Prof. Luigi The lore is that he abuses his succulents in a most heinous manner. We have been lobbying for a cutting test... I mean swift and merciful death, for about a month now.
You probably dont give a shit but if you guys are stoned like me atm you can watch pretty much all of the new series on InstaFlixxer. Have been streaming with my brother during the lockdown :)
Hello, I am an American who has been looking into Early Medieval shield combat for the past couple years. I gave a 40 minute or so presentation at SON recently. I agree with you for the most part on the points you made in this video, and I appreciate the respect that you have shown us. I particularly think that the Early Medieval shield cannot be approached with a single source: we need to holistically compare different sources, from the early 14th to late 16th centuries. One point I want to make immediately is regarding your claim that we don't have any real sources from the period. In my opinion, the Sagas of the Icelanders count as a period source. Sure, they were written down later after the fact, but they were passed down from an oral tradition. However, as you said, we really have to take the best that we have, and the sagas describe several instances of combat, particularly single combat, with great detail. This can aid our understanding of the early medieval shield. I will give a few examples below. This quote here gives an account of the shield being used to strike and presumably disorient a combatant, Hakon the Good's Saga: "It was also but a short space of time before Eyvind did come up swinging his sword, and made a cut at the king; but Thoralf thrust his shield so hard against Eyvind that he tottered with the shock." Here is an account of jerking the shield to the side to deflect a spear, from Brennu-Njáls saga, chapter 145: "Kári Sölmundarson kom að þar er fyrir var Bjarni Brodd-Helgason. Kári þreif upp spjót og lagði til hans og kom í skjöldinn. Bjarni skaut hjá sér skildinum ella hefði spjótið staðið í gegnum hann. Hann hjó þá til Kára og stefndi á fótinn. Kári kippir fætinum og snerist undan á hæli og missti Bjarni hans. Kari Solmundarson came up to Bjarni Brodd-Helgason; he grabbed a spear and thrust it at him, and it hit his shield. Bjarni jerked his shield to the side - otherwise the spear would have gone through him." I have plenty more, but I think that's okay for now. The next point I would like to make is regarding your claim about size differences between bucklers and early medieval shields. Early medieval shields actually differed quite a bit in size. "Looking For the Evidence" by Jennifer Baker reports that Anglo-Saxon shields were as small as 16.5 inches in diameter, and that Vendel era shields were as large as 44 inches in diameter. 16.5 inches is actually fairly similar in size to larger bucklers. In my opinion, the existence of smaller center grip shields adds more credibility to using MS I.33, but I do agree that it's still "frog DNA," due to the varying systems of buckler in that period. Also, you forgot one source: Thomas Page's 18th century Highland Broadsword and targe. I have my quarrels with this manual, but if we are using Marozzo, then there can't be too much harm in using Page. Anyway, I appreciate the video, and I hope that we can talk later about this topic.
Patrick Tarzi Hi - in fact I had the sagas in mind when I made this video (and poems like the Battle of Maldon), but I do not consider these technical sources. What they describe are very very general - thrusting a shield at someone doesn't really tell you how to perform a specific technique, other than the general concept of thrusting a shield into someone. We don't know how it was done from the description. And it's the same for the rest of the saga narratives - they describe general actions, they do not explain actual fighting techniques in detail. Regarding the small early migration-era shields, yes they were sometimes as small as large bucklers, as mentioned in my recent long video specifically on that subject - however, the swords in use were VERY different, not to mentioned the very different context. There certainly may have been similarities between the use of a small shield in the 6th-11th centuries and a large buckler in the 14th-16th centuries... but we just cannot say that. I.33 is remarkably different to Marozzo, to how are we supposed to guess the similarity to systems from 500 years earlier? Very tricky. Lastly, I didn't forget Thomas Page, I deliberately left him out, as his use of the shield is very reliant on the presence of a large basket-hilt on the sword, in my opinion.
***** Yes, the Battle of Maldon is great reading, but like the sagas, it is not a technical source. It does not actually describe the detail of the techniques used. We could interpret these actions a thousand different ways in terms of actually putting a technique together. We don't even know if they used both edges of their swords, or what proportion they use the overhand or underhand grips with their spears. We know next to nothing about their footwork. We are totally in the dark on the most basic building blocks of martial art reconstruction. All we can really do is go to 14th-16th century treatises and copy those, but we'll never know how relevant they are to 500 years earlier.
