In order to help jump start this forum again, I thought we shgould consider a question that was skirted about last Spring.
How applicable is the technique in Fiori, Talhoffer, and Le Jeu de la hachette to a battlefield? Would a practitioner be able to use any of these techniques to their benifit on a battlefield of the 15th c.?

We obviously know they would be of use in tournaments and judicial duels, as well as in self defense if one were ambushed by a single opponent or a small number in the course of travel. When one is on the battlefield, drawn up in a battle in array, surrounded by ones retainers (or being those retainers), or drawn up in lances and facing the moment of truth - what use the masters advice then?

I have my own opinions on the topic, but I'll hold them till some views other than mine are out there.

The tactics studied in a controlled classroom situation are really going to be quite different than what happens on the battlefield. Sure you can control what happens to a certain degree, but not much.

A lot depends on the situation to. If you have the chance to use some of the information you learned you will use it, but more often than not you are going to do whatever it takes to stay alive. In a sense one will use the information and adapt it to suit the individual needs as they arrise.

To the seasoned veteran this becomes second nature requiring not much thought. A reflex action so to speak. Many of the techniques used on the battlefield bear little resemblence to the ones learned in the classroom. Sure you can see enough of the original form to recognise it, but that is where the similarity usually ends.

As Alasdair stated, the pace of the battle field can shift quickly requiring a person to simply react rather than think about what to do.

How many folks on this forum have spent a couple of years practicing the techniques from the manuals (and only those techniques) at full speed in armor? That experience does sharpen the application, without a doubt, and that is important to its effectiveness.

Having studied Fiore in detail and applied him at full speed for a time, I find that I could be much more successful if (very important) safety rule sets did not limit my options. Even with that, it is easily perceived that in an environment where armor is armor, injury is injury, and there are multiple opponents to consider, Fiore is as good a manual on the practice of hand-to-hand combat with or without weapons that I've seen.

The problem of the application of technique vs. situation is an interesting one. Assuming you were fighting on foot, and in battle array as was the custom amongst the English - also a large percentage of available Burgundian men at arms would fight this way as well depending on circumstance, to quote De Commynes who was an eyewitnes and participant in the battle of Montlherey, July 16th 1465 -

"At first we were informed that every man without exception should march on foot, but this was later countermanded and almost all men-at-arms were mounted again; however, many fine knights and squires including my lord of Cordes and his brother were ordered to remain on foot. Philippe de Lailang had gone on foot because, amongst the Burgundians at the time, those who proceeded thus with the archers were the most honoured men. Invariably a great number of persons of high estate marched on foot so that people would be encouraged and would fight better. This custom was aquired from the English, alongside of whomDuke Philip had made war in France during his youth." (Unlike the English, the Burgundians would keep a large mounted reserve - but I digress...)

Drawn up in close order then, how much of the technique could be practised? In the breech or over the wall at a siege, or in a skirmish it would be invaluable. It's effectiveness would be lessened by the confining nature of the battle formation.

I too, am of similar opinion. A training in arms by a certain class of men, and proffessional soldiers would give a basis of instince and muscle memory for the combatant to fall back on, even in heat of battle. As Keith put it "You would train, and you would attempt mastery of your technique. Then in battle it would either work or not. If you survived you could profit from the experience".

The advantage a certain class of combatant had was the equipment he could afford would give an increased chance of survival - far more than the poor common infantryman. This coupled with the drive to capture and ransom men of this class gave them in most circumstances a high chance for survival - and a chance to profit from their experience if they chose a proffession of arms. As Commyens tended to put it "There were a thousand lances present; some good, some bad, and some indifferent..."

Fezzik: I think I've just figured out why I'm having so much trouble with you...
Roberts: Really? Why is that?
Fezzik: I havent fought one person for so long; I've been specializing in groups, battling gangs for local charities, that sort of thing.
Roberts: Why should that make such a (thud) difference?
Fezzik: Well, you use different moves, different tactics, when your fighting ten or twelve people. You do things very differently when you only have to be worried about one. (thud)

Let me say first that I am a big believer in technique, its practice, learning, and application. I don't know very much but I sure want to learn more in a practical matter. The following should not be considered a differing opinion than the ones presented above, but simply another point of view.

For those of you who have seen the above movie, you know it's a hilarious and very amusing scene. But, it always got me thinking. 99% (if not more) of the training most people do based on period manuals is in a one-on-one setting; the manuals themselves are ALL written from this perspective. Why is obvious: the basic conflict is a one-on-one confrontation, and it is upon this foundation that sword combat is built. Bob's question had to do with how effectively these methods were translated to the battlefield. Knowing that everyone here knows how 15th century battles unfolded, I'll skip the clap-trap and get right to hand-to-hand exchanges.

To answer directly the question: I think knowing proper methods is invaluable (which is of course an altruism). The more a man knows how to use his weapon effectively, the greater his chances of staying alive longer. In a multiple-combative situation, on the scale of a major battle, I think that training does have to be modified a bit. First off, as I said, all the teachings are based on one-on-one conflicts. This ingrains a practice of focusing intently on one single opponent; on a battlefield, one must however be aware of everything at once (ideally, of course). If one focuses too much on the opponent directly in front, he may easily defeat him but be taken out by that guy with the speat 10 feet to his left.

