Fighting in say....C.1066?

[Steve Fitch]

Just wondering (as someone still learning), what style of fighting they did in the early years? Was there similar knowledge that were written in the manual ARMA uses today?

I just watched this mess: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w-KqQ5M ... re=related

and was wondering...In battles in history, did they look like a silly mess like this? No real sword skill, just comical wailing??

Anywhere I can also research this?

Thanks for your help.

[Corey Roberts]

No, this is pretty much as you said it "comical wailing". Although ARMA really doesn't focus on the 11th century, and there is very little if any material from this period we can use to determine how man actually fought in this period, this video is a prime example of the a-historical fantasy stick walloping ARMA has to denounce on a regular basis.

[Jim Churches]

Dear God. What was the purpose of that video??? I would hope that ancient melee was somewhat more organized.

Unfortunately, our oldest historical manual dates to circa 1295. Sword and board was certainly still popular during the time period of your questioning, but seemingly largely abandoned for the longsword during the 1300's. After the mid-1300's practically all fechtbuchen focus on the longsword, but certainly not with exclusivity.

To my knowledge, there are no surviving fechbuchs that show single sword and shield use, outside of what might be used for judicial dueling.

[CalebChow]

I'll bet that a lot of the techniques in the earliest known manuals were based on earlier fighting techniques, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Crusaders and such used a lot of what was written 200 years later.

That video is probably an example of what I think this website stands against...

Mindless armor bashing...I'm pretty sure a lot of warriors of the past are rolling over in their graves because of that

[Cooper Braun]

To my knowledge, there are no surviving fechbuchs that show single sword and shield use, outside of what might be used for judicial dueling.

Well, I.33 has sword and buckler, and I've seen several people who have done a lot of I.33 with sword and round shield to very good effect.

Circa 1066, the fighting style is mostly going to be spears, spears and shields, more spears, some swords and shields (but mostly in the hands of nobles), some axe fighters (Dane axes), and some archers. At that time period we have yet to see the couched lance (holding it under the arm). Knights would carry a spear, but throw it before they hit the enemy lines.

[Jim Churches]

Well, I.33 has sword and buckler, and I've seen several people who have done a lot of I.33 with sword and round shield to very good effect.

Unfortunately, our oldest historical manual dates to circa 1295.

This was reference to MS I.33

My point was that we have no surviving fechtbuchs which detail how full-sized shields were used in single combat, other than judicial duels.

[Brent Lambell]

I have heard a lot of people theorize that sword and buckler probably has some relationship to the use of larger heater type shields and I think that makes sense on a basic level. On the note of the Viking style round shields check out this video by a German group:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8SRaa33otU&feature=related

Then there is also some judicial shield free play here. The size and shape of the judicial shields obviously affects the use but here is something to work with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9VG4ClQcJk

In response to the original question, I think it has been covered thoroughly by others but to add my thoughts, I imagine that feudal armies had at least a little more discipline than shown here. Although the eleventh century didn't really have much in the way of standing armies, they had some professional soldiers that definitely would shape the battle and maintain their troops. That video is truly a great example of what ARMA does not do. A friend of mine that has no martial arts background, after watching Aaron Pynenberg's SFS Prize Playing and then a reenactment group melee video, compared it to cage fighting and pro wrestling.

[Steve Fitch]

Seems to me with what the later years had in knowledge of fighting, must have evolved from somewhere, ie: 1066+?

Thanks all!

[Steve Fitch]

I have heard a lot of people theorize that sword and buckler probably has some relationship to the use of larger heater type shields and I think that makes sense on a basic level. On the note of the Viking style round shields check out this video by a German group:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8SRaa33otU&feature=related

Then there is also some judicial shield free play here. The size and shape of the judicial shields obviously affects the use but here is something to work with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9VG4ClQcJk

In response to the original question, I think it has been covered thoroughly by others but to add my thoughts, I imagine that feudal armies had at least a little more discipline than shown here. Although the eleventh century didn't really have much in the way of standing armies, they had some professional soldiers that definitely would shape the battle and maintain their troops. That video is truly a great example of what ARMA does not do. A friend of mine that has no martial arts background, after watching Aaron Pynenberg's SFS Prize Playing and then a reenactment group melee video, compared it to cage fighting and pro wrestling.

Now that is better! In the first vid, I can see professional soldiers using this ! Very skilled and reasonable.

[Scott A. Richardson]

Check out these chaps. They recreate Viking era sword skills, and while this predates 1066, the skills would likely have changed little in that time:

http://www.valhs.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/arms.htm

Only problem with this is that, because there are no known Viking fight manuals, these are all reconstructions based upon intuition and educated guess work. Despite that I'm inclined to believe their educated guess work is pretty darn educated indeed, and represent a good reflection of the early Medieval fighting techniques.

As for the warfare, I believe battles tended to be more organized than we think, but of course far less so than later wars of the gunpowder era. We need to keep in mind that during battles the infantry needed to rely on their shield wall and the protection on the man to his left and right. Therefore there was little room for individual prowess as a warrior. Also, missle weapons would always be employed before anything else, so there would be a fair amount of arrows and spears flying around.

A cavalry charge would, however, have become awfully disorganized very quickly, and given the different social and military status of the participants many knights did use these as opportunities to demonstrate their own personal prowess as warriors. I suspect even in this case it was far from mindless bashing, and was simply the energetic application of one's chosen profession to the awe and amazement of amatuers.

While early battles are typically poorly recorded, Hastings is actually one of the few early battles whose progress has been pretty well documented. If you want to get an idea of what combat looked like in 1066 take a good look at that battle, as well as the two battles that immediately proceeded it, Fulford Gate and Stamford Bridge.

Hope you find this helpful.

[Benjamin Parker]

Actually early cavalry of that time were just soldiers that were wealthy enough to own a good horse and knights were well displined, the only instance that I know of where they broke formation to show off their own prowess was at agincourt

[Will Adamson]

I have heard a lot of people theorize that sword and buckler probably has some relationship to the use of larger heater type shields and I think that makes sense on a basic level.

And they would be very wrong IMHO. Just try holding, nevermind moving efficiently, even the smallest of heater shields (even though I believe those were used for tournament jousts) in the same manner you would a buckler and it quickly becomes clear that they are quite different animals. It seems to me that sword & buckler has more in common with the much later sword & dagger, than with sword and shield.

[Steve Fitch]

A cavalry charge would, however, have become awfully disorganized very quickly, and given the different social and military status of the participants many knights did use these as opportunities to demonstrate their own personal prowess as warriors. I suspect even in this case it was far from mindless bashing, and was simply the energetic application of one's chosen profession to the awe and amazement of amatuers.

This is great!

As for the cavalry charge. I watched that special with Mike Rowe "Weapons that made Britain", and they did a section on shield. They trained people with shield and spear. They then had horseman charge at them. The shield and spear bearers were able to effectively hold off the charge! Very impressive.

[Steve Fitch]

I have watched or study a little of other sword arts, ie: Kendo, kali, etc, and it seems with most if not all sword arts that they share many similar techniques?

To me this means that in an effective fight, the "right" moves are uninversally standard. Meaning, right is right and professional soldiers could see this.

[Sal Bertucci]

About the duelling shields: Would they be made of wood with matal at the important parts, or entirely out of metal do you suppose? From the noises on the video they seem to be made out of wood, but I don't think that wooden spikes would work well in actual combat.