scholagladiatoria Thank you for the swift response. Regarding the vagueness of the sagas: while thrusting a shield may have a few varying interpretations (I can see someone thrusting the boss or the edge, and it would depend on which bodypart you hit him at) not all of them are like this, as you suggested. The other example I provided is fairly straightforward, you simply turn the shield to the side to deflect the spear. There are plenty more straightforward ones. There is one from Grettir's saga where Grettir kicks someone's shield into their jaw. Another very straightforward one from Brennu-Njal's saga: "Sigmund drew his sword and cut at Skarphedinn, and the sword cuts into his shield, so that it stuck fast. Skarphedinn gave the shield such a quick twist, that Sigmund let go his sword." Here, Skarphedinn twisted his shield to disarm Sigmund's sword, which was stuck in Skarp's shield. It seems pretty clear what happened, and there's little room for interpretation. One other thing regarding vagueness: some of the manuals we study are incredibly vague as well, such as MS.I33. I have seen so many stichsclac interpretations that I am not even confident in my own. This is all we're given, including a picture which I can't post here: If Halbschild is adopted, fall / Below both sword and shield. If he is a common fencer, he will strike to the head, / Then you should apply stichschlach, The point in me bringing up I.33's vagueness is to argue that vagueness isn't a reason to disregard a source, unless it's so vague that you couldn't possibly replicate the technique. It simply means that your interpretation will be weaker than interpretations of more clearly written techniques. Regarding the time difference between Marozzo and MS I.33, and arguing the same difference between I.33 and the Viking age, this depends on if you think that I.33 was a single document with no oral history to it. I believe that Roland Warzecha argued that I.33 was the final documentation of a 100-200 year old tradition. You can read some of his argument here on Dimicator: facebook.com/266934476773420/photos/pb.266934476773420.-2207520000.1429903264./587398594727005/?type=3&theater I do sort of agree on your opinion of Thomas Page. But then again, Marozzo also has pretty complex hilts, so where do we draw the line?
***** Problem is the scene you just quoted is pretty Hollywood, haha. "The Battle of Maldon" also describes Byrhtnoþ being hit by a javelin, a lad pulling it out and throwing it back, killing the Viking that threw it originally. Let's not forget it's literature, written by someone with non-professional and non-specialized knowledge of warfare.
Hurstwic here in the US, you can see their RU-vid page. The gentleman who does this wrote an interesting book about Viking combat, too. He is based in Massachusetts. I have had the pleasure of meeting him and studying a tad with him. It is, in fact, his life's passion. You two would get on well together, I imagine.
In my opinion, the best way to address this issue is by sparring a lot and thinking about the bio-mechanical aspects of using various different techniques (like Roland says many times in his videos). In this video you say that there are many different school of sword and buckler fighting, with very different techniques. I think it must have been that way as well in Viking times. They will have trained with each other a kept what worked and discarded what did not work. It would not surprise me if they actually learned by doing as Roland and the other guys are doing now, rather than creating a fixed canon of moves (as the treatises).
CarlosJoachim I agree, their training probably mostly took the form (as in India) of sparring with shields and sticks - a sort of game of tag (or fencing in other words). Most fighters in that era actually had no armour and certainly wouldn't have had any protection for sparring, so they probably used sticks instead of actual weapons (as described in later medieval period and in Africa and Asia). There may have been tribal/local 'styles', passed from individual to individual. This is of course ultimately how you end up with certain weapons types being associated with certain tribal groups - for example the francisca and angon being associated with the Franks.
is it possible there is no 'wrong answer' in that there never were actual major schools of Scandinavian and Germanic martial arts (viking and or saxon) but rather the techniques were simply taught one warrior to another based on skills and experience. and if thats true then perhaps region by region and even village by village martial arts forms styles and even philosophies could be even wildly different.
I think the best place to look for those styles of fighting would be basic bio mechanics. These are the same for us as they were for the Vikings and Saxons. Try to create the sword and shield martial art from these principles and we are very likely to come to the same conclusions of what works in a fight / duel and what does not. We can also look at the aforementioned i.33 and similar treatises and work backwards. That is to say, "where did this technique evolve from?...Is this technique perhaps a modification of something that was practical with a larger shield??"
+Ant. Exe you're right, as far as 'good techniques' (not everyone during this time would have been using good form) then as now there wouod be different skill levels and with no standard form, different approaches good and bad (bad eventually dying off and good perhaps becoming the later martial arts we do know about. but again even within those parameters there could be many variations. 'whatever works' yes?
Basically, using the gear to the best of your knowledge will most likely be "the Viking way". Many vikings preferred axes, while swords were traded or looted from Franks and was more a symbol of status and prosperity along with mail and a fancy helm. Roland Warzecha uses the shield offensively, or pro-active, which seems very effective. Not only for duel combat, but for the focused warrior, it would be very effective in melee charge (surprise) attacks which is the most common Viking strategy. Hacking down routed enemies doesn't really require a whole lot of weapon skill either. Vikings noticed once they settled in Ireland, that they didn't really have any edge over anyone in regular (not ambush) warfare.
While that is likely true it is also likely that warriors would adopt similar fighting techniques independently just because they work. The battlefield is one hell of a selection protocol where ineffective techniques would be eradicated and the victors spread their superior techniques.
