On the battlefield different than one on one?

[Jonathan Hill]

I agree with most of what James said and to expand on it I’ll give you a 19th Century example. If you look at the broadsword/Sabre manuals from that time, I classify them into two categories; fencing school and military. Below are links to Angelo’s Cavalry Sword Exercises, which was England’s approved work for the training of Cavalry troops, the US 1813 Cavalry Manual and ‘The Art of Defense on Foot’, which is what I consider a fencing school manual. I chose cavalry as it addresses many of other issues than just sword work as Angelo’s infantry sword exercise does, and to note the sword section of Angelo's infantry work is the same as the sword section of the Cavalry work. Angelo’s and Taylors are virtually the same system, but the military manual teaches cuts and guards, then lists many drills to put the recruits through, while Taylor addresses the basics of the sword like Angelo, but then gets into the intricacies of fencing like timing, measure, lines of attack, etc…all things the military deemed not important to teach in the limited time they have to train the troops or impractical on the battlefield like a Passata soto.

The US manual spends less than 25 pages out of almost 275 pages on how to use the blade, less than 50 pages are how to use the weapons (pistol as well) and the bulk of the manual is spent on maneuvers, signals, how to ride and other things they felt were more important to the troops in the field than using the weapons. Take a look just to give you an idea of what the military at that time felt was important to train their fighting men.

Agelo’s Cavalry Sword Exercise: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kXti ... &q&f=false
Roworth/Taylor: Art of Defense: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y7kU ... &q&f=false
1813 US Cavalry: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZiVE ... &q&f=false

So essentially I will agree that when it comes to the use of the weapon itself you will learn all you need by studying the works we have, this is far more than most fighters on the field will need in their time in battle. At the same time do these works on fencing prepare you at all for the battlefield? No I do not think so. I do not believe the texts we have were intended to be used by the common line men in the battle though. Poor Bloody Infantry is not the job of the rich or well educated or those who could afford to be trained in in the advanced use of the blade. It would be rare to find many who could afford the type of training Liechtenauer or Fiore were offering in the lines of a battle, they would probably be Cavalry, Comanders or Generals. Again there are other texts on the global training of troops, like De Rei Militari which supposively was in use and a book treasured in the 15th C even though it was written in the 5th C.

[RayMcCullough]

I agree with most of what James said and to expand on it I’ll give you a 19th Century example. If you look at the broadsword/Sabre manuals from that time, I classify them into two categories; fencing school and military. Below are links to Angelo’s Cavalry Sword Exercises, which was England’s approved work for the training of Cavalry troops, the US 1813 Cavalry Manual and ‘The Art of Defense on Foot’, which is what I consider a fencing school manual. I chose cavalry as it addresses many of other issues than just sword work as Angelo’s infantry sword exercise does, and to note the sword section of Angelo's infantry work is the same as the sword section of the Cavalry work. Angelo’s and Taylors are virtually the same system, but the military manual teaches cuts and guards, then lists many drills to put the recruits through, while Taylor addresses the basics of the sword like Angelo, but then gets into the intricacies of fencing like timing, measure, lines of attack, etc…all things the military deemed not important to teach in the limited time they have to train the troops or impractical on the battlefield like a Passata soto.

The US manual spends less than 25 pages out of almost 275 pages on how to use the blade, less than 50 pages are how to use the weapons (pistol as well) and the bulk of the manual is spent on maneuvers, signals, how to ride and other things they felt were more important to the troops in the field than using the weapons. Take a look just to give you an idea of what the military at that time felt was important to train their fighting men.

Agelo’s Cavalry Sword Exercise: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kXti ... &q&f=false
Roworth/Taylor: Art of Defense: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y7kU ... &q&f=false
1813 US Cavalry: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZiVE ... &q&f=false

So essentially I will agree that when it comes to the use of the weapon itself you will learn all you need by studying the works we have, this is far more than most fighters on the field will need in their time in battle. At the same time do these works on fencing prepare you at all for the battlefield? No I do not think so. I do not believe the texts we have were intended to be used by the common line men in the battle though. Poor Bloody Infantry is not the job of the rich or well educated or those who could afford to be trained in in the advanced use of the blade. It would be rare to find many who could afford the type of training Liechtenauer or Fiore were offering in the lines of a battle, they would probably be Cavalry, Comanders or Generals. Again there are other texts on the global training of troops, like De Rei Militari which supposively was in use and a book treasured in the 15th C even though it was written in the 5th C.

