Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: FramFramson on 14 June 2014, 10:22:13 PM
-
http://www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/06/12/fact-checking-fight-books-comparing-historic-injury-patterns-to-strikes-in-modern-european-sword-arts/
Interesting bit of analysis here, with some potential applications for anyone interested in accuracy?
-
I've fenced for years, and all I can say is that there's a world of difference between the theory of how it works according to manuals, books and guides and reality. What happens when people are fighting, moving unpredictably and trying not to get hit adds complexity (oh yes it does!). Then add in real fear, anger and hate, uneven ground, different weapons between people in the fight and potentially vast differences in skill/experience, and if the results resembled the theory you'd be surprised. And that's assuming it's a one on one fight. In a medieval/renaissance fight it would have been a scrum, multiple people all fighting one another simultaneously. I wouldn't bet on it resembling the "model" at all.
-
Hello all
And if you allow me to add another thing, when we fight in modern times, our weapons are usually blunt for safety proposes so we dont do a "real fight" comparing with the sharpen weapons of "reality" therefore and as well said by Mitch K we cannot experience the "real fear" of a combat.
Correct positions of defending/attacking? I think none and all are correct.
Accuracy? its live or die so accuracy its not the matter. Surviving is.
Cheers
Rui
-
Right. There are essentially three variables looked at here. 1) Modern reenactment techniques. 2) Formal historical "fighting guides" which would have been referenced in the medieval period. 3) The actual wound record found on real medieval combatants.
-
Absolutely fascinating! I've been involved in both the 'defensive' side (building armor) and on the 'offensive' side of this (trying to hit them before they hit me) and I think this is a very useful study!!! Thank you for posting it!
- chirine
-
I've fenced for years, and all I can say is that there's a world of difference between the theory of how it works according to manuals, books and guides and reality. What happens when people are fighting, moving unpredictably and trying not to get hit adds complexity (oh yes it does!). Then add in real fear, anger and hate, uneven ground, different weapons between people in the fight and potentially vast differences in skill/experience, and if the results resembled the theory you'd be surprised. And that's assuming it's a one on one fight. In a medieval/renaissance fight it would have been a scrum, multiple people all fighting one another simultaneously. I wouldn't bet on it resembling the "model" at all.
Same as any kind of fighting. The difference between practing the moves in the gym in the air or on a bag is very different from actually fighting or sparring.
Wonder how the study would be if they compared the wounds with a control group untrained in weapons, would they still strike similarly?
-
THX for this very interesting link, I shall need to study it in detail.
From my brief overview, I cannot see where the data about the "modern" target patterns come from. From my personal fighting reenactment experience, I don't know of any record of such injuries, nor do I have any memories of many injuries that would affect the skeletal evidence. My own three scars are in the face, from training accidents, and the ones I inflicted are on hands, because the opponents did not use protection gloves (none of them were serious in any way).
I would understand the article more as an inquiry whether modern combat reenactment, that tries to use historical combat books, can actually recreate historical battle fighting and does this by comparing book target zones with actual skeletal trauma.
Well, in the list of sources, I don't see any reference to reenactment, so I guess the journalist was personally interested in this question. Whereas the author of the dissertation actually compared historical with archaeological (more precisely - osteological record).
I cannot really provide an accurate judgement without reading the actual papers, but I can however raise a few methodical questions.
- what kind of fighting do the fencing books describe? (from my brief memory they are not about battle fighting)
- which time periods are compared? (the journalist only hints at that aspect, but I would imply that the colleague gives a detailed breakdown, after all he got his degree ;))
- What depositional context are the skeletons from? (very complex issue, actually the main source critique that probably was addressed in the dissertation - just a small spotlight: I would not call wounds that are inflicted in a rout from the back combat wounds and certainly not compare them with target zones of any kind, well maybe "where do I hit someone to incapacitate him?")
- What appears to be missing is a comparison with the functionality of the used weapons and the body zones that were actually armoured - but including this would call for a PhD diss. , so maybe someone is working on it right now?
For interested people, scholars of the roman period have done rather vast research into that topic.
But -
what exactly does this very interesting topic to help us with the miniature hobby?
edit: the thesis is available as free download, as well as most other scholarly articles quoted by the journalist, for those who are interested in reading the accurate stuff - I just checked
-
Yes it's like trying to compare the 'science' of boxing with the reality of a street brawl. The majority of the combatants would not have access to tactical literature, although indeed the higher ranks were apparently avid readers by the late 15th Century.