I would say the same is such for anything that has been attempted at recreating when any primary source has been lost. For example Greek Fire. It was said to be able to burn on water and not be extinguished by it, it was sticky and so on. The exact composition has been lost to history. However with the developments of napalm we may have actually managed to recreate Greek Fire but we will never know if we succeeded completely as it is easily possible that there was either one composition or many. Also great reference to Jurassic Park and the frog DNA.
themastermason1 there was no primary source to be lost in a first place, because there was no standard system at all There were no guys who were good with the sword trying to earn cash by selling books, because: A) 99.9% of populace were illiterate, including the sword guy B) social structure at that point in civilization could not support something like that. Also remember the "masters" who wrote all those treatises were snake oil salesmen, and its because you canot make a fighter, you are born as one. If you are not born as fighter, i.e. have certain physical and mental traits, no amount of training with that master will make a beast out of you, and if you are born as fighter, then you only need to have interest in fighting, exercise it, no need for master, because if person is naturally good at fighting, he will learn on his own most of the stuff, and what works best for him What organized training can do is provide you some routine, stuff that can help you train, and willing sparring partners.
Mr.Fox This is the argument of someone who cannot be bothered to study or be taught. Some of the best fighters I know were very much not natural to it - they learned - and some of the most natural fighters I have known never achieve the top levels because they are rubbish at learning.
scholagladiatoria If you are denying that person requires a talent to be fighter then you are not honest. To draw you a parallel, let me ask you, how much study and thought is required to make an opera singer out of the person who doesn't have a voice for it, nor proper hearing to get tonality right? yea, it will end up catastrophic, so no, like with the case of opera singer, you cannot make a "sword master" out of somebody who doesn't have natural potential for it. If you dont agree with this, then you are utopist
Archeology has provided several sites of mass graves. Almost all of the released articles have described head wounds. This might be due to the easily identifiable skull bones where a thrust between the ribs or soft tissue would be less visible upon discovery. Also the discovery of multiple head wounds upon monks by Vikings may have been the result of the monks kneeling immediately prior to their deaths. It does however show that the raiding Viking had a learned behavior pattern of striking a fatal blow to the top of the head rather than slicing through the neck.
It's called basic statistics. A serious head wound is more likely to kill you. Therefore, people that got hit in the head are more likely to end up dead and in mass graves after battle.
I think that its also reasonable to assume that there wasn't "a way that early swords and shields were used". Much like medieval sources vary from region to region, earlier period techniques probably varied even more. So modern reconstructers of the techniques are probably all essentially correct, but we'll never know where their technique was used, as it were. It's pretty redundant worrying about how "correct" your reconstruction is, because theres only so many ways to swing a sword and shield around - and they probably went through them all back in the day.
***** We know for certain, that the main tactic of Vikings was to form a tight shield wall formation. How many of those guys actually used a sword doesn't matter that much. We know Vikings used swords and axes and we know, they were really good at using their shields, as pretty much every single one of them carried a shield into battle.
How much of a "fighting system" was there anyway in the 9th century, among vikings? Or others? Where there places where groups of people were trained by a single "master", or did all training occure "on the job", with occasional one on one pointers by the more experienced men? I don't mean they did not have sparring sessions (if only to pass the long, boring winter time between raids, in the case of the vikings), but did they then learn "a system", or did they just try out tricks on their own? If you look at a modern sport - take rowing, because I am familiair with that - you see that even within a club, different coaches develop different styles over quite a short period of time (like 4-5 years), and the "common accepted optimal style" (and the way we teach it) changes over about a 10 year period. And that is with a centralised system, written texts (and video's of races), lots of discussion and a general agreement that at least within the country we should use the same style (because that is needed to be able to compete internationally).
Ejd Twaalf Even within a given tradition, there are still variations. The different Fiore manuscripts don't completely agree on what the twelve guards are.
Ejd Twaalf No, there was never a system or a master or anything like that, not according to any sagas, those who were better at it just survived duels more often and that's pretty much how the bad weeds got picked out.
Ejd Twaalf Vikings fought with closed shield formations. The rowing analogy is good. It doesn't really matter, how they fight as long as all the fighters use their shields the exactly same way. So really, you learn from more experienced fighters and go from there. Even if you somehow were really good at fighting before joining, you'd still need to pick up the same shield techniques, the rest of the group uses.
Jacob Butterfield people now like to look at one aspect of something and accredit to the whole. Hell, they paint the Church as the "Bad Guys" when it comes to Christoper Columbus when in fact...the Church was right.
DushinSC Fun note: The Church only didn't like them because they weren't quite bloody or random enough and one of the guys got to live. They prefer the old burn or stone anyone involved and then forget to ask questions later.
Of the Viking sagas that have been written down, they do have things like the names for certain swords, which while they might be total fictions, could inform how they were employed somewhat. For example one sword was named "Foot Biter" Which might imply that attacks to the legs were common. It's not much to go by, but any port in a storm...
