General pinciples that can be applied to different polearms

This forum is open for everyone to read, but only for registered users to post in. The discussion should still mainly concern Historical European Martial Arts and especially polearms, but is held openly, as opposed to the other forums.
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:
General pinciples that can be applied to different polearms

Post by Roger N » Sun Dec 20, 2009 8:48 am

I thought it might be of interest different principles and techniques that can be applied or perhaps are more suitable to various polearms and perhaps post clips of these.

Here are a few of my suggestions as to what can be done. No clips right now, but we can do that eventually. References would be good to add to.

Spear / staff
Winden, absetzen, versetzen, mutieren, eusern nym, wrenching, nachreissen, überlauffen, durchwechsel, redel, zucken, ausschlagen, streichen, Die Rosen

Halberd / Pollax
Absetzen, versetzen, duplieren, mutieren, eusern nym, wrenching, nachreissen, durchwechsel, zucken, schnappen, ausschlagen, streichen
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
User avatar
Hugh Knight
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:49
Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
Club:Die Schlachtschule
Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: General pinciples that can be applied to different polearms

Post by Hugh Knight » Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:37 am

Roger Norling wrote:I thought it might be of interest different principles and techniques that can be applied or perhaps are more suitable to various polearms and perhaps post clips of these.

Here are a few of my suggestions. No clips right now, but we can do that eventually.

Spear / staff
Winden, absetzen, versetzen, mutieren, eusern nym, wrenching, nachreissen, überlauffen, durchwechsel, redel, zucken,

Halberd / Pollax
Absetzen, versetzen, duplieren, mutieren, eusern nym, wrenching, nachreissen, durchwechsel, zucken, schnappen
Hi Roger,

I can't speak for the staff as I don't study that form, however the Winden, Zucken, and Nachreisen are already well-represented in the spear material. I think that adding the Durchwechseln in is unnecessary because it so closely resembles the Zucken as done with a spear.

Again, I don't practice halberd, so I can't speak to that. As for the pollaxe, again, some of the plays you cite are already in the material. For example, Talhoffer gives us a beautiful Absetzen in his 1459 Fechtbuch, and I see the Nachreisen is a universal principle, not a technique, so of course it applies. Some of the techniques you mention, however, would not work well at all with a pollaxe, principaly the ones requiring you to reach across your body (e.g., the Duplieren and the Schnappen) because the pollaxe is normally used by holding it in thirds, so the other end of your shaft will always get in your way. Moreover, since it is a purely armored form, such techniques become very difficult because of the way armor limits your motion. There is not a single cross-body technique in any of the sources I have seen.

Fortunately, we have several texts giving us a very broad and well-developed set of techniques and principles for the spear and pollaxe (and for the staff and halberd, too, but as I said, I don't comment on them because I don't study them), so we can just go directly to the books and *see* what techniques the experts felt were appropriate with each of these weapons--we don't have to try to figure what to do with which.
Regards,
Hugh Knight
http://www.schlachtschule.org
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: General pinciples that can be applied to different polearms

Post by Roger N » Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:11 pm

Well, I actually meant to discuss what principles and techniques you could see in the manuscripts. I should have been clearer on that.

However, since we are looking at various sources over a long period of time, it is a bit complicated defining a proper terminology but I feel that at some point this needs to be done, just as with the longsword. There are of course disadvantages in this, but it makes discussion and learning easier.

Some principles are common with the longsword but are used in a unique way with weapons that have two ends. For instance, setting the opponent's point aside and striking with the other end in a continuous motion, as Mair describes it, is in principle very close to a versetzen or absetzen, depending on how it is done, and could perhaps be regarded as such.

I don't really agree about durchwecheln being unnecessary. I am fairly sure that Mair describes it as such. Probably also Meyer. Again, it is a question of period and context.

Certainly there are manuscripts showing blossfecthen with halberds and the pollax e.g Talhoffer, diGrassi, Mair, Meyer and Sutor, so it is in all regards a valid subject to study without consideration for limitations of armour, although harnischfechten too is interesting.

In my opinion techniques are sometimes confused with principles. When the masters are trying to teach us principles for how to act by giving us examples, we sometimes focus too much on the given example as a technique, instead of a principle that can be manifested in numerous ways. We have touched this subject earlier and we don't really have to discuss it again. As a consequence of my stance of this subject, I still find it interesting to explore what is possible in different contexts.

While I generally agree about not using crossed armes with the halberd, it is shown by Mair with a pollax and by both Mair and Meyer with a staff. It would surprise me if it was never used with other weapons, when suitable. I can very well imagine using a duplieren motion to attack the face or place the axe head so I can hook my opponent's neck.