Do the Military manuals teach you anything about the sword or any other weapon that is not in the School manuals? Or better yet something different?
How do the works on fencing not prepare you at all for the battlefield if they teach you how to use the weapon? Once in striking range, once you have closed with the enemy, what you have learned from the fencing manuals is what you need. Drill is for closing with the enemy ,discipline, and staying together. Right?

[James Brazas]

Jonathan Hill and I are assuming that you are in a leadership position and that you have to worry about more than merely obeying orders. You have to be able to lead men and out-think the enemy commanders.

Let me ask you this:

Would you feel prepared for a large scale battle or a full-fledged military campaign on foreign soil if you knew nothing of tactics, strategy, or supply? Would merely knowing your weapon be enough?

You can be the best fencer or marksman on earth and still be crushed in battle by an inferior number of poorly armed men. How? See Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt.

In all three battles, French knights with superior numbers, superior equipment, and (relative to the archers) superior training in hand-to-hand combat were slaughtered en masse. They were great at closing with the enemy, staying together, and being disciplined. But they died.


They died because they were beaten with superior British tactics. The British chose the ideal location for the battle, they were able to provoke the enemy into attacking through a very narrow pathway where they were extremely vulnerable. At Crecy, the French knights were caught in a choke-hold zone where their numbers and their mounts were useless. Indeed, their vast numbers were a disadvantage in such a situation. Thus, they died.

At Agincourt, the British likewise picked an excellent defensive position and provoked the French into foolishly attacking. The French had to either charge through a similar deadly choke-hold zone or try to make it through swamps and desne forests. Either way, British longbowmen and dismounted knights had the advantage. This was combined with a perfectly timed flanking maneuver by Captal de Buch's knights and mounted archers. They were caught in that choke-hold point with well-entrenched infantry in front of them, a cavalry charge behind them, and swamps and thickets on either side. For the killing blow, the Black Prince mounted for a cavalry charge. Thus, the French died again.

None of those things are covered in the fencing manuals as they were manuals intended to teach swordplay and not tactics.

To win in battle requires both individual prowess in combat as well as knowledge of tactics, operations, strategy, and supply. Indeed, the larger the group, the more tactics matter.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

First, the vast majority of the differences I mentioned were based on tactics rather than techniques. The fechtbuchs were literature on martial arts techniques rather than battlefield tactics. There were other books on battlefield tactics.

This is the simplest and most concise answer to the question, really. There was a different body of literature--the Kriegsbücher--that dealt with the formations and evolutions of large bodies of men on the battlefield. By the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the 16th century these books generally didn't say much about personal combat skills since there seems to have been an assumption that the men (especially the ones serving in the cavalry, and particularly the men-at-arms) would have learned the knowledge already earlier in life, but by the turn of the 17th century we see tactical manuals that also address the basic drill movements needed to teach the men a rudimentary measure of proficiency in the handling of their weapons. These movements were invariably simpler and more restricted in scope than those taught in contemporary swordsmanship/single combat manuals; it shows that the intricacies of one-on-one combat as shown in the Fechtbücher was not seen as a necessary knowledge for the soldier, although the ones who already had such sophisticated training before they joined the unit (again, this seems to have been more true of the cavalry) were probably permitted to take as much advantage as they could get from it as long as it did not put the cohesion of their unit in jeopardy.

Having fought in a shield wall during some civil defense riot squad training, I can say that there was a need to resist the temptation to employ some more sophisticated single-combat techniques that could compromise the integrity of the line. This was especially true of footwork--good measure quickly goes out of the window when the issue of coordinating your position with the rest of the line is more important than putting yourself at the exact range where you have the advantage against the single enemy directly opposite to you. Then there were the lulls; there'd be moments when you're feeling like you're getting the upper hand against the opponent (or the local group of opponents) in front of you, but the rest of your line as well as the enemy's has begun to tire and are retreating out of striking range as if by mutual agreement. You can't just go on fighting alone to pursue your momentary advantage; instead, you'd have to either retreat along with the others or motivate your side to abandon their retirement so that now only one side is moving back (i.e. what was going to be a lull is now turning into a victorious pursuit for your side). Your choice in this situation often depended on whether you're the natural leader for your local group of buddies--the informal equivalent of modern NCOs who can motivate their men to push just that little bit harder. This kind of thing was not taught in any Fechtbuch since there was already a different body of literature for it.