If you ask me (and I'm no expert, so take it with a grain of salt), I think the biggest fallacy with attempts at reconstructing these techniques is that historians have to start with the form to come to the function, while the people fighting back then were doing exactly the opposite. A sword is a sharp bit of metal for cutting people, and a shield is a solid piece of something or another to prevent the other guy's sharp bit of metal from cutting you. That's all combat started as, but different tribes/regions/cultures/what have you developed different ways of moving the sharp bit of metal and solid bit of something, and their designs evolved to fit those styles better. Some made their solid bits smaller so they could move faster, some made their sharp bits longer so they could hit harder and reach farther. The exact techniques were probably whatever you could do most effectively, and they differed depending on whomever was teaching the soldiers. I mean, that seems kind of obvious, but I find it odd when these experts get so bogged down in finding "the right way" to use a sharp thing and a hard thing that they forget that's what they are. There's no magic formula that's the perfect, infallible method of using them. It's just iron, wood, leather and glue.
I totally agree about the point that it's hard to compare sword&buckler with viking age round shields because of the size.Just one wrong off-step and your jaw will be broken by a viking round shield - just because of it's size, compared to a buckler.
This is interesting to me because I suspect it will be an example of the further we go forward the further we can look back. What I mean by that is advances in archaeology and technology, and future discoveries of source material will no doubt lead to a better set of answers for the questions presented. Even if we don't find a book, we will eventually have VR to draw on. Eventually the patents will expire and and w'll finally start getting real mass deployment of the various technologies that will lead to full body gaming which no doubt will be pounced on by the reenactment crowd. And their quasi-practical experience will lead to consensus because a VR battle potentially at least has more room for accuracy than real world reenactment because in VR you can indeed dismember your opponent. Robotic combat could do the same thing. (Or a combination of them by proxy.) So long as the robot is programmed to respond the way a person does. That response will of course by ever better informed as medical understanding expands. This is one of the things that I suspects makes the study of history a living field. There's always new tools being developed. And there will always be more to learn and more opportunity for learning. Just sometimes we have to wait :)
We can't wait to get hold of our shields and give this a go. Learning through doing seems the only way forward in this case. Plus a huge amount of sword and shield fighting would take place in the shield wall, so guessing that would be a whole other discipline with more thrusting and low cuts. Matt, such an admirer of what you do and hoping to follow similar path along a slightly darker and murkier road. Any advice or feedback would be very much appreciated.
I point 33 is perhaps one of the earliest records for use of sword with shield, that includes sword and shield, albeit a buckler. dating back to at least 1270's in the Norman Period. a system used by European Monks ironically. other than this we would actually have to piece together evidence found in the Viking Sagas. which themselves have generally been set down during the later Viking period. I certainly would not discount i.33. mainly as if we consider the way the Anglo Saxon Sword and Viking Sword is made, with a large end pommel and a small cross guard, barely larger than the extent of the fingers on the hilt, lends itself more to keeping the hand in, or close to the back of the shield, much as is done to a great portion of i.33. This technique encourages using the sword and shield together in close proximity and encourages using the sword hand to turn the shield or to work behind a shield that can be turned. therefore helping protect the hand. This would allow the shield itself to become an offensive weapon as well as a defensive. encouraging edge on shield usage as well as front facing usage. There is pictorial imagery of Roman and late Roman period shields, not only scutum, but also oval and Round. so Early evidence is there. Add to this the Gladious and Spatha are not too disimilar in design to Anglo-Saxon Saxon and Viking Swords. Yes, the weight distribution and dimensions would be different. So to say that the only evidence comes from 15th and 16th Century period only is slightly defeatest. imo.
I cant help but feel, that the best way of recreating this art is by trial and error, seeing what works and what keeps one from dying, is probably what they used because they also killed and prevented their own deaths, since we have weapons to work with, there should be no problem.
+charlie white + we have sagas which, hardly being "fighting manuals", yet do mention several typical techniques. Also, if I recall correctly, an average viking raider hardly had a rigorous and systematic fencing training, so the chances are good an average viking-era re-constructor is on somewhat equal footing with a period fighter. Thus, trying is imo the best way xD
+Kashak666 Actually the scandinavians of the time(remember being a viking is an activity, it's not a people, they were norsemen, danes and swedes.) had multiple styles of wrestling which were commonly taught from childhood. They also contained armed techniques utilizing weapons. Glima, the historical wrestling/martial art of Scandinavia was employed by vikings to great effect so an average re-enactor would be a far cry indeed from a viking period fighter. Any fighter really. Not to mention wrestling was the most popular sport of the time here in the north(as it was in many, many ancient places), so even many homebodies like farmers and craftsmen could grapple men to the ground.
