think I know what it is: a very well-choreographed display fight by a bunch of people who know each other's methods of fighting very well too. By any chance, did it take place in a Renn-Fair or something of that sort?

[LafayetteCCurtis]

well from what i have seen many manuals deal with dueling and so on not just combat on a battlefield so maybe there was some reason for the choice of two swords for this system. eg most people would not be good with two swords and might be more fair in single combat.

I would have thought that the choice of two swords was rather meant to render the combat distinctly unfair. Consider the very small number of people (at least in a Renaissance European context) who would have actually been able to fight competently with two swords. Now, if the challenged party in a duel could fight effectively in this style then it would be natural for him to name two swords as the weapon for the duel, as he could almost be certain that the challenger didn't know how to use the combination properly.