Once again, I have to run off, so I hope I am being clear. I will get back later. :)
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
User avatar
Mikael Ogren
Is on speaking terms
Is on speaking terms
Posts:5
Joined:Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:54 pm
Club:Gothenburg Historical Fencing School, GHFS
Weapons:Longsword, spear
Location:Gothenburg
Contact:

Re: General pinciples that can be applied to different polearms

Post by Mikael Ogren » Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:35 pm

Interesting! I don't know much about the sources, but my limited experience from spear tells med that "redel" (I assume that this means circling your opponents point with your own to get an opening) is perhaps not a good idea. Sure, it sometimes happens during sparring, but I have a feeling that one or several full circles would be very uncommon against a skilled opponent simply because you pass through many possible openings.
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: General pinciples that can be applied to different polearms

Post by Roger N » Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:16 am

My understanding of Das Redel might be limited, but I interpret it as a circling motion with the point, but not necessarily a circling around the opponent's point and instead around the center line of a cone that points to the opponent's face.

It can be done at a distance to confuse the opponent as to wherefrom you will attack, and this goes in line with, for instance, "Döbringer" and Meyer's advice to keep in constant motion. Of course, the circle can be broken at any time, when an opening is found. The circle doesn't need to be complete.

There is also the Rosen that I believe is similar and is done from a bind. In principle it can be seen as a version of Eusern Nym that continues in circular motions, like Das Redel, and which opens up the opponent completely using the momentum. I have seen kendoka doing something similar that ends with the "victim" having his shinai fly away a couple of meters. But, I am on thin ice here... ;)
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
User avatar
Hugh Knight
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:49
Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
Club:Die Schlachtschule
Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: General pinciples that can be applied to different polearms

Post by Hugh Knight » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:50 am

Roger Norling wrote:Well, I actually meant to discuss what principles and techniques you could see in the manuscripts. I should have been clearer on that.
I'm very sorry, Roger, I completely misunderstood your intent, and I apologize if I seemed to be speaking past you. And I agree with you that many people confuse principles (e.g., the Nachreisen) with techniques (e.g., the Absetzen) all the time, however, I believe most of the terms you list relate to specific techniques with specific instructions for use rather than to general principles. For example, we’re told explicitly how to do the Zucken with a spear in Ringeck and von Danzig.
I don't really agree about durchwecheln being unnecessary. I am fairly sure that Mair describes it as such. Probably also Meyer. Again, it is a question of period and context.
How do you see a Durchwechseln with a spear being done differently than a Zucken with a spear? In both cases your weapon passes under your opponent's spear in reaction to his overly-strong displacement and you thrust to the other side of his weapon.
Certainly there are manuscripts showing blossfecthen with halberds and the pollax e.g Talhoffer, diGrassi, Mair, Meyer and Sutor, so it is in all regards a valid subject to study without consideration for limitations of armour, although harnischfechten too is interesting.
With respect, and I know this will be violently disagreed with, I don't agree. First, the techniques in Talhoffer are, I believe, intended to be armored techniques in spite of the fact that they are painted out of armor. Why? Because first, I can find no references to "unarmored pollaxe", and if there were, I believe it would be done with weapons more like the ones shown in Mair; viz., an axe blade and a hook, not a hammer and a hook because the former are much more useful in unarmored combat.

Second, it’s clear that some of the pictures in Talhoffer 1459 are showing armored material demonstrated in street clothing. In the longsword fight, for example, both combatants start in full harness, then we have a few plates, then one combatant is suddenly in street clothes while the other is in armor, then in the remainder both are in street clothes, although they continue to fight halfsword. In addition, the first plates of the section showing the armored figures doing pollaxe are in street clothes, and all of the armored dagger techniques are shown in street clothes. In my opinion, then, these pictures represent the students in Talhoffer’s school posing in whatever they happened to have on, and we, the viewers, are supposed to know they’re demonstrating armored techniques.

As for the Mair “pollaxe”, it’s not what I would call pollaxe combat at all. For one thing, it’s done out of armor. I would really call them more halberds, which is what they’re used like, than pollaxes per se. I know Mair uses the term “Mordaxt” (“death axe”) which is used by earlier authors to refer to the pollaxe, but most German authors called them either Streitaxt (battle axe) or just Axt anyway, which makes me suspicious even of the terminology. And as I look at the plays he shows they just strike me as different from the pollaxe plays of the earlier authors; I can’t *prove* this point the way I usually do with chapter and verse because it’s a gestalt sense from looking through the techniques, but I feel it very strongly.

The other authors you list don’t show pollaxe material, so I won’t comment on them.
While I generally agree about not using crossed armes with the halberd, it is shown by Mair with a pollax and by both Mair and Meyer with a staff. It would surprise me if it was never used with other weapons, when suitable. I can very well imagine using a duplieren motion to attack the face or place the axe head so I can hook my opponent's neck.
Well, it’s not surprising that Mair should show it with his Mordaxt since it’s so short (and certainly there is evidence for short two-handed axes in the non-Fechtbuch iconography), however, all other Fechtbuch sources show longer pollaxes held roughly in thirds, which would make this action very difficult. There’s no question crossed-body actions were used with the staff (Silver is quite explicit about this, as I’ve been told), but again, that’s an unarmored form.