+Blueswailer Scholars generally use the term "vikings" and almost any historical work focusing on that time will treat the subject in the preface. Not disagreeing with you, jus' sayin' :D
Tony D Of course scholars use the term 'viking' ? Sometimes it's appropriate. Like when talking about vikings. :D I'm befuddled as to what purpose your comment has. Any scholar that uses the term incorrectly isn't much of a scholar though. I just find it funny how many people think "the vikings" were a set people living in a set area like they'd talk about sarmatians or scythians for example.
There is some Viking age sword and shield combat reconstruction here in the US, one organization doing this is Hurstwic. Not sure how they compare to the people you mentioned, but they seem to have done a decent job of it.
In trying to reconstruct systems without treatises, how important is it in your opinion to "prof" one's ideas in period clothing, armor and, in particular, footwear? I imagine using a sword and sheild in sweats and trainers won't bear much relation to padded armor or chain and leather soled shoes. Especially in sparring.
Hi Matt, nice video with a lot of good points mentioned. But I would like to leave three comments: 1) I see your illustrating example for a reason for duelling where it becomes very clear in which situation this might be possible. However, recently I read a dissertation which researched the use of duels in medieval times and the circumstances under which it appeared. From there I took the point, that the example with brothers fighting each other is a not-so-well-chosen one, as typically direct family members (brothers, son and father etc.) were not allowed to fight each other in a duel. Typically, when there were problems between those people they would need to find a delegate for them. This might be more important for families of "higher birth" (to not destroy completely an for the society important family in the worst case), but might also be true for the normal citizen. Do you have any specific information on this point? 2) Of course, a buckler and a boss-centered shield are quite different objects and the use therefore should in fact be in huge parts different. However, as both typically have a central boss, techniques involving getting my boss over the opponents one and press his shield against his body while striking at him with my sword will work with both a buckler and a shield. But in this case its just because buckler and shield have some same characteristic which makes a transfer relatively easy. You just have to be careful about how far your transfer is applicable. 3) I think the differences in how to use your buckler with a sword between different treatises is also mainly due to differences in the used swords. While an early-medieval arming sword typically has smaller crossguards, the later ones often had a wider crossguard and even later the sideswords are again different because of knucklebows and finger rings. Therefore, the use of your buckler needs to be more hand-protective in early treatises while this isn't so much necessary in later treatises, which reflects in the fencing which is taught.
Thomas Heydenreich Hi Thomas, thanks for the thoughtful input 1) No I don't - it's not a subject I have read a lot about at all, I was really just making the point that these dueling shields are for commoners and high status men fought in armour generally, 2) I agree, 3) Maybe you're correct, though Marozzo's sword only has finger rings and if we look at 14th century Italian art then we can see the same stances being used. It appears that there were at least two quite different systems for using sword and buckler, even in the 14th century - one where the buckler stays near the sword hand and the Italian system were the buckler is held out in the centre line. This results in quite different fencing styles, yet they are essentially using the same weapons.
Question for you Matt (or anyone else who knows): Were norman style "teardrop" shields ever held with a center grip as opposed to a strapped design? I ask because I am nearly done making such a shield and am curious as to its historical accuracy.
ARR0WMANC3R en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kite_shieldI don't know how accurate this article is because it lacks any citations, but it seems to be sensible and follow other articles/books I've read, at least on which grip type is used.
Hansl Lavenburg Well, I guess that answers my question with a "no." From my experimentation, the problem with making a shield with a center grip in any shape other than round is that the center of balance (where the shield is gripped) becomes lower the longer the shield becomes, which becomes somewhat strange to hold. My shield is essentially a circle of about the same size as matt's shield with a point extending downward, and the center shifted down several inches to account for this balance issue.
Yeah, the round shields with center grips allow it to be held with distributed weight in any direction/position. A teardrop or kite would be very unbalanced if held at the side, I'd think it would have to be held with the grip pointing upwards all times.
***** here's a picture of the general design of the shield (note I have not installed the center boss yet nor finished the outer rim) for a more clear idea of what I mean imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img673/5361/FMbz9i.jpg
I think it is up to us to start writing our own sword and shield treatises. They will all be different, depending on the place and time they will be written.
***** Someone stating bluntly that Talhoffer is bullshit or who teaches awfully wrong interpretations of Fiore, not to mention his own contradictions about viking combat, cannot be taken seriously. And I know the guy in the flesh, attended (me or friends) some of his classes... Besides, saying that a treatise is "wrong" because the technique has evolved doesn't make sense, since the treatise was written in a given CONTEXT, before said evolution (of course in a given context, some treatises are better than other, but then one have to define "better"). And it happens that a treatise (or its trancription) is wrong, because of stupid mistakes like writing left foot instead of right, it happens rarely and can usually be easily corrected.
A billion dollars and a few thousand people and you could figure out every possible effective movement with the weapon set and use that knowledge to create incredibly plausible systems. It's so simple I'm surprised no-one has thought of it yet.
