It seems we guessed right...unfortunately for us

[Shane Smith]

Many of us have lamented the lack of period manuals on some of the more common weapon systems such as basic medieval sword and shield. Some of us perhaps, have been confounded to some degree as to why this should be. Consider this passage from "Master" Roger Aschams longbow treatise "Toxophilus" of 1544 wherein HE laments the lack of manuals teaching the art of the military longbow(In period no less!!!).Of this matter he says; "Men that used shooting most and knew it best were not learned.Men that were learned used little shooting and were ignorant of the nature of the thing,and so,few men have been,that hitherto were able to write upon it".

Considering that Ascham states that the manuals on the English Longbow simply didn't exist,even in period,it seems more probable that the sword and shield texts I had always hoped existed in some dark corner of some obscure museum in Europe, perhaps in actuality do not. The longbow in it's day was no less valuable a weapons-system than sword and shield nor was it less worthy of discussion.The prospects suddenly look more grim to me <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Ryan Ricks]

you know, the library of congress can't even keep track of the materials it has. never put it past an institute to misplace their items.

[Casper Bradak]

I'd wager learned men used sword and shield more than longbow <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Anyway, I doubt masters that left manuals put the pen to paper themselves. I do firmly believe that with even what little there is on shield use, if there has to be a weapon with so little written on it, the shield is my pick. I think earnest study can bring it back as well as it ever was.

[Randall Pleasant]

Casper wrote:
I think earnest study can bring it back as well as it ever was.

Casper

Although I think you actually know better I must state that I disagree with your statement. Even in the cases where we do have historical manuals, such as with the longsword, we will never be able to bring it back as well as it ever was. We are just as capable as anyone in history of learning from the "cause and effect" relationships we experience but we are hopefully not causing or experiencing death in our swordplay. No matter what we do it just not the same. I think we both agree that given the lack of historical material on sword &amp; shield that martial soundness in our practice is one of the best methods of getting to the historical truth of the matter.

[Casper Bradak]

I understand what you mean. What does factoring life and death into it mean? It means intent, economy of motion, common sense, and weeding out what doesn't really work.
With something like a longsword, with no original texts, you may be able to come up with an effective martial art, but would it look anything like what we know in the manuals? Who knows? And I'm sure its depth would be lacking.
But the shield, on the other hand, being a specialized and defensive weapon, and a simple one at that, leaves a lot less to mess up on. From the work I've done with them, the little there is in the manuals on them has only confirmed things for me. We'll never really know exactly how it was, but I think we've got a good bead on it.
A lot of interpretations would be and are off the mark I'm sure, but I'm also sure their inaccuracies can be traced back to the source, such as the lack of one of the above principles in training. And don't forget that back then, they trained with shields the same as we can, without the life and death factor always involved, though it was always a factor enough to keep out any silliness, which is just something we have to pay a lot of attention to.

[Ryan Ricks]

Caspar was kind enough to share with me an article he wrote on S&amp;S, and has been coaching me for some time. his methods seem very logical, have economy of motion, and work well enough for us in our sparring. he even showed me some historical artwork that depicts the use of pflug with S&amp;S.

admittedly, i really am not qualified to evaluate the historical authenticity of his methods, but i definately think they work pretty well!

ryan

[Brenden_Matthews]

Well, I guess that we'll just need to wait for technology to progress and provide us with some really incredible VR, and then we can reconstruct historical skills with even better training capabilities than they had when they were originally in use; an unlimited supply of to-the-death battles, and the ability to live through them.

[Craig Peters]

Shane,

I guess the only good news is that it's a logical fallacy to associate the lack of period manuals on the longbow as indication of a lack of period manuals on the sword and shield. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[DavidEvans]

Does I.33 count ? On another side point Marazzo makes comments relating to the arming sword and skills learnt with said weapon. Since there doesn't seem to be any surviving manual yet found, is this another candiate for "We all know How to do it, so lets not write it down""

[John_Clements]

Actually...Ascham also wrote:
“For of fence, all mooste in everye towne, there is not onely Masters to teache it, wyth his Provostes, Ushers, Scholers, and other names of arte and Schole, but there hath not fayld also whyche hathe diligently and favouredly written it, and is set out in Printe that every man maye rede it.”

In other words, he stated that English books on fencing were common! Unfortunately, none have turned up ---and believe me, we've looked. I've consulted all the well known and the obscure listings of published printed works in England from 1400-1700 and there are no martial arts books among them, sadly, just dozens of military drill books. Still, something may turn up one day...

JC

[Shane Smith]

That's what I get for reading excerpts second-hand.I hope some of those fencing books he alludes to cover sword and shield.Thanks John <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[DavidEvans]

The biggest problem is hidden in the lists and catalogues. That is to say the description of the content can sometimes not match the actual content. To my mind the classic, in my area of interest, is hidden within the Clarke papers. Thomas(?) Clark was one of the New Modelled Army (NMA)senior clerks (English Civil War) One chunk of his papers, which deal with the first national standing army is entitled "Army pay 1643". From that you could assume that the papers cover one of the 3 armies broken into the NMA. It's not. The papers in question are the pay records of Christopher Copley, Captain of a Troop of Horse, major of Horse, Colonel of Horse to Lord Fairfax. General of the Forces in the North of England. No where near the south, nothing to do with any of the 3 armies broken into the NMA. The question is...How the hell did they end up there? If that is what can happen with 350 year old papers then 500 year oldv papers? With even harder to read writing?