Actually, I can see doing crossed-arm techniques with the halberd much more easily than I can with the pollaxe since it was often used unarmored and because the tendency was to hold it closer to the butt end (as Mair shows it) than the pollaxe normally was (in single combat), however I don’t practice this form so take this thought with a grain of salt—it’s more like thinking out loud for which I have no evidentiary support.

As for the Duplieren with a pollaxe (and other plays you mention) , however, here you and I part ways: It’s not in the material, therefore as far as I am concerned it doesn’t exist, but as you said, we’ve already explored this huge difference.

Incidentally, to go back to your original post and my first response, I’d forgotten to list a spear technique: In Gladiatoria (fol. 1v of the Krakow MS) there’s an interesting play in which you start with your spear low and to your left, then slap it up and across to displace your opponent’s thrust as you drive your point home. The author calls this an “ausschlagen”, which term describes it very well. It reminds me of an Absetzen, but done with a striking action rather than a winding thrust. I’m in the process of revising my spear and halfsword book, and am excited to include this interesting and unique technique in the spear material.
Regards,
Hugh Knight
http://www.schlachtschule.org
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: General pinciples that can be applied to different polearms

Post by Roger N » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:39 am

No worries, it is easy to misunderstand each other when writing, especially when the language used is not the native language for one or both writers...

Also, my list actually does show what I think would be possible, based on what I have read of different weapons, but without decent references. So your initial response is fair. :)

I don't necessarily see a difference between zucken and duchwechseln, but both are mentioned by different masters in relation to different polearms. But, if we're to define a modern, comprehensive terminology perhaps zucken could mean changing sides and striking, and durch wechseln simply means to change side?

I don't necessarily disagree that Talhoffer's blossfechten polearms illustrations actually show techniques for use with armor. But they may show that it was practiced without armour which is interesting enough. It may also be that at times judicial duels were fought in blossfechten with polearms, even with pollaxes. It is hard to know for sure and I have seen references to much crazier rules and tools for duelling. The fact remains that the illustrations show blossfecthen and we really can't tell for sure what they actually imply, at least not at this stage.

However, I do admit that your reasoning regarding the Talhoffer manuscript is fair and logical. :)

Regarding Mair, it doesn't really matter how we regard and value his actual techniques. It is a historical document and techniques from renaissance fechtschulen are still examples of historical fencing, just as military sabre or bartitsu from the 19th century or even modern 40's military european close combat techniques based on asian traditions, for that matter. It doesn't really matters as much if it was "good" or "effective", but that it can be shown by proof or by logic to have been used at some point in European "history".

So, Mair is most certainly pollax combat. As for the others listed, they show halberd unarmed. Many sources are of course late, but it would seem as if blossfecthen was done with polearms in several renaissance fechtschulen.

The Ausschlagen sounds interesting and I will update the list. It sounds a bit like Streichen which I like to use with a longsword.

It would actually be interesting to create four lists as a community project.

1. What techniques are used in full gothic harnischfechten?
2. What techniques CAN be done in full gothic harnischfechten?
3. What techniques are shown in blossfecthen?
4. What techniques CAN be done in blossfecthen or with lighter, non-limiting armour?

Oh, and I really have to order a copy of your polearms book soon. :)

AND I really need to learn how to spell blossfechten and harnischfechten properly. The letters keep getting jumbled around...
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
User avatar
Hugh Knight
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:49
Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
Club:Die Schlachtschule
Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: General pinciples that can be applied to different polearms