While trial by combat was indeed rare in german law areas and british isles, it was much more common in medieval Hungary. I don't know it's entire evolution, but from 1300 to 1400 at least, you had several people per town who made their living by going into it in place of the actual parties. Sadly, only sources I have on that are written in slovak...
I'm not a HEMA fighter, but I am an epee fencer. There is an epee "system" that we are taught by coaches when we first take up the sport. Someone who had no training would get easily beaten by someone with some training, so there are obviously some techniques that have to be learned. Once you have learned the basics however, everyone develops there own unique style. My point here is where do you draw the line between difference in technique, and differences in style? I think form follows function, there is going to be a most effective way of using a particular weapon. I think if you get a bunch of guys together and spar against each other long enough, you will eventually develop the same techniques as the guys who used these weapons 1000 years ago. There has to be a "best" way to use them, it would have come about thought trial and error 1000 years ago, you would probably reach the same conclusion if you did it today.
Minute Man The problem with only sparring is that we are unable to determine what possible wounds might be dealt and how such wounds would affect the combatants over time, without risking permanent injury.
How reliable a source would you consider the Norse Sagas or other oral traditions that have been written down? In some cases they do describe the fighting in some detail.
When the hilt form of the Viking sword began to change (i.e. the crossguard became longer and more protective), the shield also changed, didn't it? Was that because their forms depended on each other? Was the center-grip round used to protect the hand, as we see sometimes in I.33?
Just a quick question. Are there manuals from the Roman times concerning the use of shields? I am not talking about the rectangular shield classically associated with the legions and their use in formation, but the eliptical sheilds used by the auxilaries. Do training manuals exist from the Roman era?
You mentioned shields that were strapped to the arm as opposed to being held by a handle in the boss. To go off in a tangent, I am wondering about the character Jaime Lannister in Game of Thrones who had spent his entire life sword fighting and practicing sword fighting until his hand was cut off. Assuming that he wished to continue, what would be practical options? Obviously he could try to learn to fight left handed but assuming that he was born right handed, there is always going to be less capability with that hand no matter how much he trains. That suggests that he might want to use something like a shield that was strapped to his shortened right arm or perhaps something like that Indian gauntlet sword that you made a video about some time back. In any event, injuries like the amputation of a hand must have happened when swords were regularly in use. For those rare individuals who did not bleed out or die of infection, what were there options for armed combat? Were there sword prostheses made? Have you had amputees in HEMA and if so how have they worked around the issue? Just to mention it, I'll point out the chainsaw that Bruce Campbell strapped on to replace his amputated hand in Armies Of the Dead and the fitting that Merle Dixon had that would allow him to attach a WW I era Lee Enfield bayonet to his stump in The Walking Dead. Those look cool but I question their real world practicality.
Mark Kelly The best option is to learn with the other hand instead. I think the implication with Jaime Lannister is that he'd become an expert with his right hand over the course of about 20 years. So it would take years for him to become competent with the left hand. However, most people can achieve a fair degree of competence with a sword, with either hands, in a couple of years. If they have the available training time.
Is Ahmad ibn Fadlan a useful scource? His was the work "Thirteenth Warrior" was based on. I imagine some Roman scources would be useful as Celtic/German sword and shield use would not be vastly different even though much earlier.Also is there no Scottish Targ and Broadsword scource? (I know some targes had as many as three handles/straps but it could still be relevent)
This may be a silly question, but wouldn't countries that used be long lived empires such as China and Lan Xang not have treatises (or something similar) on the use of similar shaped shields to that of early medieval times? What about the Western African kingdoms or Ethiopia? I seem to recall seeing many late 19th/early 20th century photographs taken by colonials of warriors or soldiers with shields akin to the one you have in the video, but I may be mistaken.
I know that I am coming late to the discussion and I apologize if someone else already made this comment. As far as I understand in the 8th and 9th centuries there weren't really uniform martial arts schools in Europe (especial not in Scandinavia). I may be wrong but it seems that warriors of that epoch most often learned their swordsmanship from their fathers and so every household was it's own little martial arts school. Also add to this how isolated most people were with no mass communication it seems likely that if you studied 50 "vikings" you would most likely learn 50 different ways to use the same weapons. The up shot of this being that any reasonable way that you could use a "vicking"s" weapons is probably historically correct.
