Posted on 08/23/2012 9:52:00 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
To borrow a famous line, the problem with most people trying to understanding the true nature of historical sword combat is not that they're ignorant — it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
It's amazing, really, how a subject that so permeates our modern pop culture, and is so ubiquitous, is one which virtually no one any longer has any real world experience in, nor pursues for its original function. As a result, most all our conceptions of sword-fighting get it wrong. The reality of it is not what you think it is.
(Excerpt) Read more at io9.com ...
The vast majority of free men were peasants. The english yeoman, for example, even though he might own land in his own name (a freehold), was still considered a peasant. He would most likely be required to contribute to the military forces of the lord governing his district, either in person or in kind.
Also, when war came to a lords district, he would indeed sometimes call his serfs to arms.
as I recall from an interview with the director a long time ago, Ford was supposed to use the whip to take the sword from the guy...after a whole lot of takes where he couldn’t do it he got exasperated and just shot him as a joke...the director loved it and kept it in
Makes sense to me.
Good points.
Another thing to remember is that most of the killing on ancient and medieval battlefields occurred in the pursuit, after a formation was broken and the losers began to flee. This is simple enough to visualize. We don’t know nearly enough, however, about the opening phases of a general engagement. What was the individual spacing on the line? How deep were the formations? What was the structure of both formal and informal combat teams and how did these units function in battle? Presumably both infantries would have tried to keep ranks. Presumably experienced warriors would have understood the need to avoid crowding. Presumably small teams, formal or informal, would have been formed for mutual protection. We just don’t know much about it.
There are hints in the literature, and some of the Roman terms have survived. The word escapes me at the moment, but the Romans had a term, for example, for small wedge formations that would attempt to penetrate an opposing line. I imagine one or two legionnaires at the point, and maybe ten or a dozen covering flanks and rear. All rehearsed and part of small unit battle doctrine, but largely lost to history. I would guess that professional soldiers in medieval armies had similar tactics.
The movies tend to show either stylized duels, which one understands as a dramatic convention, or massive, formless brawls. What is left out of the picture is the broad middle ground of well-practiced teamwork at the small group level.
***Professional warriors would presumably have learned to fight in organized teams. ***
I find it interesting that in Homer’s ILLIAD some of the Heros spent their time on the battlefield not fighting, but running around looking for someone worthy to fight.
***He instructed his forces to use a jabbing, penetrating stroke.***
I believe the English later went to a straight blade for thrusting, but by that time charges on horseback were obsolete.
The article was originally published on a site about medieval martial arts, so it wouild be expected that the reader has ready access to videos on the right way to do things. You can view videos by the author on this site, so in context this is not a 'ego-masturbation' article.
Don't be so lazy and expect a reprinted article to dump everything in your lap.
One of the interesting aspects of medievel swordfighting is you did want necessarily want to kill your opponent if he was a high value target. The goal was to get the opponent to surrender, take him hostage, and get a large ransom.
Those things were heavy, too. How they slung them with one hand, heavy shield in the other, puts me in awe.
I think that “tactics” as they have come to be known, were pretty much limited to intitial formations and the handling of reserve forces. Given that “history” was a new field there wasn’t a whole lot of importance given to systematically study of “what happened,” simply a recounting of brave deeds with a view toward propping up the legitimacy of the conquerer. It’s a shame really.
I remember a re-enactment of the Japanese advance down the Kra Peninsula toward Singapore (1942). A few British military engineering officers using some basic wooden pilings, rope & planks supervised a rugby club in a simulated bridging operation to illustrate the fast, improvisation required by the Japanese thrust. It was amazing how well a cohesive group could “figure out” what was necessary, and not, with almost no instruction. They basically got it right.
I imagine that if you took a 2 companies of soldiers... pit one against the other with period weaponry and historical objectives... they would figure out the entire tactical system in short order.
I’m surprised you haven’t been pinged to this yet. Comments?
It was fun reading Burton’s ‘Book of the Sword’. He spelled out the whole science of edged weapon use.
On foot, the only effective uses were cut, thrust or guard. On horse back, there were something like 43 regulation cavalry cuts mounted soldiers had to learn.
It had a neat little diagram.
Thrust was preferable to cut, because you could return to the ‘guard’ position more quickly.
Also, the development of a curved blade (scimitar) was something novel. Early sword makers knew that introducing air into a wound would be deadly, whereas someone could conceivably recover from a cut.
The thrust of a curved blade, and depending on the size of the curve, would be certain to introduce air into the wound.
Another interesting anecdote: Julius Caesar encouraged his men to encrust their sword hilts with valuable stones (stolen loot from their fights). Then, they’d be less likely to cast them down and run when attacked.
His book was filled with the most terrific original documents, history and illustrations!!
Tercio?
I've known that sword fighting in movies has been bogus for a long time... especially fighting with japanese blades. They attempt to never strike blade to blade. And broadswords are heavy... not meant for fencing like you see... or even much swinging.
Old recurve and longbows are as silent and medevil as I get these days....:o)
Still have old WWII to VN era E-Tools in each vehicle and at home. Fixed em and restored em to fit my lifes needs for a Dirt, Pick and People mover in a compact tool.
Current issue is crap, Glock E-Tool comes close serving my needs for such in retirement as a garden and camping tool.
Some things were just made good and solid, multi-purpose, GI proof. E-Tool is a politically correct skull crusher and disembowelment gadget for our times.
Enjoy Life Marine......:o)
Stay safe !
I recall seeing an article about William Wallace's sworda few years ago. It was given to some museum or something. They mentioned that it weighed 6 or 8 pounds.
Centurion Lucius Vorenus and Legionaire Titus Pullo breaking the Gaulic shield wall at Alesia? (HBO's "Rome", Season 1, Episode 1)
You see the front rank of Vorenus' cohort (maniple?) forming a flying wedge to pull a cut-off Legionaire (Pullo) who broke ranks in a rash attack. It was pretty interesting to see how the ranks rotated to keep the front-line fresh.
I saw that scene and thought it was interesting and well done. Whether that’s how the Romans actually did it is another question. It would be interesting to know what analysis and expertise went into that sequence.
The utility of such drills would also depend, of course, on how closely the enemy was pressing the front line. It was typically the Romans, with their short swords, body armor, and big shields, who attempted to close. Most opponents were less heavily armored and carried longer swords, which argued for greater distance from the Roman line and looser formations. That would tend to give the Romans a bit of space to execute such tactics.
BTW, I take your point about the word “tactics” in the earlier post. I agree that “tactics,” from a senior command standpoint dealt primarily with the initial disposition and then the commitment of reserves. What I have in mind here, however, is fighting technique at the individual and small group level: spacing, formation, watching each others’ backs, protecting wounded men, etc. One of the reasons the Romans were so effective in their heyday was that a wounded Roman had a far higher chance of survival than did a wounded opponent. This translated into a willingness to close.
This thread started as a discussion of swordplay. We ought not forget the Roman technique of crowd, bump, stab, using the shield as an offensive weapon and getting inside the optimum range of the opponents’ long swords.
Yikes! I need to pay closer attention, it seems. An excellent article by Mr. Clements. Even if they can't spell his name right. He's pretty much the real deal. He knows what he's talking about. Sword ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.