ammo mammal posted:

Are there any movies or shows with accurate depictions of medieval combat?

EvanSchenck posted:

There's also a popular image of the importance of parrying that doesn't necessarily mesh with actual practice. I think this probably comes from stage fighting, because clashing sword-on-sword and parrying reads well on stage and is exciting for the audience. This later spread from theater to film, and that's where most people get their idea of swordfighting. There is also sport fencing, in which parrying is very important, but that really bears little resemblance to historical methods of combat. Parrying with the weapon was one among several strategies for avoiding damage, and not necessarily the preferable one. A blow could be defended more efficiently by taking advantage of range, movement, armor, and possibly a shield.

EvanSchenck posted:

Shields were specifically designed to block attacks, so they were good for that purpose, but by the later part of the middle ages the use of highly effective plate armor had made them less necessary.

EvanSchenck posted:

The advantage of these options over parrying is that they do not require the use of your weapon, so you can do them while simultaneously counter-attacking.

Railtus posted:

What EvanSchenck says about the importance of parrying is an excellent point. Blocking their weapon with yours was one of the least desirable forms of defence according to medieval swordsmanship. Instead it was better to attack from a safe angle (such as while grappling them with your other hand) or void the blow (dodging, sidestep) and immediately counterattack.

Buried alive posted:

I've sometimes heard that english/western European weapons were essentially big metal clubs in the area of 10-20 lbs. Are there any surviving historical examples of those that were intended for combat? Or is that more from the mistaken attitude that katana > all.

Obdicut posted:

Subsidiary question: Since horses tend to be terrified of smoke (and, well, a lot of things) were the war horses of the era trained heavily to desensitize them to blood, smoke, etc?

Obdicut posted:

Also a note to those saying that a cavalry charge is still going to take down the front row-- if the horse actually decides to avoid, they're going to suddenly run laterally. Horses can pivot really really freaking quickly-- something that's actually useful in missile cavalry, who can charge right at the infantry and then wheel in front of them to deliver the arrows, javelins, what have you-- and so if the horses actually resisted the charge onto the spearpoints they're more likely to turn away and get in the way of other horses than they are to try to stop and fail or whatever.

EvanSchenck posted:

Countering the counter is actually the problem with the videos you posted; all of the clashes shown last about a second and are basically kata based on the illustrations and instructions from fechtbücher. We can't actually be sure if those are entirely practical fighting techniques or ads for sword schools. I glanced at some other HEMA videos on youtube that were fights instead of staged parry-ripostes, and most of them look very different.

Railtus posted:

Forgive me, but you appear to be responding to the exact opposite of the part of my post that you quoted. Unless you are actually agreeing with me, but the phrase “the big problem with the way you imagine it" kind of implies that you have gotten the wrong impression, because your criticism matches the opposite of what I describe.

Railtus posted:

What EvanSchenck says about the importance of parrying is an excellent point. Blocking their weapon with yours was one of the least desirable forms of defence according to medieval swordsmanship. Instead it was better to attack from a safe angle (such as while grappling them with your other hand) or void the blow (dodging, sidestep) and immediately counterattack.

EvanSchenck posted:

The rarity and expense of the manuscripts is the exact reason that we can suspect that the techniques were not commonly used, because it would be a waste to devote that money and effort to depicting techniques that were common knowledge at the time. It's the same reason that when studying medieval cuisine, we have lots of recipes for delicacies but none for staple foods. When books are rare and expensive, you don't record recipes for foods that people eat all the time, because everybody already knows how to make them. You write down the recipes for foods that most people don't know, and are out of the ordinary. People remember and record extraordinary things, not mundane ones. Similarly, a master would probably use a fechtbuch to record techniques that were special, rather than the techniques that everybody used and were foundational to fighting. This doesn't mean that what's in the fechtbücher is impractical, only that they were out of the ordinary and most likely situational in their utility.

EvanSchenck posted:

It's completely false, and slightly insane. The links that Jorghnassen posted do a good job explaining it. It's also useful to think of what these weapons really are at the most basic level: simple machines, specifically levers and wedges. Swords, axes, maces, and so forth are third class levers, with the grip as the fulcrum, the hands supplying the effort, and the striking surface as the resistance. The cutting edge of a sword or axe, or the flange of a mace, is a wedge, which uses mechanical advantage to separate a target in pieces rather than just smashing it.

Chamale posted:

It also comes down to the fact that some moves are just better than all the others. The best sport fencers nowadays mostly use two parries and a bunch of variations on those two, rather than practicing the other, less worthwhile parries.

Vivoviparous posted:

In a similar vein, is there historical documentation that shows the effect cultural traumas like The Inquisition had on society, like how Japan is still affected by the bombing or Germany is still affected by WW2 or the southern United States is still affected by Reconstruction?