I guess what I'm trying to argue is that the tecniques can translate to the battlefield, but not directly and not "word for word". This is where the difference between good and bad fighting units comes in: drill. Individuals, may be well versed in technique, but the effectiveneess of that tecnique can be vastly improved on the battlfield by drilling with fellow soldiers. (as a side note, it always bugs me when "historians" make the blanket statement that medieval armies never drilled or trained...GRRRR. But I digress)

Fiore's armored work (which is almost all half-swording) seems to be designed for working in a limited space.

There are also many basic tenets in his work that indicate he is keeping in mind a battlefield situation. For instance, there is no wrestling on the ground. All of it is done so that you remain standing while throwing or severely injuring the other party. Even in the unarmored combat there is no going to the ground.

All of his techniques are intended to end the fight quickly once contact is made. The techniques are quick, direct and brutal, and leave you in a position to proceed to the next opponent.

I certainly think it is valid for battlefield applications.

Bob C., Is half-swording designed to work in a limited space, or is that a by-product?

Half-swording seems to me to be designed to deliver greatest energy to a point and not have the weapon tip skitter off of the surface of armor. It seems the best (only?) way I can concieve of a sword being able to actually punch through or lever around plate is to have both hands guide & steady the point of a thrusting sword.

I sincerely doubt the ability of an estoc or bastard sword to penetrate a plate even with half swording, considering the shape of the plates surface. I'm of the opinion it's for exploiting the gaps like the armpits, the groin, the throat, the eyes... you get the idea. I can see it punching through riveted mail in the fashion, but I very seriously doubt plate penetration unless a plate was damaged during the tempering process whan it was made.

It is hard to say, the chicken or the egg, the efficiency or the space :-)

Bob R. has some good comments too. I would like to do testing before we assume that half-swording thrusts are efficient in punching through riveted maille. You are right about exploiting gaps.

Almost all the period manuals have the same approach in their armored combat sections concerning swords - go to half-sword. Ruining your sword on a good set of armor is not wise, and the half-swording, in addition to providing strong thrusts to open areas (Fiore mentions the open face, the gaps where the armor is fastened in the back, the buttocks, the back of the legs, and under the camail in back, thrusting to the base of the skull), it provides a wonderful lever for wrestling, which in armor is the most effective set of techniques (throws, arm breaks, etc.)

So, it: 1) saves your sword from damage 2) increases targetting accuracy and strength of thrusts to gaps not covered by any armor 3) provides an admirable defense 4) provides a wonderful wrestling lever 5) shortens the game to close quarters.

I didn't say a sword COULD punch through plate armor, only that it's the only way I can CONCIEVE of it happening. Until I see a valid test, I'll not commit either way. I've practiced some of the halfsword locks, levers & such & like most manual's techniques, they work well in the practice sessions. Battlefield? - who knows?

What I WILL commit to is that a sword would not be the first weapon I'd choose to fight a fellow in armor. I think Poll weapons are far better in that application. If it comes to getting tight, grab the guy and/or pull a dagger. But I'm digressing from the primary topic.

Bob C, are you saying people never fall down in battle? (deliberate mis-interpretation here) Mayhaps the manuals don't cover "rolling in the mud" combat because it's not "proper" or because the the combat quickly devolves into "bite, knee the groin, strangle, head-butt wrasslin'" where techniques REALLY go out the window.

The Battle sequence you describe is: "lethal strike, move on, lethal strike"?

Never: "wound, wound, wound, (opponent drops), kill, kill him some more, really over-kill, move on"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeffJ:

The Battle sequence you describe is: "lethal strike, move on, lethal strike"?

Never: "wound, wound, wound, (opponent drops), kill, kill him some more, really over-kill, move on"?

Seems I recall reading some tourney accounts where numerous non-critical wounds are inflicted before combat end, as well as forensic accounts from battlefield digs where numerous wounds are found per corpse.

---

hello guys, im new here and fristoff i would like to flash my credentials:
-No PhD or Major or whatever in History, just an overwhelming love for it.
-Zero LH, RA, SCA, Larp, boffer fighting experience just a bit of Kendo.
-Lots o'lurkin done in the AA board and starting here.
-One hell of an imagination.
Ok, now on to the facts.

JeffJ, keeping your consideration in mind, about falls *could* happen in a battlefield scenario, I would like to think out loud here.
You mention that tourney accounts reveal lots of wounds inflicted on every combatant, were this tourneys done a la grand melee or were they more like a 1-on-1 thing?
this would let us see if such evidence in fact applies or not to the point.