At Crecy, the French knights were caught in a choke-hold zone where their numbers and their mounts were useless. Indeed, their vast numbers were a disadvantage in such a situation. Thus, they died.

Actually, the biggest problem at Crecy was that the French host advanced out of control, "in such evil order that they did trouble one another." If they had launched a massive, coordinated assault with their full weight of numbers, they probably would have won. Instead, the King lost control and the French onslaught became a series of uncoordinated piecemeal attacks, which the English could defeat one at a time.

At Agincourt, the British likewise picked an excellent defensive position and provoked the French into foolishly attacking . . . [t]his was combined with a perfectly timed flanking maneuver by Captal de Buch's knights and mounted archers.

Um . . . that's Poitiers. At Agincourt it was the French who had plans for a flanking movement, but the small mounted detachments picked for this duty were shot at by the English and goaded into a premature, suicidal, frontal attack against hugely superior numbers of English longbowmen and dismounted men-at-arms.

[James Brazas]

Woops, sorry about that battlefield mix up regarding Poitiers and Agincourt!

Thanks for calling me on that in a non-jerk-like fashion.

I've been studying for exams all day and all of that was from memory from a book I read several years ago.

Regarding Crecy, you are right that had they been able to do so, there is a good chance they could have won.

My point was mainly that the British were able to goad the French into putting themselves in such disarray that their numbers became a disadvantage rather than an advantage. Thus, French knights were defeated by a smaller force with less hand-to-hand training on average via tactics rather than techniques.


Great example regaring the police shield walls! The fact that it's from personal experience lends a lot of wieght.

The British and American manuals Jonathan Hill mentioned earlier were also quite instructive.

[Jonathan Hill]

Do the Military manuals teach you anything about the sword or any other weapon that is not in the School manuals? Or better yet something different?
How do the works on fencing not prepare you at all for the battlefield if they teach you how to use the weapon? Once in striking range, once you have closed with the enemy, what you have learned from the fencing manuals is what you need. Drill is for closing with the enemy ,discipline, and staying together. Right?

For the 18th-20thC the military manuals address bayonet, sword and all other weapons used at the time, private instruction also addresses these same weapons. This just makes sense what use is private instruction to the well-off who were sending their children off to war, if they don’t address the weapons they will be using? The military manuals use of the blade address the basics, the stuff you probably learned or teach in the first month of training. After that you are drilled in the blade use, but you do not learn ‘advanced fighting concepts’ like you would in a fencing school.

The bulk of the rest of the training and drills is how to work in a group, maneuvers etc…I pointed those out in the US manual because it showed what they believe the priority of what was needed out of the troops and thus what they believe the skills that are needed on the battlefield . About 1/5th of the training was on weapons use the rest is how to maintain order, move in a group and be a unit.

I do agree that once the fighting starts the texts we have do train you to deal with the fighting, but just the fighting. When I state that they do not prepare you for battle it is the rest of the battle that it does not prepare you for. The maneuvers, the discipline, the heads and limbs rolling around on the ground, the river of blood, the cacophony of noises, starring down a cavalry charge, the roll of skirmishing, the helplessness of knowing that you are insignificant in the greater scheme of the battle, that one wrong move by the general or unit commander and your life is over not because you made a mistake but someone else did, or your life was traded for the greater good of the battle, the ‘general’ decided to use your unit to hold a losing fight so that he may win the battle in a different area. Basically I’m stating that battle is more than just the fighting, and leaning to just fight is only one part of being ‘battle ready’

[James Brazas]

Lafayette C Curtis:

Would it be possible to try to revive the many-on-many techniques of the Kriegsbücher?

I know it would take lots of people (probably at least a dozen on either side) to hope to have even a rough approximation of battlefield tactics, but I think it might be worth a shot.

After all, most of what we do in ARMA is so focused on one-on-one dueling. I'd be interested in seeing more one-on-many and many-on-many if we can.

Still, that would only be a possibility for large study groups.

Do you know of any Kriegsbücher that would be easy to understand and apply?

[RayMcCullough]

James, Johnathon, and Lafayette. Well said. I see your point and agree.