Godholio posted:

I'm not seeing any reason why a sword would have to be particularly sharp. You're not really slicing in any way that strength or angle won't make up for keenness. More like clubbing, which even if it doesn't get through the adversary's protective clothing is going to make an impact...with leather or cotton particularly, but even against metal armor (and against that, you're not getting through even with a razor edge).

Sexgun Rasputin posted:

Awesome. I don't think there are any better movie swordfights than the duel at the end of Rob Roy, but I thought this movie did Medieval violence pretty well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxcIA5-kWvc

Fighting starts at about 1:00.

Sexgun Rasputin posted:

Well, no. Not at all really. They fight back to back across about fifty feet. James Purefoy hops on a horse and takes off right when the Danes assemble into a shield wall and kill the gently caress out of the Templars.

I am willing to suspend my disbelief enough to accept that 3 heavily armed and armored veteran soldiers with the element of surprise could fight their way across a couple of yards in the 30-45 seconds it takes for the opposing force to form a shield wall and slaughter them.

Show me The Perfect Movie Swordfight Nektu I long to see it.

Railtus posted:

If anyone else starts watching Vikings, I should give you the heads up that it really underestimates the role of armour in medieval (or Viking age) combat. The very first scene shows someone getting stabbed through what looks like a brigandine (out of period, so let's pretend it's a gambeson), while the heroes wear only cloth shirts.

Railtus posted:

At 1:08 it seems further away. However, to need such a large arc at those distances would imply a fairly weak bow, and a fairly weak bow would be less likely to penetrate the shield. A combination of direct shooting and arc shooting is possible to make it harder for shields to cover all the necessary angles though, though in the video it looks like they’re shooting at 45 degree angles.

Most tests I have seen show shields stopping arrows with far less penetration, for instance there is this one with Mike Loades - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsZnTCQptWc – However, again, I think his bow is not very powerful (he draws it pretty casually).

I did come across this discussion - http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=7175 – on the subject of minor penetration and how it might be possible. None of the sources I am familiar with mention the arrowhead getting past the shield when the arrow sticks in, but it could be because it was not important enough to mention in the descriptions rather than because it did not happen. The pilum or spiculum was said to be able to puncture shields (in De Re Militari, if you’re wondering about the reliability of the source) so it is not impossible for arrows or other weapons to puncture shields a little as well.

Sexgun Rasputin posted:

Yeah, but running is the exact opposite of the thing you need to be doing with your body while you draw a bow. It's like if he won a duel by sticking the sword between his legs and waving it around like a penis.

Railtus posted:

Vikings definitely used bows in warfare. There are quite a few examples of bows being mentioned in battles or sagas, including by some very high-status individuals, giving the impression that a bow was respected as a weapon of war. Some examples here - http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_bow.htm

Sexgun Rasputin posted:

The only reason horse archery is feasible is because 1. you can keep your posture straight while riding

Sexgun Rasputin posted:

and 2. there's a point in a horse's run where all four feet are off the ground and you have a split second of stability (while your posture is perfect) to loose your arrow.

Sexgun Rasputin posted:

Neither of those things is possible while running. It would be more realistic if he did some kind of running jump and loosed in midair, which is still ridiculous but something I've seen done.

Imagine you're trying to run and shoot a pistol but it's twice as difficult.

Sexgun Rasputin posted:

Ugh. When I go try to shoot while running today and end up sending an arrow through my neighbor's window I'm suing everyone in this thread and Something Awful LLC. I advise you to retain counsel ASAP.

Sexgun Rasputin posted:

In the beach scene they're shooting 32 inch+ war arrows with massive broadheads that a low poundage bow probably couldn't even propel further than maybe a few hundred feet even with a big arcing sky draw like that. The arrows would be carrying almost no energy when they arrived at the target.

If those bows were weighty enough to hunt deer with then they're shooting from what is basically point blank range and at full draw the arrows should land deep hundreds of feet behind them.

Sexgun Rasputin posted:

There's no explanation for the archery in that scene, it doesn't make sense on any level. What the hell, vikings?

tonberrytoby posted:

They shot some actual arrows at Toshio Mifune back in the days. And it looked really cool.

Sexgun Rasputin posted:

There is no conceivable way that actual arrows were actually shot at actual human beings for a tv show, no matter how low the poundage. Not when it was cheaper and safer to build what is clearly a model of a shield wall with dummies inside. Dummies that look like lumpy bags with boots sticking out the bottom.

They could've done any number of things but they went with a sky draw that is offensive to reason because it looks cool.

InspectorBloor posted:

InspectorBloor posted:

Other composite designs do not differ so greatly in their performance. What sets the turkish bows apart is the use of relative light arrows. Parthian, Mongol and Magyar designs are for very heavy arrows

Babe Magnet posted:

Can someone give me any info on these bad boys? I'm a sucker for excessively elaborate and ambitious garbage like the Lantern Shield. I like to imagine some dude running into a fight with this thing and just being laughed off the battlefield.

