Doing what we are told or what we are taught

[Roger N]

I'll get back to this next week, since I am off to Poland shortly and need to prepare for that. Hopefully others will respond meanwhile.

Here's a beautiful complex-hilt longsword from 1590 to admire though: http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion/hhm61.pl?f=NR_LOT&c=3620&t=temartic_W_D&db=kat61_w.txt

And an even more complex hilt with hand-and-a-half grip from 1610

[Jean Chandler]

I'm done with this thread, I think that guy is Trolling, he appears to be an anonymous user, does anyone know what group he represents if any? I thought there was a policy on this forum that you had to use your real name and some kind of link to where you are actually from. If that's not the policy I'd like to immediately change my name on here so I can Troll too. Why should he have all the fun?


J

[Bill Carew]

On thrusting and the lack of it in fencing schools, I recall reading (in Paul Wagner's 'Master of Defence') that the London Masters of Defence (LMoD) were also noted for having rules against ‘foyning’ (along with other prohibited moves such as biting, kicking, tripping etc). In that same volume I seem to recall Henry VIII passed a law which meant anyone committing manslaughter or murder (even in self-defence) by way of foyning with their sword faced harsher justice (including losing things like ‘benefit of clergy’) when compared with someone who was only cutting with their sword.

As we know (per Silver), in the latter half of the 16th century the Italian rapier teachers made serious inroads into England as they introduced their more ‘dangerous’ and ‘murderous’ methods of foyning with the rapier. As Silver laments, the foreign, new-fangled and thrust-heavy rapier methods were gradually challenging and displacing the native, ‘ancient’ cut-heavy methods with the sword, at least for civilian defence (cutting swords obviously remained popular in warfare).

Of course, Silver also complained about the LMoD practice of not thrusting in their practice, because for all that he seems to have held the LMoD in some regard (or at least, higher regard than the Italians), he advocated cut-and-thrust methods and pointed out that not exposing practitioners to thrusting made it more difficult to create truly well-rounded scholars of defence who would be useful in the ‘warres’.

I point this out to show that it seems the situation in 16th century England closely mirrored the situation in German speaking areas as described by Meyer, at roughly the same period in time. So I think it would be wrong to single Meyer (or latter 16th century German fencers) out as somehow unique in an aversion to thrusting with the sword – the same pattern can be discerned in England at around the same time, so there was clearly something to this.

[Roger N]

I think someone put it forward here, and if not I do it now:

Considering that the thrust with broader swords could often be more lethal, it might be a sound battlefield strategy to rather incapacitate an enemy with a cut than to kill him outright, since that would:

a. Cause more confusion in the enemie's lines.

b. Force the enemy to work in a different way since the ranks are disturbed by injuried soldiers.

c. If both parties agree to this custom, then both will live on to fight another day, but depending on the outcome of the battle, hopefully with the one party having less functionable resources to use. "Wear him out", in a sense...

d. Serious conflicts were common within cities, within countries and inbetween countries and your local enemy would at the same time be your allied when faced with other more distant enemies, so killing him could for that reason be a bad strategy. Allegiances shifted back and forth and you could not always even trust your own men, since mercenaries were quite common in this period. It is a very messy situation, to say the least.

The first two is what I was taught in the military. It is better to injure someone which will take 3-4 people to handle thus draining the enemies resources than to outright kill your enemy, both in a short and long perspective. This could be good for for example, a civil war, since it would make the country stronger which certainly was an important consideration in the Renaissance.

The latter two would seem more likely for domestic disputes as Meyer might suggest. Consequently comparing to images of disputes with foreigners or "common" enemies (gemeine feinde) does not necessarily conflict with this notion. - To be honest, I am not sure quite how Meyer defines the "common enemy", but he appears to think that the thrust has been used against such, but not against the countrymen, and that it has to be taught again due to foreign influence.

It seems to correlate with the concept used for the Italian Bridge Wars during the Renaissance also.

Also, we are speaking specifically of some decades surrounding 1570 here and for specific parts of the world, so what happened 100-130 years earlier or 50 years later might not be as relevant. Then again it might.

Perhaps Fronsburger can shed some light on this? I also have a Dutch book on military law and practice in German from the period that I wish I had the time to read through.

Damn, and I wasn't going to post since I am too busy... Have to pull out the keyboard or something...

[Bill Carew]

I think someone put it forward here, and if not I do it now:

Considering that the thrust with broader swords could often be more lethal, it might be a sound battlefield strategy to rather incapacitate an enemy with a cut than to kill him outright,

Hi Roger,

The problem with that theory is that many of the other 'main' battle weapons of Meyer's day were mostly very lethal thrusting weapons: the spear, pike, bill and halberd. These saw as much use as any swords, and they all work either mostly as thrusting weapons (spear and pike) or with a strong thrusting component (bill and halberd). If cutting to incapacitate rather than killing outright with thrusts was actually a strategy in 16th century warfare, wouldn't we expect to see the thrusting points replaced with mostly exclusively cutting pollarms such as glaives and bardiche axes?

I'm not dismissing the theory totally, I think it is interesting, I'm just injecting a note of caution and pointing out some problems with the theory.

Cheers,

Bill

[Roger N]

Absolutely true, so clearly the thrust wasn't disregarded for those weapons. We are only speaking of swords here, since we have two separate sources basically expressing the same thing and a few others who could possibly be seen as indicating something similar.