Now, your main point was about each "engagement" (to be understood as when 2 opponents face each other particularly and dont move on in the melee until one bites the dust) not being exactly a matter of "lethal-strikes" but actually leaning more to a "wound, wound, other fella falls down, finish him off" routine.
Now, I think it was actually a blend of the 2, why? well you have to see (as has been wisely pointed out before whats the motivation for the particular combatant to fight? What is his station? who was he fighting against? What is happening around him?
In other words:
If a noble is squaring off against another noble, and after some difficult blows manages to down his opponent. Will he "finish him off"? i'll bet more on taking him prisoner, letting his retainers to drag the captive out of the thick of battle while he moves on. On the other hand if he was facing a commoner i'll think the instant the villaine stopped being an imminent treat he will look for a more worthy rival and leave the bugger bleeding in the ground, caring not if he rises again or not. I mean: why waste his time on a commoner?
Another example: if a commoner manages to knock down a noble, he might be equally inclined to take him prisoner and take him to his lord or just kill him outright (and rob his corpse) but he wont do neither if they were in the thickest of battle and there happens to be an evil-looking-spear-wielding dude behind the fallen knight. More probably then he will back off and maybe find a buddy or to 2 to take on the spear.

Concluding:
The actual dynamic of an engagement is determined by the condition of each individual partaking in it and of the immediate enviroment they are in. Wether its a matter of landing a single mortal blow, carving each other up bit by bit, or wrestling it out on the mud with knives and teeth, depends on the circumstances. But i'll say that in your average field battle you get plenty of all of it, with lots of variants (shades in-between).

p.s. Did i mentioned in my credentials I have an unwholesome tendency to lecture? well, perhaps it has to do with me quite liking this subject.

If I gave the impression of "lethal strike, move on, lethal strike" that was not my intention. It is not in keeping with the social mores and laws of war of the period. To kill is still murder, and large numbers of battlefield deaths are usually attributable to some horrible mistake of tactics, extreme fear which overrides these considerations, or the exhuberance of a rout gone mad. Under normal conditions, the death counts were low.

You would want to neutralize the opponent. The best way to do that in armor is dislocate a joint or throw them to the ground amongst all your friends. They could then be taken prisoner, they can recover, your soul is not imperiled and their family doesn't hunt you down and kill you. It is over and over again counted "a great shame" when a knight is killed, and often the lord of the offender makes payment to the family of the deceased to "avoid rancor."

I agree that the sword is not the best weapon for incapacitating people in armor by using the weapon alone. You would want something heavier than that, but you would be risking killing them with every serious blow you delivered. It has an effectiveness upside, and a social/legal downside. You might incapacitate more opponents, killing several in the process, and then be forced to pay cash to the families of the deceased or be hunted down by their kin in legal retribution. Me, I'd try not to kill them. If I did through accident, I'd go for the cash payment to the family for my body, and the establishment of a chapter of monks for my soul :-).

Now this post should stimulate some discussion :-)

Of course the Wealthy prisoner is preferred. That's like hitting the lottery. But how many of them were there? A minor fraction.
For most of the people you are fighting, I wouldn't count on a quick injury, (though it's preferred) or that the injury incapacitates the opponent. You may have him down, but you can't be sure he'll stay there. Finish him. If it was murder, why did they carry a misericord dagger expressly for the purpose of releivind one from his misery? Why not a bunch of cords or shackles?

Were I one of the nobles, I'd not waste my time on the rabble unless one managed to make it through the pile of retainers guarding my noble butt, as every one sees me as a prime target. But the retainers are there for a reason. Yes, there is confusion & separations occur.

If you do win the lottery & find someone who seems as if he may be wealthy, Start killing all of the people around him, give him the opportunity to yield & if he & the other survivors don't, grapple him, mob him, trip him, & sit on him. Don't injure him, because with the medical technology of the day, he'd likely be dead before the ransom arrives.

(thwak, thwak, thwak)

There, NOW you're on foot

(sarcasm/kidding mode on) Ah, parry a 5-pound hammer on a 6-foot shaft, held with 2 hands with the short weapon in your left hand. Sure, that'd stop the blow dead & probably rip the poll-arm right from your opponent's hands. Parries are the last thing you want to do, and a poll-axe on a healthy swing would go right through such a weak defense.

Where have you seen this "axe in the left hand" fighting technique in period documentation or art? (swinging a low blow) Are you a Ranger?

(ready for return strike)

Still, would like to see the pic. Do you recall the period?

The Ranger comment was a D&D reference.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chef de chambre:
When one is on the battlefield, drawn up in a battle in array, surrounded by ones retainers (or being those retainers), or drawn up in lances and facing the moment of truth - what use the masters advice then?

---

Um, wear armor?
Hi everybody. My name's Russ, I've just relocated from Budapest, where I was doing early-period living history for the Magyars (but a lot of my background is 15th c. East-Central Europe). Seems to me that this is one of those things that makes the full man-at-arms such a force multiplier when dismounted among his lesser brethren. He can ignore, or potentially not even notice, flank or angle attacks that would surely drop or injure the lesser-equipped brethren with whom he's fighting. Fiore's spear work, single-hand sword parries (as I remember them), and half-swording are all highly relevant for small spaces, so outside of that, I don't see a great deal of bifurcation.

-Russ
(who needs to bite the bullet and get some real armor)

Left hand in low 3 (extended), right hand in high 1, (Close) simultaneously switch randomly between 1 & 3 with each hand, extending & retracting as you pass forward or diagonally.