Post by Hugh Knight » Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:51 am

Roger Norling wrote:No worries, it is easy to misunderstand each other when writing, especially when the language used is not the native language for one or both writers...
Thank you for understanding.
Also, my list actually does show what I think would be possible, based on what I have read of different weapons, but without decent references. So your initial response is fair. :)
Ah ha! Then we're back to the argument of using the arts we've been given as opposed to making up a new one (and yes, when you make new techniques you're making a new art).
I don't necessarily see a difference between zucken and duchwechseln, but both are mentioned by different masters in relation to different polearms. But, if we're to define a modern, comprehensive terminology perhaps zucken could mean changing sides and striking, and durch wechseln simply means to change side?
I think I may be misunderstanding you here. Who uses the term Durchwechseln to apply to poll weapons? Meyer's halberd material? If so, does he do it with a strike or a thrust? The only use I have seen of the word Zucken in relation to any poll weapon is with the spear, and there, it is clearly a thrust.
I don't necessarily disagree that Talhoffer's blossfechten polearms illustrations actually show techniques for use with armor. But they may show that it was practiced without armour.
Certainly everyone has to *start* learning the techniques without armor--that only makes sense. Serious practice, however? I don't think so.
It may also be that at times judicial duels were fought in blossfechten with polearms, even with pollaxes. It is hard to know for sure and I have seen references to much crazier rules and tools for duelling. The fact remains that the illustrations show blossfecthen and we really can't tell for sure what they actually imply, at least not at this stage.
I've not seen any evidence for unarmored pollaxe fighting, but clearly Meyer and Mair show unarmored combat with the halberd. For my part, having seen some of both systems, I don't consider the two weapons very similar, however much so they may appear to a casual look--for example, note that the halberd is usually (the only exception is, I think, Falkner) unarmored material while all the pollaxe I've ever seen (barring the debate about Mair) is armored.
Regarding Mair, it doesn't really matter how we regard and value his actual techniques. It is a historical document and techniques from renaissance fechtschulen are still examples of historical fencing, just as military sabre or bartitsu from the 19th century or even modern 40's military european close combat techniques based on asian traditions, for that matter. It doesn't really matters as much if it was "good" or "effective", but that it can be shown by proof or by logic to have been used at some point in European "history". So, Mair is most certainly pollax combat. As for the others listed, they show halberd unarmed. Many sources are of course late, but it would seem as if blossfecthen was done with polearms in several renaissance fechtschulen.
I hope I didn't come across as denigrating Mair's techniques--such was not my intent. Most of the material I have looked at in Mair appears to be taken directly from earlier Fechtbücher, and perfectly valid (although I've often wondered if Mair, himself, was a practitioner of any note or whether, like some people today, he focused more on the collection of such books than in the practice of their contents), historical material. What I was trying to say, however, is that I do not consider the Mordaxt material in Mair to be pollaxe material. He seems to use it more like a short halberd than like a pollaxe.

Again, I consider it important to view each weapon as distinct from the others. A pollaxe was not a halberd and was not used in the same way. You shouldn't just take a pollaxe technique and use it with a halberd.
It would actually be interesting to create four lists as a community project.

1. What techniques are used in full gothic harnischfechten?
2. What techniques CAN be done in full gothic harnischfechten?
3. What techniques are shown in blossfecthen?
4. What techniques CAN be done in blossfecthen or with lighter, non-limiting armour?
The only valid techniques are the ones shown int he Fechtbücher. We have no business making up a new art.

There are no pollaxe techniques intended for unarmored combat. There may be some spear techniques intended for unarmored combat (see Talhoffer's Ambraser Codex; I can't decide if the spear plays there are unarmored techniques or armored techniques shown out of armor), but the vast majority of sources (Ringeck, von Danzig, Gladiatoria, Jörg Wilhalm, Goliath, Codex 11093, Codex Wallerstein, and others) show *only* armored spear.

The halberd, the mordaxt and the pike seem to be shown out of armor.
Oh, and I really have to order a copy of your polearms book soon. :)
Well, if you get any of my books I hope you will let me know your thoughts on it.

But if you get my book, be aware that it only includes armored pollaxe techniques (although most of the pictures were taken out of armor--the heat in California is excessive for standing around in poses for hours, which perhaps also explains why some of Talhoffer's pictures are in armor and others aren't). It does not address the halberd or any other form of poll weapon. The spear techniques I have found are in my book "Fencing With Spear and Sword" (<http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-b ... bat/867431>), however, I am in the process of *completely* re-writing that book (and nearly doubling it in size), so I wouldn't get that one yet.

The pollaxe book contains more than 60 distinct plays of the pollaxe, so listing them would be difficult. For the spear, however, there are relatively few that can be documented:
1.) Winden
2.) Zucken
3.) Nachreisen
4.) Ausschlagen
5.) Shooting (the throw and rushing in)
6.) Ringen am Spiess--these come from Talhoffer's Ambraser Codex, and I really only focus on two for use when you get too close: the Back-lever Throw and the Knieheber.

That's it for spear on spear. Of course, there are a few techniques for spear on halfsword, but really, those are techniques for how to use the halfsword against the spear. Then there are five techniques for using a spear against a mounted man when you are on foot. There are some other general principles for the spear in Gladiatoria, but few of them are techniques, per se. For example, fol. 6r says: "Note the tenth technique: If he has dropped his shield and grabbed both his sword and spear together and thrusts at you powerfully and wants to work vigorously against you, then take your spear and shield together and confront him vigorously with strength and do this as long as you may." Not very illuminating.

Honestly, I believe there is little information about the use of the spear because it wasn't considered to be a primary weapon (although the lance on horseback is a very different animal). Most of the time it would merely be cast at the other combatant before getting down to the serious work at the halfsword. The reason for this, I believe, is that the spear is a fairly clumsy weapon for single combat because once your opponent gets inside your point with his sword you are at a severe disadvantage. In war it is a superb weapon used in line, but Kampffechten is a different matter. For this reason the masters give us a handful of techniques in case we want to surprise our opponent by using them--after all, if he hasn't practiced with his spear, assuming that it will be thrown as is the normal custom, then we have an advantage over him. But just looking at any Fechtbücher will show a *huge* preponderance of halfsword techniques, suggesting that this was the more serious portion of the fight. As an example, my new revision of the spear and halfsword book will have just the spear techniques I listed above, but it will have 71 halfsword techniques.
Regards,
Hugh Knight
http://www.schlachtschule.org
User avatar
Roger N
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:701
Joined:Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:13 pm
Weapons:Longsword, quarterstaff, dussack, dagger
Location:Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact:

Re: General pinciples that can be applied to different polearms

Post by Roger N » Mon Dec 21, 2009 1:16 pm

This conversation is getting a bit complex which is really interesting, but I am short on time. I will do my best to respond.