Your technique, such as it was, was a product of your own experience and that of your trainer. I agree with former user that forensic examination of remains is problematic, due to the bulk of casualties generally being caused in routs. Re-enactment is also a poor comparison as the idea of combat in them is not to hurt someone after all.
However the results do make sense, although I would have thought examination of weapon types in themselves would have been helpful, as the weapon dictates the use. By the late 15th Century cutting blades have mostly given way to 'blunt instruments' and points in primary weapons, due to the general increase in armour worn by all combatants.
Many weapons of that time also feature a method of 'hooking' your opponent in some way, which usually implies a stab forward and an attempt to snag them on the pull-back to take them off-balance and at a disadvantage to someone else's weapon. Hammering armour joints makes movement difficult, but would not show up on the remains, only the 'killing/wounding blows' would be evident in that case.
Later cavalry manuals show that a swing from upper right to lower left, followed by a backhand sweep from lower left across to the lower right and recover, was one of the six 'standard cuts' taught (along with a mirrored UL-LR sequence). Bearing in mind that at that point there was less armour used, so 'cutting' was once more a viable attack.
Simply put, you modify your attack by the defences worn by your opponent. Back in the days when I had to sift through 16th Century probate inventories, the helmet in various forms was the most common 'armour' item owned, followed by 'jacks' and 'brigandines' in that order. Even if you went into battle 'naked' in terms of armour, a head defence of some form seems to have been seen as the most vital item.
It's interesting stuff and the results in the study do tend to conform to the 'vulnerable areas' I was taught to go for in an unarmoured context; eyes, head and knees (even when protected, an attack towards the eyes results in an instinctual 'retreat' response). Medieval illustrations often show helmet, body armour and knee defences on common soldiers, which would tend to imply that these were target zones back then too.
While there is a wide gulf between 'sport fighting' and 'real fighting' and maybe the techniques illustrated in the 'sword books' were likely not used in battle, there are advantages to be gained from their training use. Speed of response to a variety of attacks, stamina, endurance, improved reflexes and of course a mind that is expecting any one of a possible number of attack types from varying directions, would all help in a confused melee environment.
-
I think the reality is that variables have a massive impact.
I'd hazard a guess that in clashes where an opponent is fighting against overwhelming numbers you will find more injuries to the back of the skull, as whilst one enemy engages you another will try and get around the back of you.
I'm a bit surprised that there are not more arm injuries if I am honest but then if you are hefting a big shield and probing from behind it with a spear/pole arm or a sword then I guess it makes sense. As does the injuries to legs.
There are a lot of references in historical documents like the Iliad, to combatants deliberately going for the legs, to weaken their enemy or ground them. Once on the ground there is not much an opponent can do about it, especially if you have cut through a tendon or muscle.
Remember you don't have to kill your enemy necessarily, you just have to ensure that they can play no further part in the battle.
-
As one who enjoys collecting and reading fight manuals, and who has swung a wooden sword a few times before, I have to find the first part of the study more interesting than the second. That is to say, the self-survey of preferred hit locations by "135 groups". There are groups which run the gamut of dedication to deciphering the sometimes cryptic illustrations and language (and who may not even do much or any free sparring), to those dedicated to winning individual glory in their organization in a contest which has sport-like trappings, to folks with harmless boffers playing Lord of the Rings for the day. (Not to say one is any better than the other)
Most of the author's research appears to come from the 14th century or earlier. In contrast, most surviving fechtbuch are from the later period: Liechtenauer, Talhoffer, Fiore di Liberi--late 14th/early15th century. A time when the heavy shield had fallen out of favor, and two-hand weapons such as the longsword and poleaxe were popular along with heavy armor. The fechtbuch make distinctions between unarmed duels (often judicial duels) and armored fighting. Exception, the sword and buckler I33 manuscript from some 100 years earlier.
It's not known how much the system of Fiore or others represents a typical fighting style, or a somewhat unconventional and secret one. Fiore's "poste", or positions have colorful names attached to them, and illustrations associating them with various animals, etc something it has in common with kung fu fighting. While not busy fighting duels he has able to get wealthy patrons to pay him good money to teach, as well as commission books, a costly undertaking at the time. Perhaps they could be thought of as something like katas, which are easier to execute perfectly in practice, more of a tool for developing reflexes.
-
Agreed, I would imagine that each tutor would have his own style to a point and those who moved amongst the higher echelons might indeed market theirs as being superior to all others, with the odd characteristic and flamboyant move that looked great in demonstration, if not of any practical use on the battlefield.