Your understanding of how it's very dependant on what genes from each creature is present within the creation, "underlines" what you will have "repurposed". A note, if the scientists knew the purpose of each section of genetic code, and what step each cascading event preceded (holy huge amount of trials) they should have the knowledge of what the "sex change" genes entirety is. Buuuut that seemed so far fetched in 1995, and is still largely far fetched because of the lack of immediate monetary gains these strenuously long studies would achieve. Sooooo many hours from thousands of people would be necessary. And an astronomical amount of funding. :) computers are really fast at gene sequencing, but humans are still needed to note the effect of each gene, and follow the "crumbs" to fruition. To get to the nitty gritty, thanks for producing a workable thought line for me :)
I'm not sure if you're aware or if it's mentioned in other comments, but karate has the same type of problems when it comes to what different movements mean. Modern traditional lineages often are many different training exercises (kata), which were created by many different people, but were lumped together to form larger systems for various reasons (sport, cultural, etc). The obliteration of almost all historical texts on Okinawa during World War II, the politically driven changes to karate before World War II and the change in emphasis from empty handed survival fighting to aesthetics, sport and spiritualism have for the most part destroyed the original meanings of these training exercises. Hence, endless and fruitless arguing on who's doing what right, or the "true" way even though we have no real way to know what's what.
In your mind this period sword is not a "civilian" weapon? So shield and sword combo was a somewhat primary battlefield setup? Because that introduces the biggest difference with later source. People would be wearing armour including helmets and perhaps mail gloves? This all completely changes how this weapon was used. Also shield had to protect you from arrows and Javelins so it has multiple functions as opposed to later dueling
One thing that botter me about topics where there are treaties. Many people tend to refere to them wish is not a bad thing. but they tend to be like "THIS is the way it was done. we have proof of it" and then they consider other ways to be "wrong". Just because there are a treaties about it that show a specific way that does not meen it was the ONLY way it was done. But some people seems to belive so. even whe there are other treaties that show other techniques. they go "No thats wrong. look at treaties x it show it was done THIS way"
Reddokk Fheg I totally agree, however I can see some times were "THIS is the way it was done. we have proof of it" makes sense. For example to confront things like "European swords was dull, and was not used to cut with". On an unrelated note, how are you still alive? I though you got your head smashed in months ago. =)
gurkfisk89 yes sometimes it can be very good with trieaties. and even say this is the way it was done. but not always Haha no i havent heard from him since my last post. And even if he had visited me he would not be able to crack my skull trough a plate helm with a wooden sword :)
Reddokk Fheg Have you ever paid for sword lessons? How do you know whether your teacher is qualified or not? If they can reference a treatise it gives them legitimacy. I'd reluctant to pay for sword lessons if the teacher didn't have some source text or treatises.
N Arri offcourse someone teaching swordplay should have a treaties tofollow. atleast if what he teaches has any sources like that. For example someone teaching longsord should have atreatise he follow. But if he is teaching vikign sword and shield. there is no treaties about it. but even if he is teachign from a treaties he should not claim that its the only way to do it :)
That attitude can lead to a lot of injuries though. For example If tried to throw Matt in a way he was unfamiliar with I could easily give him a serious injury.
I wonder how much attention is paid to the differences between battlefield combat and single combat or duelling when researching these techniques? I'm sure there are very important differences to consider between the techniques used in, say, a shield wall, and those used in judicial combat. Any comments on that?
will we ever know how they fought.? mental attitude! no modern mock fighter is actually trying to kill his enemy...safety for your enemy seems a ridiculous concept for life and death fighting as it was in those days. my main question is...how to identify the enemy when the battle becomes scrambled. no uniforms. did they wear an arm sash or something like that. also how do you guard your back from a sneaky attack? do you buddy up? and look to each other's safety? do you shout and identify yourself? and how to decide on your next, or even first, target...any thoughts on r e a l practical fighting to the death, I mean friendly fire type mistakes and the psychological effects of extreme danger and violence?
When a person fights in a real life or death war situation, the only desire is to survive and be in a one piece intact to go back home. That would be how it would be/should be fought( put yourself into another person's shoe). Re-construction of the sword and shield combat movements would be the same in modern times as in ancient times. Humans living in ancient times are no different than humans living in modern times for cherishing what are important: survival, health, plentifulness, happiness, love etc.,If all they have are cold weapons(no fire arms), and they have to fight a war,the desire of any person to survive and go home in one piece is the same for ancient times as for today regardless of race or ethnicity. Therefore, if there are two persons in a fight, both persons firstly should have enough protections equippments put on( for safety purposes, also with enough safety equippments on, both persons could try everything and throwing everything he/she could to another person without reservations in order to win and end the fight),then each person should have the thoughts(as realistic as possible) that he/she has to fight as hard and as brave as possible and use every technique and tricks as possible to stay alive and win, so that either one of the fighters would survive and go home, the survival for the fittest, with that imaginations on mind, then you would finally and gradually bits by bits collect some useful techniques and tactics by trial and error and experience as time added on. Real fightings movements for survival are not movie makings or fight choreography( in real life or death fights, only the practical and useful movements are selected).Fighting for survival is a deep desire for any normal person to survive and to go home and stay with the family members and loved ones, nothing more , nothing less. The characters and basic desires for humans through out thousands of years of history have not changed. ( if you discover some fighting movements by experimentations which would help you to have better chances to survive and win, those fighting movements or techniques or tactics would be most likely used by ancient people as well). Is it called reverse technology ? Sorry for the long writings, humble opinions. LOL
There's a lot of natural sword&shield you can assume, just from the mechanics of using a sword with a shield. I assume you built on that in your reconstructions.