[Frederico Martins]

Director Clements does a much better, cleaner job of isolating and finishing one opponent then turning to do the same to the other opponent.

To use the tactics of creating multiple fights you have to go fighting multiple opponents with this assumption:

You can win all small fights you create, and for that you must be a supertior fighter to each of your individual opponents. And not only win but you must win almost instantly and go for the next one or else the others will get you.

I don't think that is impossible, you can face multiple opponents that are much inferior fighters than yourself and win with that strategy. That would be great.

However, if you assume among your opponents, might be one that could not be so easy to beat, then that starts to sound like a not so good of a strategy.

Edit: I assume we are talking about the use of heavy weapons, staffs, swords or even batons and baseball bats for example. With this weapons you are able to manage distance safely with the rotational strikes. With lighter weapons, daggers or one handed lighter or piercing swords, that might not be possible and the only way out probably is to just engage in many fights, simply because you don't have other options. But It is preferable to have a longer weapon, to avoid being forced into that situation if you can.(unless your opponents are much weaker than yourself, in that case you can do what you want with them. but in that case, the situation is not so threatening anyway).

[Jon Pellett]

DiGrassi says of using the two-handed sword against multiple opponents:

"Who (forasmuch as they are to encounter many, and to the end they may strike more safely, and amaze them with the fury of the Sword) do altogether use to deliver great edge blows, downright and reversed, fetching a full circle, or compass therein, staying themselves sometimes upon one foot, sometimes on the other, utterly neglecting to thrust, and persuading themselves, that the thrust serves to amaze one man only, but those edge blows are of force to encounter many. The which manner of skirmishing, besides that it is most gallant to behold, being accompanied with exceeding swiftness in delivery (for otherwise it works no such effect) is also most profitable, not properly of itself, but because men considering the fury of the sword, which greatly amazes them, are not resolute.... "

While for single combat he uses a system based on one-handed thrusts.

I certainly think it is reasonable to suppose that there was specialized sub-system for combat against multiple opponents. DiGrassi's description above sounds very much like those JdP videos.

[RayMcCullough]

To use the tactics of creating multiple fights you have to go fighting multiple opponents with this assumption:

You can win all small fights you create, and for that you must be a supertior fighter to each of your individual opponents. And not only win but you must win almost instantly and go for the next one or else the others will get you.

I don't think that is impossible, you can face multiple opponents that are much inferior fighters than yourself and win with that strategy. That would be great.

Will a superior fighter not beat you if it is one on one as well? This line of reasoning doesn't make sense. If you can't handle the situation, you run and engage them when you can or just keep running. This we are told in our sources.
If you do not counter strike in single tempo, how else can you stop multiple attackers whether they are inferior, equal, or superior?

Edit: I assume we are talking about the use of heavy weapons, staffs, swords or even batons and baseball bats for example. With this weapons you are able to manage distance safely with the rotational strikes.

Not true. What about binding? Just because you strike hard with a rotational strike from a "heavier" weapon doesn't make it hard to close in.

[RayMcCullough]

DiGrassi says of using the two-handed sword against multiple opponents:

"Who (forasmuch as they are to encounter many, and to the end they may strike more safely, and amaze them with the fury of the Sword) do altogether use to deliver great edge blows, downright and reversed, fetching a full circle, or compass therein, staying themselves sometimes upon one foot, sometimes on the other, utterly neglecting to thrust, and persuading themselves, that the thrust serves to amaze one man only, but those edge blows are of force to encounter many. The which manner of skirmishing, besides that it is most gallant to behold, being accompanied with exceeding swiftness in delivery (for otherwise it works no such effect) is also most profitable, not properly of itself, but because men considering the fury of the sword, which greatly amazes them, are not resolute.... "

While for single combat he uses a system based on one-handed thrusts.

I certainly think it is reasonable to suppose that there was specialized sub-system for combat against multiple opponents. DiGrassi's description above sounds very much like those JdP videos.

Digrassi teaches counter striking in single and middle tempo.
"This manner of defence, may serve to warde all right blows of the edg, delivered from the high ward, and it is the best waie of all other, because it doth not onely warde, but also in one and the selfesame time, both strike and defend safely. "
I have not seen any counterstriking in single or middle tempo in any JDoP.