There were almost certainly 'katas' of some form taught as standard across Europe too, purely because it was the most obviously efficient way to use a particular weapon. We still have one that has remained virtually unchanged for several centuries; a thrust with the bayonet and a follow through swing with the butt of the weapon if the blade misses. I would imagine that each group of weapons, from spear to halberd, had theirs. Obviously the big 15th Century change was the increasing practice of teaching of men to work together when using them, rather than as individuals and which gave the Swiss their edge more than any other factor.
-
reminds me of the reenactments at Warwick castle.they claim to be accurate representations of medieval combat, but there's alot of twirling and fancy footwork, and despite them having pointed out the inaccuracy,alot of sword on sword play.neither of them smashed the other in the chest with their shield then kicked them hard in the face when they fell, and there was virtually no savage hacking at the fallen opponent.
it's as if they don't want to educate children lol
-
And let us not forget that diferent weapons make diferent wounds and diferent efects on diferent parts of the body.
We shouldnt also compare warfare on the 12th or 13th century with warfare on the 15th or even 16th century because the type of combat and the weapons are clearly diferent and so does the wounds inflicted with them.
I also think that the diferent opinions expressed on this post will complete eachother wich is a lovelly thing.
That proves diferent learnings/experiences see points that the other wouldnt. ;)
Lovelly. :) :-*
Cheers
Rui
-
Agreed, I would imagine that each tutor would have his own style to a point and those who moved amongst the higher echelons might indeed market theirs as being superior to all others, with the odd characteristic and flamboyant move that looked great in demonstration, if not of any practical use on the battlefield.
There were almost certainly 'katas' of some form taught as standard across Europe too, purely because it was the most obviously efficient way to use a particular weapon. We still have one that has remained virtually unchanged for several centuries; a thrust with the bayonet and a follow through swing with the butt of the weapon if the blade misses. I would imagine that each group of weapons, from spear to halberd, had theirs. Obviously the big 15th Century change was the increasing practice of teaching of men to work together when using them, rather than as individuals and which gave the Swiss their edge more than any other factor.
I think the "Katas" in question are probably closer to combinations in boxing than the long sequences of strikes, blocks and other movements often in a dance like display you often seen in Martial Arts such as Karate nowadays.
-
Yes, if we are being precise, that is probably closer to what I meant. I used 'katas' in a much looser sense than its literal one. I don't think it was in any way an 'art', 'science' or a 'ritualistic' sequence in the same way as the Japanese forms, in the same way as Krav Maga is not Karate.
Having said that, 'staff-fighting' (think Robin Hood vs Little John on the bridge) has been said to be the lost 'English martial art'...
:)
-
I figured thats why you put Kata in quotations marks.
In all fairness art is just mistranslation of sorts anyway. The art in martial arts is closer to skill than how we would use the word art.
-
I was always taught that the first (and most basic) rule of sword fighting was to stick them with the pointy end! lol lol
-
I was always taught that the first (and most basic) rule of sword fighting was to stick them with the pointy end! lol lol
An essential first step in training I would think, you would probably be surprised at the numbers of folk who failed to grasp that concept.
In all fairness art is just mistranslation of sorts anyway. The art in martial arts is closer to skill than how we would use the word art.
I don't know so much... as I understood it, part of the scoring is in how gracefully the combatant moves and how well he adheres to the stylistic and traditional norms. It seems odd that in Aikido, Kendo and the like, that you can beat your opponent down, but lose marks for the wrong placement of feet and stuff like that.
Imagine that principle applied in boxing? Mike Tyson would never have won a fight. Ali would of course never have been defeated either way.
;)
-
It seems odd that in Aikido, Kendo and the like, that you can beat your opponent down, but lose marks for the wrong placement of feet and stuff like that.
it is my understanding that this is the essential difference between sports and real fighting. Of course the sportive aspect has been all to clouded in our century by the aspect of "winning" (and not only in sports ::))
-
Kata comps are scored on aesthetics (Cant say I am a fan of Kata myself) I just meant that when people hear the word Martail Arts they often seem to think the Art part of the term means how it looks etc but the Art part is a translation of the word skill. Very few Aikido places compete in any way or do much sparring so I not sure there is much marking going on there. Kendo however I have heard some explanations for how one does and doesn't get points that I didn't really understand the reasoning for.
To me Tysons fighting style is pretty damn beautiful. The way he moves is amazing his head movement combined with the force he could generate over such a small space is fantastic to watch. Sure it isn't flowery or showy but its ruthlessly efficient and beautiful in its own way.