With regards to creating a new art we disagree as you already know, but for anyone else following this thread I will state my views here, once and for all:

There are at least two ways to approach the studies of historical combat, and we represent these two opposed views. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but both have valid claims for recreating historical combat.

First, your perspective, and do correct me if I am wrong here, relies on only performing the techniques that are seen or described in the manuscripts. From a strictly conservative pov you should preferrably choose a single master or masters that are very close in what they teach, thus not mixing time periods like the middle ages and the renaissance, or different contexts like armoured/unarmoured, fencing schools/one-one-one training, judicial combat/battle field etc.

Manuscripts in principle show only judicial combat or preparation therefore, or fechtschulen and thus should be practiced only with these contexts in mind. No conclusions can be drawn as to how combat was done outside of these contexts.

The great advantage here is that everything can be "proven" and validated with proper references to source material.

The disadvantage is that we have "broken dna" with which we cannot recreate a dinosaur and make it come alive. For instance, little is told of how to change sides, use of footwork and more. Fairly little tactical or strategical advice is actually given. We know virtually nothing about at what frequence we are "allowed" or recommended to use the different techniques, which leaves it open to define a wide variety of styles; some that rely on static guards and some that rely on constant motion. Some prefer fighting from specific guards, some continuous striking which makes winden hard, and others prefer remaining in bind and use various winden techniques. All of them or none of them may actually be 100% historically correct.

Many manuscripts are also ambiguous and different masters use the same terms with different meanings. This leaves gaps in the dna and we get an incomplete picture that limps a bit as opposed to a living, healthy predator.

As a consequence even fighting strictly from the described manuscript techniques is a choice and a new creation based on numerous extrapolations and quite loose ground.

On the other hand we have another perspective that relies mostly on the principles that lies beneath the techniques. The techniques are regarded as examples of applications or embodiments of the principles and these principles can be manifested in different ways.
From this pov, you constantly need to adapt your techniques to the context in which you fight; life-and-death or for "fun", armoured or not, indoors or outdoors, narrow or wide space, ground surface, single combat or multiple fighters, and of course your and your opponent's position in relation to your weapon's characteristics and position. As such there are no perfect ways to perform a technique other than hitting your opponent first, with intent and on purpose.

This perspective relies on logical conclusions and extrapolations and is as such a bit more vulnerable, since logic certainly isn't infallible and the great disadvantage here is that it may lead us astray at times and lead to various applications that has never been performed in history. However, as with all serious studies, such faulty interpretations will be revised continually.

The great advantage here is that you get a connected system based on principles taught by the masters that has been tried at full speed and with intent and works, at least under the context of recreational fighting. You can also experiment with other contexts like light armour, different combinations of weapons etc and try to draw conclusions of how fighting can be done in contexts that are not shown in the manuscripts.

Both perspectives are likely to contain misinterpretations due to the sometimes ambiguous nature of the manuscripts, but these can be somewhat lessened with comparative studies of the different masters. Still, both are interpretations and cannot in general be claimed as the "thruth" in capital letters.

Neither of these perspectives involve practicing with full intent or any "real" tests like using sharp steel with intent to kill or be killed or even "first blood" as has been practiced at least up until the 1960's and likely even later. None of us are prepared to take such risks. Both use weapon simulators and control to keep the opponent and ourselves reasonably safe.

Neither can claim a definite superiority over the other in regards to be closer to how historical combat actually was performed in the different contexts. Both perspectives lead to creating a new art, one that limps and has missing pieces, one that doesn't limp as much, but has a bit of frog dna... In fact, I would argue that both have frog dna to some extent.

Oh, and by "limp" I am not trying to insult in any way, only suggest that the fighting from the techniques described in the manuscripts gives an incomplete and highly personal interpretation and approximation of what this type of combat may have been like and that this leads to somewhat less adaptability and fluidity. But of course it contains a bit of evaluation, since it opposes my views. ;)

Finally, I will respond to a few other things you asked or stated:

Mair clearly uses the terms like "...wechsel im durch" http://freywild.ch/wiki/index.php?title ... r/Halbarte Can't remember if he prefers to use it with thrusts or strikes or uses it with both. I can check that later.

Zucken with the longsword, doesn't it in general refer to continuous striking? Please, remember that I am also speaking of defining a modern terminology for ease of communication here.

About learning techniques without armour, again if it was done historically, it is certainly also valid to do so today. Both bloss- and harnischfechten are interesting.