Railtus posted:

The ceremony for knighthood could be ornate as having baths, vigils and ritual clothing or it could be as straightforward as being hit by another knight (the last blow he should receive unanswered).

Railtus posted:

Oh yes. It started off with a forceful box on the ear or neck. Later on it became a gentle stroke with the flat of the sword on the neck. Eventually the custom became a tap on either shoulder or both.

Maybe because noblemen were less accustomed to being hit?

Railtus posted:

On your biggest question, I would say horses have pretty good balance and stepping on people might break the person’s leg, but the flailing weapon would need to get a solid hit to break the horse’s leg, and it would be difficult to get a good angle or to hit with enough force.

As for spearman vs. horse, I think it depends if the horse is in motion. A mostly stationary horse would be moderately vulnerable to a spearman, though a charging horse is fast enough that you need good timing to catch the horse with that spear, and the strike must be accurate enough and strong enough to strike squarely (an off-angle might push your spear aside with only minor injury to the horse) and you also need to watch out for the weapons of the rider. This is mostly just speculation though.

Railtus posted:

Mounted units breaking through crowds seemed to be consistently successful, judging by eastern accounts of Frankish charges. Against Fatamid infantry a Frankish cavalry charge was fairly reliably successful. I have also heard accounts of French knights riding through a Swiss pike square (I can’t remember exactly where at the moment) and the Swiss pike square just reforming behind them. Generally speaking, discipline of the infantry is a major factor; if they can recover from the initial shock then they can essentially surround and mob the cavalry.

DandyLion posted:

Although I have not had the pleasure to play with any highly trained horse in practice mounted combat, I can surmise that there is a severe misconception of agility regarding them. There are several breeds of horse that still resemble in size, speed, and agility the destrier's of old, and I can assure you a mounted knight on a well trained warhorse could have danced circles around an infantryman. Probably the best modern representation of what I'm talking about could be seen in bullfighting. My favorite is a Lusitano named Merlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz8BiTtoLp8 (keep in mind a bull is faster and more agile than a human). These horses were capable of strafing, juking, ducking and any other type of agile motion you can imagine. They could run flat out sideways, backwards, and spin on a dime. I imagine riding on one in battle and fighting against infantry would be analogous to going to war on foot against opponents in wheelchairs.

(One caveat here is that the level of training a horse had varied wildly, and its safe to assume there were many mounts not as highly trained as this. Still, this serves as the best example of the extreme advantage of a well trained mount.)

Frostwerks posted:

This is loving awesome. gently caress you romney and your dressage bullshit.

Obdicut posted:

To me, you seem to be taking the very odd position that the stirrup and tree were really not a big deal. Can you explain their widespread adoption by cavalry forces? Is your contention that the tree-and-stirrups strategic effects (less fatigue for the horses, allowing quicker training) are much more important than the greater range of motion and other effects on weapon usage, and that the latter are just a bonus, or what?

DandyLion posted:

What evidence would you like? The HEMA communities love affair with poor pictographic interpretations leading to the 'Lazy Vom Tag' (guard resting on the shoulder)? The resent renouncement and contradiction of the Krumphau interpretations as seen by some of the more recently ostracized ARMA members (now HEMA alliance captains). I could go on, but I suspect (and have had enough experience arguing with people in this situation) to realize that nothing short of me showing them, or anyone else who would actually really like to understand something via a practical demonstration, just how wrong they are and why they are wrong. If you or anyone else is amenable to meet, I would be happy to demonstrate any confusion or counter-idea they may have (and if I am proven wrong, which has happened on several occasions, I will stuff my face with humble pie). Making broad generalizations of ARMA and John Clements through cherry picked details is no better than ad hominems, and cutting tatami with a blunt sword can be done any number of ways. The fact that you give so much credence to a few video interpretations merely to back up your misguided view speaks volumes to your academic rigor. Have you ever test cut?

Rabhadh posted:

Isn't he only using a 20lb bow or something, totally useless on the battlefield.

NLJP posted:

The argument from the crossguard being where it is does seem sensible but it doesn't then actually talk about WHY it's there in the first place.

NLJP posted:

I was merely criticising that first video in the post I quoted for using 'well the crossguard is there so welp this is how it was done' as prima facie evidence. That's all well and good and sure, might have been the obvious way to use a sword but it made no attempt to explain WHY.

It was no argument, really. it was statement.

edit: e.g why couldn't you have the crossguard perpendicular to the traditional position and solve the problem of parrying with the flat. All he says is: 'this is what they actually did.'

NLJP posted:

That's fine but I think some of us would like to know why as well as just the pure 'this is what was done'. Mind you I'm probably being real dim here.