Title is a bit hyperbolic but tell me thats not stunning to watch if you are into fighting.
http://youtu.be/vC5PTPV4Frg?t=3m14s
it is my understanding that this is the essential difference between sports and real fighting. Of course the sportive aspect has been all to clouded in our century by the aspect of "winning" (and not only in sports ::))
Full contact styles tend to be pretty good at teaching people how to fight. Many Martial Arts though do very little sparring and when they do compete they compete under rules such as point sparring which are so far removed from a fight that much if what works well in those competitions just cannot be used in a real fight. Compare Olympic TKD to Boxing for example. Boxing is clearly more directly applicable to fighting of the two.
-
Okay, point taken re Iron Mike, but he is mostly noted as a 'slugger' and not a 'dancer'. :)
The marking criteria is beyond me too and is apparently far less harsh in Western than in Japanese competitions. I suspect that it originates in the concept that "If you can't do it perfectly in 'training', you will suffer when it is for real". My limited experience of Kung Fu was essentially katas for the 'drill' part, but using them to actual practical effect in 'combinations' when sparring or competing was more creative... I guess the idea was to build 'muscle memory' as part of the overall process. Certainly those who relied purely on the taught sequences tended to lose pretty quickly, while when you watched the winners you were seeing these same katas used in a more modular fashion.
Before the advent of CGI in movies, the 'trick' sequences you used to see in 'martial arts' movies are often quite basic techniques at their root and while looking impressive, are not so effective when it comes down to it. Even I could do the 'spinning swords' bit, but would have been screwed if anyone attacked me while I was doing it.
The point remains, as Carlos put, that 'sport' is about competition and not incapacitating or killing your opponent, so any training can only take you so far. The most removed example would be Tai-Chi, which are in fact combat 'katas' phenomenally slowed down, mock those pensioners at your peril!
It would be how you applied any form of training for real and beyond the rules of friendly competition that determines the usefulness of any form of martial art (in which I include fencing too) and that which divides the 'sportsman' from the 'killer'.
-
I think thats more than fair to say about Tyson. He didnt dance like Ali.
I have always thought of Kata as primarily a visual catalog of techniques to pass techniques on before the widespread use of cameras to film everything. Personally when I train (Cant atm due to injury) I spent no time on Kata as I feel there are other more useful training methods. People training some arts may disagree with that though.
I find that you rarely get anything perfect once the other guy is fighting back.
While I agree that sport is not for killing you have to look at it like this. You are only as good as the stuff you have tested and the stuff you can actually do against a resisting opponent. How do you know this killer move you are doing can actually kill someone? How do you know it will work against someone fighting back? By training moves acceptable in a permissive ruleset (MMA being the best example) you actually get to test your stuff against someone genuinely fighting back and what you personally can and cant do against a resisting opponent, not only that but you get to find out what works and what doesn't. Sure you have to remove some potentially dangerous things like eye pokes for example but someone who spars and can hit a moving target fighting them back is far more likely to be able to eye gouge than someone who doesn't anyway, or someone who is used to grappling and gain positional dominance against other people skilled at that is going to be in a better position to do those killer moves than people who practice all the so called dirty stuff without someone fighting them back.
In order to really practice and test your stuff you have to try to get the right balance between safety and realism and spar with a permissive ruleset (Obviously not going flat out every time you spar because you would be injured constantly)
Personally I think despite the fact it has rules and is a sport the top guys in MMA would beat almost anyone else on the planet in an unarmed street fight because the fight hand to hand for a living there are very few people in the world who can say the same thing.
I wonder how much sparring people did with training weapons around the time the various manuals that HEMA groups try to reconstruct from were written. I know Hema groups now seem to be quite big on sparring for the most part.
I include fencing as a Martial Art too. I also include firearm shooting (Which I have only ever done once) and archery personally although many would disagree with me I am sure.
-
Can't fault that train of thought. The 'show' sports tend to always have your opponent coming from the optimum direction (directly from the front or rear), or a set number of equally spaced directions, which I think was the joke behind the Monty Python "What if he's got a pointed stick?" sketch from way back when.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w&feature=kp
In the thankfully very few occasions where I've had to defend myself against someone with a pointed stick or similar for real, they tend to come without warning and out of line of sight... something you don't get in sport. However training does indeed kick in, but in a fashion that might have most trainers throw a fit if you did it in a gym. Certainly you're better prepared with it than without it, which would almost certainly be the case in the medieval era too.