Historical sword techniques vs modern recreation of same

[FramFramson]

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? 

[Mitch K]

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.

[rumacara]

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

[FramFramson]

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.

[chirine ba kal]

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

[carlos13th]

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?

[former user]

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

[Arlequín]

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.

[mcfonz]

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.

[Carpathian]

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.

[Arlequín]

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.

[nic-e]

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 

[rumacara]

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

[carlos13th]

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.

[Arlequín]

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'...