Rabhadh posted:

It's why the suicide lunge is a thing in sport fencing but you obviously wouldn't do it in a real sword fight.

Dirty Job posted:

Sport fencing is an entirely different beast, and I really hate it when HEMA-nerds get all butt hurt about it. It's like hunters getting mad at paintball enthusiasts.

I joined the fencing club at my school and introduced them to HEMA (longsword, rapier and eventually messer), and probably the biggest hurdle for them is considering the life-or-death implications of true duels. It wasn't a game for points, it was first about making sure you didn't die, and THEN making sure you killed your opponent. I had the opposite problem, where I was too concerned about worrying for my "life" that I didn't get I could just stab someone first and get some points.

At the last tournament I went to, three "double hits" during a match resulted in both fighters gaining zero points for the match. "Afterblows" (a hit landing after someone else's initial effective attack) were allowed, and both fighters would receive points. The problem is that an afterblow is (in my opinion) just as deadly as a double hit. If the goal is to create a life or death simulator, as well as a metric for who fought well in a particular round, then afterblows should be dealt with as harshly as doublehits. In the end you failed to defend yourself and you may have received a fatal wound in the process.

JaucheCharly posted:

Speaking of bladed weapons, you know a competent smith who could make me a shamshir?

Rhymenoserous posted:

A street sword. For crimefighting.

HEY GAL posted:

The sword can be, if you're a douche, ~~a sacred mystical brotherhood~~ or whatever,

Verisimilidude posted:

I've heard of rubber heads for pole weapons, but I haven't seen them either. It's a shame because I remember way back from before I started in HEMA I saw this video and it got the ball rolling for me with how sweet the techniques are.

HEY GAL posted:

What do y'all do about ankle pain? Should I ask the martial arts thread?

HEY GAL posted:

It's more like an ache than like the feeling of an injury. Rabadh, I think that's good advice but there's a baseline of activity that I can never stop doing, because I have a backpack full of books and no car. I end up walking at least an hour a day carrying heavy poo poo just in my daily life.

I know my posture's bad, I'll take extra care next weekend.

Edit: And "trainer" implies something a lot more...dignified than what's going on here. Think "a bunch of guys" instead.

Rabhadh posted:

So I'm not sure if this has been discussed before but what are peoples opinions on whether Celts/Romans/Vikings did or did not wear padded armour under their maille?

Randarkman posted:

It consisted of two to three layers of mail armor with cloth padding between each layer and then a tunic or jacket over the last layer (with the top rings sewn into it).
...
It was also useful in that you could appear to be unarmored and normally clothed in social settings...

Randarkman posted:

not padded cloth, just padded with cloth. or rather the mail rings were sewn into the cloth, and you had 2 or 3 layers of this. Sources say that Saladin in his coat looked unarmored but for his collar being really stiff.

Max Manus posted:

Optional second question: What would happen if something like the Minié ball is invented at the same time as the first rifles? Suddenly you would have accurate and long range firarms that can hit targets at well over 400 meters, and I imagine that would have a bit of an impact on the battlefield at the time.

ManOfTheYear posted:

Like Wallerstein has techniques where you grap the opponent's fist from the air and you elbow lock it, you can't do that to a trained fighter.

Siivola posted:

A fun thing to note about Fiore is how he shows counters and counter-counters to techniques. This clearly isn't a self-defense manual, but a framework for making sure the opponent gets properly stabbed to death.

Verisimilidude posted:

Here's the first video in Dustin Reagan's "You Pick the Technique" series. It features a play from Meyer's chapter 10, which states

Verisimilidude posted:

The context of most fechtbuchs is such that you have a student of a master fighting a common fencer. While this video is focusing on Meyer, which I don't particularly study, the Liechtenauer tradition has a similar context where you're learning the "master strokes" which are built to defeat what was referred to as "common fencing", IE the common way of fencing without proper training. It's part of why it is believed that Liechtenauer wrote his fechtbuch in cryptic verse. In order for the "master strokes" to stay within the circle of his students, they were purposefully written to be difficult to decode.

We still drill in the context of fighting the common fencer, and we then adapt these plays for when we're fighting someone who probably already knows all of these same techniques.

There's also something to be said about different types of parries. In our school we practice "good" and "bad" parries. By themselves neither is better than the other, but they each excel within their own contexts. A "good" parry is one such that your point is facing your opponent. A "bad" parry is like the ones you see in the video, that block the line of attack without necessarily pointing towards the attacker.

Verisimilidude posted:

Sometimes it's just impossible given the time available to make a "good" parry, so a "bad" parry suffices well enough by keeping you alive.

Verisimilidude posted:

The reality of this drill is that you probably wouldn't use it against a trained fencer, but the mechanics it teaches both the attacker and the defender are important.