You are of course right about the pollax not being shown in illustrations in blossfechten. I sort of bunched together the spear and the staff vs halberd and pollax which is crude. I have little actual experience of pollax and halberd apart from reading, so I appologize.

I sometimes wonder about Mair myself... Especially when looking at combat with war scythes and small trees... :)

Why there is so little material on the spear is interesting. The spear clearly has a strong symbolical value since it was used to initiate a fight, both in medieval judicial combat, but also by the Vikings in line battle. Military terminology also refers to the spear as a symbol in different ways. On the other hand it was a simple and not "knightly" weapon and perhaps therefore not given any proper treatment in the manuscripts, especially early on when aiming at the nobility. Then again, various forms of spears and pikes were certainly used in large numbers on the battle field, even by knights, from what I understand, and at times even more than the use of the longsword. But, I bet this can be contested.

Then, in the Renaissance fechtschulen, the spear is taught with a staff, probably for safety reasons, which of course can quickly lead to various mutations. Also, I get the feeling that both Mair and Meyer is connecting their techniques to other polearms, without focusing properly on the characteristics of the spear. I even get the same feeling from Fiore.

Connecting different objects to a single system does not necessarily mean that you take proper consideration to the characteristics of each object and in this respect there might be inherent weaknesses to what is taught by some masters, and especially during the Renaissance. On the other hand there are strengths to such an approach as well.

Phew, I really have to put a limit on words per week here... :) Time to get my kids and go play in the snow.

Good talking to you Hugh. I really enjoy the fact that we have different views on things. It makes talking more interesting!

Oh, and I look forward to seeing your revised book on the spear and halfsword!
Roger Norling

Quarterstaff instructor
Gothenburg Free Fencers Guild

Member of MFFG
http://www.freifechter.com

Member of HEMAC
http://www.hemac.org

Chief editor HROARR
http://www.hroarr.com
User avatar
Hugh Knight
Instructor
Instructor
Posts:49
Joined:Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 pm
Club:Die Schlachtschule
Weapons:Grappling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, spear and pollaxe.
Location:San Bernardino, CA, USA
Contact:

Re: General pinciples that can be applied to different polearms

Post by Hugh Knight » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:49 pm

Roger Norling wrote: With regards to creating a new art we disagree as you already know, but for anyone else following this thread I will state my views here, once and for all:

There are at least two ways to approach the studies of historical combat, and we represent these two opposed views. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, but both have valid claims for recreating historical combat.

First, your perspective, and do correct me if I am wrong here, relies on only performing the techniques that are seen or described in the manuscripts. From a strictly conservative pov you should preferrably choose a single master or masters that are very close in what they teach, thus not mixing time periods like the middle ages and the renaissance, or different contexts like armoured/unarmoured, fencing schools/one-one-one training, judicial combat/battle field etc.
Exactly correct: My school uses the “dossier approach” described by Sydney Anglo to combine only Liechtenauer-related Ernstfechten sources. We take a *very* strict approach because doing anything else would cause us to create a new system of combat, which clearly and unquestionably ruins the whole point of practicing *historical* combat. We may look at later books for help with terminology or with better pictorial sources, but whenever these later works disagree with those of our primary study they are ignored.

By using this approach we can fill in many of those gaps of which you speak since each author gives a slightly different take on the same material.
Manuscripts in principle show only judicial combat or preparation therefore, or fechtschulen and thus should be practiced only with these contexts in mind. No conclusions can be drawn as to how combat was done outside of these contexts.

The great advantage here is that everything can be "proven" and validated with proper references to source material.

The disadvantage is that we have "broken dna" with which we cannot recreate a dinosaur and make it come alive. For instance, little is told of how to change sides, use of footwork and more. Fairly little tactical or strategical advice is actually given. We know virtually nothing about at what frequence we are "allowed" or recommended to use the different techniques, which leaves it open to define a wide variety of styles; some that rely on static guards and some that rely on constant motion. Some prefer fighting from specific guards, some continuous striking which makes winden hard, and others prefer remaining in bind and use various winden techniques. All of them or none of them may actually be 100% historically correct.
Sorry, Roger, but if you’re going to re-open this can of worms then I feel I must rebut!

Well, actually, we have a great deal of strategic instruction, it just has to be looked for carefully. Yes, there’s little information about footwork, but I take that to mean precise footwork isn’t that important (which is not the same thing as saying footwork is not important); many very old traditional martial arts aren’t as fussy about footwork as many modern arts are. For example, there’s almost no precise discussion of footwork in Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu, the oldest extant Japanese school of combat; they claim to prefer a more “natural” form of movement.