All wars include killing. It is completely unavoidable. And even for the modern battlefield only wounding the enemy is a strategy, not a rule.

Just incapacitating someone with most weapons of the time would likely be difficult. It is hard to hit someone lightly with a halberd or a pike. They are designed to kill with quite a lot of power. However, with a sword this could be controlled better. So again, perhaps it was more of a strategy than a rule?

Understand this. I am NOT saying that people didn't thrust with swords on the battlefield. Meyer even says that it is in use, but that Military and Civilian Germans should reserve it for the "common enemy" and not use it amongst themselves. And, although we dispute it here, Meyer teaches thrusting with all weapons.

I am just keeping an open mind since we have period sources telling us that it wasn't the custom for the Germans in Meyer's time. It deserves some investigation before we refute it as illogical.

Also, remember that the Reisläufer are said to have refused to fight each other, which might be relevant to this debate.

Finally, this might also just be an ideal and as such bound to fail.

[Bill Carew]

Understand this. I am NOT saying that people didn't thrust with swords on the battlefield.

I wasn't suggesting you were Roger.

Meyer even says that it is in use, but that Military and Civilian Germans should reserve it for the "common enemy" and not use it amongst themselves. And, although we dispute it here, Meyer teaches thrusting with all weapons.

Oh, I agree that Meyer teaches thrusting (in a holistic 'study the whole treatise' way). I'm not one of the people arguing otherwise.

I am just keeping an open mind since we have period sources telling us that it wasn't the custom for the Germans in Meyer's time. It deserves some investigation before we refute it as illogical.

Keeping an open mind is good. There is definately more need for research on historical attitudes and customs around fencing, the cut, and the thrust with swords. It find it very interesting myself.

[Roger N]

Well I didn't think you were Bill. I am just making myself clear to others who follow this thread.

Here is a bit of more context for others, regarding some of the wars of the time period we speak of:

Battle of Mohacs 1526
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moh%C3%A1cs

Siege of Vienna 1529
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_vienna

Livonian War 1558–1583
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Wars_of_Religion

Cologne War 1583–88
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_War

The French War of Religion 1562–98
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livonian_War

Notice what is carried at the front close to the dignitaries, in this armed procession by the Catholic Leauge in Paris 1590.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Procession_de_la_Ligue_1590_Carnavalet.jpg

Huguenot's attacking Catholics likely sometime after 1562.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Print_entitled_Horribles_cruautes_des_Huguenot_en_France_16th_century.jpg

And a short comment. Was the longsword and the Bidenhänder getting less and less common on the battlefields in the late 1500s/early 1600s. Yes. But they remained in use for a longer time in some places and they were used for specific purposes. Statistics do not show everything and the fact that the Schlachschwert and Bidenhänder become rarer on the musterungsliste could also simply show that they were mostly used by special troops for strategical purposes. After all, not all marines are trained in the use of the M107 .50 Cal sniper rifle, but that doesn't mean that it is an unimportant or a disrespected weapon. Quite the opposite, and it takes specially trained elite soldiers to employ them properly.

The two handed swords have been suggested in several sources (e.g. Hs.3227a, diGrassi, Figueiredo) with sweeping and circular cutting motions when facing multiple enemies and Jogo do Pau, which has been claimed to have its roots in the two handed sword, does this also (even if they too thrust). The reason for this is that a cut threatens and protects against several enemies while a thrust only one. One man can stand against many. Focusing more on thrusting would remove all this.

I think this possibly could be relevant to what Meyer speaks of.

Looking at his treatise it is also possible to interpret it as he is moving from safer fencing towards more dangerous fencing as the student progresses in his learning. He moves from the longsword, with little thrusting, to the dussack with thrusting but trained with "safe" practice weapons, to the rappier which thrusts to the face, chest and balls (although in training they used ball points) and then finishes with the Stangen, Halberd and Pike where he hits hard and thrusts into the chest and face of the opponent. There is a certain increase in aggression and actual contact that can be traced here and perhaps this is for a reason? He begins with what he believes we can train with in what is perceived as a safe enough way and after that moves to really dangerous stuff.

[Joey Nitti]

I'll throw in the comparison to modern rules of war: If I'm not mistaken, it is against the Geneva Convention (or one of those things) to use .50 cal rounds against personel. That's why TECHNICALLY, the M107 and the M2 are considered as anti-material or anti-light-vehicle weapons. Yet, how often do those two weapons get used against personel?

[Darijan R.]

I'll throw in the comparison to modern rules of war: If I'm not mistaken, it is against the Geneva Convention (or one of those things) to use .50 cal rounds against personel. That's why TECHNICALLY, the M107 and the M2 are considered as anti-material or anti-light-vehicle weapons. Yet, how often do those two weapons get used against personel?

You are mistaken. The dabate was just over ammo with incendiary and explosive components like the Raufoss Mk 211. Machine guns fire.50 cal/12.7mm at personnel, why should it be a "problem" to use it in a precision rifle? Because of the range advantage somehow can be percieved as "too much an advantage" or something? .408/.375 Chey Tac seems to be just fine while reaching even further (with precision and energy). All of that ammo discussion crap makes no sense and is also not enforceable. Soldiers shoot with what they have in their magazine if need be and a historical landsknecht would thrust if it would have saved him in that situation. The current U.S. policy is that the ammunition is suitable for use against all targets.