[Jon Pellett]

Digrassi teaches counter striking in single and middle tempo. I have not seen any counterstriking in single or middle tempo in any JDoP.

At about 19 seconds - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFucsRev ... re=related

Though I don't know what this has to do with different techniques being used when surrounded by opponents.

[Frederico Martins]

Jon, great quote, thanks, I believe I agree with all that.

One note about the thrusts. Figueiredo does it alot, I don't like it, and was kind of turned off by it. But then with Godinho, he does it alot too, but he explains it, when to use it and how, and it makes sense in the entire system, he strongly advices to not use it unless it is in that specific situations, and if you can you should do like in jogo do pau, and DiGrassi's rotational strikes and not the thrusts.

The video you posted show what we call a thrust by anticipation. this means: one attacks, and then the other attacks later, but is able to finish first. That works well with the thrust and that is one of the main reasons we use the forward pointing waiting guard most of the time.
But if it is done with strikes, striking by anticipation is ideally impossible (if both fencers have the same striking speed). if one starts first, the other will have to start later And still lose more time to react, so, his strike to arrive first would have to be much faster than the first, we do practice that, but we must be conscient that is an ideally impossible situation(thrusts are direct so no problem ).

Will a superior fighter not beat you if it is one on one as well? This line of reasoning doesn't make sense. If you can't handle the situation, you run and engage them when you can or just keep running.

What if you can't handle the situation by defeating all your opponents as you say, but also can't run? for example, in an ambush, surrounded in a narrow street on both sides or in an open space with people on all sides?

you can win an equally skilled opponent, or you have a chance to, but when they are multiple ones, your probabilities go down, not only multiplied by the number of enemies but by the fact that it is a more complex situation to manage than just defeating one at a time.

So, for you to be able to handle the situation by actually defeating your opponents they must really be inferior fighters then yourself, not just merelly equals, that would be great, but is that is not the case, or if you dont know the skill of your opponents, there is still something you can do to survive.

Jogo do pau and montante traditions give you tools for that, when you are in a really treathening situation, and still, with less risk, be able to survive for some time, and find an exit.

Just because you strike hard with a rotational strike from a "heavier" weapon doesn't make it hard to close in.

I disagree with that, power and speed of the strike difficult the parry and parrying moving forward.
Power is specially growingly important from lighter weapons to heavier ones because it forces a structural sound parry(weapon alignment and body posture) and not just placing of the weapon in the way. with staffs that have no hand guard that is more significant.

We also do parrying moving forward with instant thrust attack
Parrying moving forward with thrust:
http://youtu.be/omCoKu8jz-4?t=21s
again, parry with thrust:
http://youtu.be/ukTeaIHe1kQ?t=36s

And here a parry and counter to finish a fight against 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaDD2-Gy2mY

We also do that kind of stuff on one on one combat, it is not that we don't know about it, and I don't say you can't do that in multiple opponents when you find an opportunity, it is just that the principles of fencing multiple opponents, and the speciallyzed multiple opponents practice that we do is different from one on one technique and you don't learn it by doing one on one combat, there is as specific training for multiple opponents and that is what you are ignoring, and there are living traditional arts and historical sources for it. those are reasonable tools, for difficult situations developed and tested over centuries not just sporadic feats of one superb fighter being able to defeat his 2, 3, 4 or more opponents.

[Stacy Clifford]

George Silver's Paradoxes of Defence has a passage on staff that is very applicable to this discussion where he describes how a "short staff" (about 8 ft. long) should be used to face two sword and dagger men. The third paragraph is the actual scenario, but the observations in the first paragraph are necessary to comprehend his conclusions in the third:

The short Staffe.

26. Now for the vantage of the short Staffe against the Sword and Buckler, Sword & Target, two hand sword, single Sword, Sword and Dagger, or Rapier and Poiniard, there is no great question to be made in anie of these weapons: whensoeuer anie blow or thrust shall be strongly made with the staffe, they are euer in false place, in the cariage of the wards, for if at any of these sixe weapons he carie his ward high & strōg for his head, as of necessitie he must carie it verie high, otherwise it will be too weake to defend a blow being strongly made at the head, then will his space be too wide, in due time to breake the thrust from his bodie. Againe, if he carie his ward lower, thereby to be in equall space for readinesse to breake both blow & thrust, then in that place his ward is too low, and too weake to defend the blow of the staffe: for the blow being strongly made at the head vpon that ward, will beate downe the ward and his head together, and put him in great danger of his life. And here is to be noted, that if he fight well, the staffe-man neuer striketh but at the head, and thrusteth presently vnder at the body: and if a blow be first made, a thrust followeth; & if a thrust be first made, a blow followeth; and in doing of any of them, the one breedeth the other: so that howsoeuer anie of these sixe weapons shall carie his ward strongly to defend the first, he shall be too farre in space to defend the second, whether it be blow or thrust.