We are given the information about footwork we need to know. For example, von Danzig says of armored combat with the halfsword that:
“Know that in the fight there is nothing more than one step back and one step ahead and otherwise standing fast, onward so that one shall not become tired in the harness.” (von Danzig fol. 68v)
Of course, there’s slightly more to it than that; he occasionally talks about a step to the outside (e.g., in fol. 54r), but he’s usually clear about when such a deviation is called for, or else it’s inherent in the technique itself (i.e., it becomes obviously necessary as you work through the play).
Many manuscripts are also ambiguous and different masters use the same terms with different meanings. This leaves gaps in the dna and we get an incomplete picture that limps a bit as opposed to a living, healthy predator.
I believe that to be an overstatement: By sticking largely with a set of *linked* sources that confusion rarely happens. It’s only when people try to mix very different sources that this becomes an issue for the most part. So yes, Döbringer and Talhoffer call Alber Eisenpfort, but it’s easy to see it’s the same thing. But Meyer and Ringeck show the Durchwechseln quite differently (in Meyer it’s a cut, while in Ringeck it’s always a thrust), so those two systems, gross similarities aside, are very, very different when you get to the actual practice level and should never be combined.

When it came to pollaxe, for example, I would never have been able to interpret some of the plays in Le Jeu if I hadn’t looked at the pollaxe plays in Talhoffer (taking a page from Anglo’s article on Le Jeu, which is what gave me the idea to try that).

And if any gaps remain, so what? We don’t need to participate in life-or-death judicial combats any more, so a slight “limp” (and I believe it’s far less than you claim) is a small price to pay for practicing an authentic, real art as opposed to one made up by modern people who can’t test their art for real.
As a consequence even fighting strictly from the described manuscript techniques is a choice and a new creation based on numerous extrapolations and quite loose ground.
True, but not to the level you claim. And not *nearly* as much of a “new creation” as a system created by modern people doing undocumented techniques. I simply don’t understand how this can be anything but perfectly and obviously clear.
On the other hand we have another perspective that relies mostly on the principles that lies beneath the techniques. The techniques are regarded as examples of applications or embodiments of the principles and these principles can be manifested in different ways.
From this pov, you constantly need to adapt your techniques to the context in which you fight; life-and-death or for "fun", armoured or not, indoors or outdoors, narrow or wide space, ground surface, single combat or multiple fighters, and of course your and your opponent's position in relation to your weapon's characteristics and position. As such there are no perfect ways to perform a technique other than hitting your opponent first, with intent and on purpose.

This perspective relies on logical conclusions and extrapolations and is as such a bit more vulnerable, since logic certainly isn't infallible and the great disadvantage here is that it may lead us astray at times and lead to various applications that has never been performed in history. However, as with all serious studies, such faulty interpretations will be revised continually.

The great advantage here is that you get a connected system based on principles taught by the masters that has been tried at full speed and with intent and works, at least under the context of recreational fighting. You can also experiment with other contexts like light armour, different combinations of weapons etc and try to draw conclusions of how fighting can be done in contexts that are not shown in the manuscripts.
While what you say might seem plausible, it’s actually specious because you don’t know that a medieval master would look at a given made-up technique and say “Ha! We would never do that!” These systems of combat were designed by professionals who tested and refined their arts in real combat. We can *never* recreate that combat well enough for us to be sure what we’re doing is an adequate reconstruction, therefore we can’t judge the effectiveness of what we do, and thus it naturally follows that we should stick strictly to what we have been given.

If we actually fought life-or-death combats for real we might be justified in changing existing arts to meet what we found, but we can’t, so we aren’t.
Both perspectives are likely to contain misinterpretations due to the sometimes ambiguous nature of the manuscripts, but these can be somewhat lessened with comparative studies of the different masters. Still, both are interpretations and cannot in general be claimed as the "thruth" in capital letters.
Yes, but one approach minimizes such misinterpretations and adapts to change itself when new information comes to light, while the other revels in such misinterpretations and ignores what we *know* about historical practice.
Neither of these perspectives involve practicing with full intent or any "real" tests like using sharp steel with intent to kill or be killed or even "first blood" as has been practiced at least up until the 1960's and likely even later. None of us are prepared to take such risks. Both use weapon simulators and control to keep the opponent and ourselves reasonably safe.
Exactly, which is why we aren’t qualified to make up our own art.
Neither can claim a definite superiority over the other in regards to be closer to how historical combat actually was performed in the different contexts. Both perspectives lead to creating a new art, one that limps and has missing pieces, one that doesn't limp as much, but has a bit of frog dna... In fact, I would argue that both have frog dna to some extent.
That’s like saying a doublet made with hand-woven wool and hand stitching based on the Museum of London Clothing Book that’s been dyed using a process we can’t be sure is absolutely perfect but which is obviously pretty close is no better than a modern polyester doublet made with a sewing machine, plastic buttons and a pattern from a Ren Fair guide. Yes, the former may have slight errors, but it has been made with as much care as possible, while the other has been made with a “if they had it they would have used it” attitude and has not the slightest value whatsoever (not that your approach is quite that far out—I’m trying to show the contrast).
Oh, and by "limp" I am not trying to insult in any way, only suggest that the fighting from the techniques described in the manuscripts gives an incomplete and highly personal interpretation and approximation of what this type of combat may have been like and that this leads to somewhat less adaptability and fluidity. But of course it contains a bit of evaluation, since it opposes my views. ;)
No insult taken at all, Roger, you have actually been very polite—a pleasant change from what I usually find. I hope you recognize my comments are intended to be of the same tone.