Yet againe for the short staffe: the short staffe hath the vantage against the Battel-axe, blacke-bill, or Halbard: the short staffe hath the vantage, by reason of the nimblenesse and length: he will strike and thrust freely, and in better and swifter time then can the Battel-axe, Blacke-bill, or Halbard: and by reason of his iudgement, distance and time, fight safe. And this resolue vpon, the short staffe is the best weapon against all maner of weapons, the Forrest bill excepted.

Also the short staffe hath aduantage against two Swords and Daggers, or two Rapiers, Poiniards, and Gantlets, the reasons and causes before are for the most part set downe already, the which being well considered, you shall plainely see, that whensoeuer anie one of the Sword & Dagger men, or Rapier and Poiniard men shall breake his distance, or suffer the Staffe-man to breake his, that man which did first breake his distāce, or suffer the distance to be won against him, is presently in danger of death. And this cānot in reason be denied, because the distance appertaining to the Staffe-man, either to keepe or breake, standeth vpon the mouing of one large space alwayes at the most, both for his offence or safety. The other two in the breach of their distance to offend the Staffe-man, haue alwayes foure paces at the least therin they fall too great in number with their feet, and too short in distance to offend the Staffe-man. Now there resteth no more to be spoken of, but how the Staffe-man shall behaue himselfe to keepe that distance, that one of the Sword & Dagger men get not behind him, while the other shal busie him before: to do that is very easie, by reason of the smal nūber of his feet, for by a verie small turning of his feet, as it where in the Center point of a wheele, the other two to keepe their distance, are driuen to runne twentie foote for one, as it were vpon the vttermost part or circle of the wheele: all this while the Staffe-man is verie well. Then it commeth thus to passe, whether they both labour to get behind him, or one keepe directly before him whilst the other get behind him, yet before that be brought to passe, they shal either be both before him or iust against both sides of him: at which time soever the Staffe-man finding either of them within distance, he presently in making of his play, slayeth with blow or thrust one of thē, or at the least putteth him in great danger of his life. If the Staffe-man take his time, when they are both before him, that is to say, before they come to the half ring, iust against both sides of the Staffe-man, then he that is nearest within distance is slain by blow or thrust, or put in great danger of his life. But if the Sword and Dagger men do keepe their distance vntill they come to the iust halfe ring against the sides of the Staffe-man, and then breake distance, that man that first breaketh distance is slaine with blow or thrust, or sore hurt, and in great danger of death: and the Staffe-man in making that play at that instant, must turne with one large pace, the which he may easily do, before the other can get neare enough to offend him, by reason that he hath to make with his feet but one large pace, but the other hath at the least three paces. But if the Sword and Dagger-men will in the time that they be before him, keep their distance in the time of their being vpon the middle part of the outside of the circle, right against both sides of him, & will labor with all heed & diligence to be both or one of thē behind him, that troubleth the Staffe-man nothing at all, for in that very time, when he findeth them past the middle part of the circle, he presently turneth, by the which he shall naturally set himselfe as it were in a triangle, and both the sword and dagger-men, shall thereby stand both before him in true distance of three paces, from offending of him at the least, as at the first they did. And take this for a true ground, there is no man able to ward a sound blow with the Sword and Dagger, nor Rapier, Poinyard, and Gantlet, being strongly made at the head, with the Staffe, and run in withall, the force of both handes is such, being in his full motion and course, that although the other do carie his ward high and strong with both handes, yet his feete being mouing from the ground, the great force of the blow will strike him with his ward, and all downe flat to the ground. But if he stand fast with his feete, he may with both weapons together, strongly defend his head from the blow, but then you are sufficiently instructed, the thrust being presently made, after the blow full at the bodie, it is impossible in due time to breake it, by reason of the largenesse of his space.