But I would disagree with “highly personal”; to the extent possible, a realistic interpretation should match as closely as possible with extant information; any differences between two people are the result of honest differences of interpretation. This is quite different from someone who ignores the information we have and just does whatever he wants.
Finally, I will respond to a few other things you asked or stated:

Mair clearly uses the terms like "...wechsel im durch" http://freywild.ch/wiki/index.php?title ... r/Halbarte Can't remember if he prefers to use it with thrusts or strikes or uses it with both. I can check that later.
But that’s with the halberd, a weapon with which you can both strike and thrust, right?
Zucken with the longsword, doesn't it in general refer to continuous striking? Please, remember that I am also speaking of defining a modern terminology for ease of communication here.
Yes, the Zucken with a longsword is normally done as a cut (although von Danzig is less clear about this), however it’s very clear that when using a spear the Zucken refers to a thrust. Here’s what Ringeck had to say:
“When you thrust out of the lower guard and he sets it aside with his spear and his point goes past yours, then twitch through and thrust him to the other side.” (Ringeck fol. 90v)
About learning techniques without armour, again if it was done historically, it is certainly also valid to do so today. Both bloss- and harnischfechten are interesting.
I agreed earlier that you should start learning the actions of Harnischfechten out of armor, so you’re quite right, but I believe you extend that too far: There’s a huge difference between learning the movements of a technique and learning to use it. The former can be learned out of armor, the latter cannot.
You are of course right about the pollax not being shown in illustrations in blossfechten. I sort of bunched together the spear and the staff vs halberd and pollax which is crude. I have little actual experience of pollax and halberd apart from reading, so I appologize.
No worries. I just always want to make a clear distinction here because my studies have made it very clear to me that the pollaxe is a very different form from any others.
I sometimes wonder about Mair myself... Especially when looking at combat with war scythes and small trees... :)
Well, I’ve seen some *very* cool videos of some interpretations of the plays with his flail and “small trees”, so I don’t want to dismiss him, but I can’t help but agree with your doubts. As I look through is books I can follow some of his sections almost plate-by-plate the same as earlier texts, so it’s obvious from which Fechtbuch he took them (e.g., the sword and buckler plays that are exact matches to those in Jörg Wilhalm), but he *is* copying previous texts, which means he may not have understood them. For example, consider this plate from “De Arte Athletica II”:
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db ... ?seite=473
Note that it shows the combatants in full armor, when every previous source shows the bouts with the Langenschilt to have been done out of armor—in form-fitting leather suits, on fact.

Still, I have done relatively little study of Mair because he does not fall into the category of books I use, so I don’t want to push this idea too far. I think it needs some serious work, however, because too many people just take what he has in his books as gospel without applying the critical eye necessary.
Why there is so little material on the spear is interesting. The spear clearly has a strong symbolical value since it was used to initiate a fight, both in medieval judicial combat, but also by the Vikings in line battle. Military terminology also refers to the spear as a symbol in different ways. On the other hand it was a simple and not "knightly" weapon and perhaps therefore not given any proper treatment in the manuscripts, especially early on when aiming at the nobility. Then again, various forms of spears and pikes were certainly used in large numbers on the battle field, even by knights, from what I understand, and at times even more than the use of the longsword. But, I bet this can be contested.
And, in fact, I shall contest it! In fact, the spear is possibly the *most* knightly of forms, perhaps even more so than the pollaxe. What the Norse did with it is immaterial to this discussion since they predate anything for which we have documentation (in terms of techniques, I mean), however, knights used spears extensively in both single combat and in war. As I read accounts of foot combats between knights I find relatively few that do not mention the spear. Even some bouts that are really about pollaxes still start with a cast of spears.
Phew, I really have to put a limit on words per week here... :) Time to get my kids and go play in the snow.
There’s no such thing as too many words as long as those words contain honest, intellectual discussion, but there must be balance, too, and it’s nice to see you know how to give other things their due importance, too. One should always play in the snow! I regret moving to a place that doesn’t have it (although I don’t miss shoveling it).
Good talking to you Hugh. I really enjoy the fact that we have different views on things. It makes talking more interesting!
And I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to discuss these things with someone who can disagree without taking it personally or turning to ad-hominem attacks.
Oh, and I look forward to seeing your revised book on the spear and halfsword!
Well, I’m just finishing a 350-page longsword book (over 600 photographs!), but I’ve already started to take the photographs for the new spear and halfsword revision, and even done a bit of writing. I expect it will be a few months yet until it’s ready, but I’ll be sure to announce it on here when it’s ready.
Regards,
Hugh Knight
http://www.schlachtschule.org
Post Reply
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1275: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Return to “Open Discussion”