I apologize if you already addressed this in the video- but I was curious, what are your thoughts on reverse-engineering Triangular heater shield and sword fighting through reverse-engineered round-shield and sword fighting and I.33? Would you say this is still along the lines of just "Hey we'll never know?" or is it just going too far?
Matt, I'm having my own reconstruction issues at the moment. Now, with your extensive experience handling antique swords and studying archaeology, if you see a sword described as follows: "...it was thus named because there were in it small beautiful hollows [app. meaning small scallops in the edge, such as some modern swords have, for the more easy cleaving of coats of mail..." What does that mean to you? Cheers in advance!
I've always seen shields as a offensive weapon just as much as a defensive weapon. you can punch with the boss, you can close in and push/shove the opponent off guard. Shields work great (my opinion) with an arming sword. a short sword is great too because it's easier to cover your small jabs to protect yourself and even hide you blades position behind the shield. Are you going to do a overhead chop? A slice from a outside swing (not recommend) or a under thrust or a shove with the shield followed my a stab to the stomach/ groin area. idk but I've spared and found what works best for me.
+Joshua Walker Try shield-edge bash in the neck-forehead region with almost any follow-up with a sword. It does wonders, even if the opponent attempts to block it with his shield)
+Joshua Walker Just, _please_ make sure your partner's helmet is sitting properly... In case of a bad\loose fit it can result in bloodied\broken nose. Not implying anything, just I will not be held responsible for any injuries xD
+Cameron Nedland Yes, all of the above! There are combat treatises, mostly with weapons, from Persia, Egypt (Mamluk era), Turkey, China, Korea, Japan and elsewhere.
Matt mentions a online resource which attempts to hold all the historical texts on fighting in one place.. but I cant find that video now. Can anyone identify what I'm on about and send me a link please?
This guy does not age. I looked at his first video, Matt easton. I looked at his video in february 2018, matt easton. There is something going on here...he is probably much older then any of us can imagine. Think about it. He is the period source! He is the book! The resource guide! He cannot escape the conspiracy!
Very interesting video, more on the subject from you would be great! I do have a question about bashing with the shield; why do many SCA and HEMA groups prohibit bashing with the face of the shield? I can absolutely understand how bashing with the edge could be quite dangerous depending on where the hit occurs, but I've never understood why using the face is mostly not allowed. The combat group I belong to doesn't allow using the edge, but it's completely acceptable to bash with the face and we've never had any injuries due to using that technique.
Daniel Thompson I don't know the answer, but I would guess it's because if you allow shield bashing at all then it's too easy for 'accidental' edge bashes to occur.
scholagladiatoria Yes I suppose that would be an issue, I think the only reason we haven't had any problems with the edge rule being broken is due to us being a very small group and a close knit community working on a good honour system. Thank you for your input and for posting such excellent videos
What about archaeological sources? Battle damage on skeletons from the time are often found on the head and lower extremities. We know from historical sources that the shield wall was the preferred battle formation. Does that not mean something when extrapolating possible techniques?
Macki eaze Yeah, sure. It tells us that shields are good at protecting the middle-height and that legs and heads are vulnerable. In fairness though, this is the first thing you notice in the first 5 minutes of trying to fight with sword and shield. It's not really enough to build a fighting system out of. But it is better than nothing :-)
Matt would you please answer my questions : 1) Are there any similarities between cavalry swordplay of the medieavl era and that of the 19 th century ? 2 ) If we put a 19 th century skilled swordsman like William Hodosn in a medieval cavalry mélée ( mid 13 th century ) do you think he can survive ?
1. Yes. The way of using most types of cut and thrust swords from horseback did not change much 2. If we're talking the archetypical armored medieval cavalry, then Hodson's unfamiliarity with riding and fighting in heavy armor would put him in quite a big disadvantage.
Thanks a lot Jhon. So we can say that Hodson is at disadvantage because he does not wear armour not because of the superiority of medieval men (example : Mamluks or Knights) in cavalry fighting ? What if we change context and put Hodson in Egypt 14 th century mamluk training maydan ( where armour was not generally worn) do you think he can hold his own in such a situation?
Military saber Hmmm, the Mamluks still generally wore some kind of protection though, even if it's just a helmet and a thickly quilted jacket usually had by junior mamluks, actually most would wear a mail hauberk or a lamellar jawshan in battle. And even when they were out and about daily they would have worn a many layered turban and carried a sturdy shield, which provided a very significant level of protection. The last level of protection was quite common for 19th century native Indian horsemen though, so Hodson would be familiar with such an opponent. Given that Hodson was an unusually capable horseback fighter and he'd likely faced such level of protection back in India, I would say he would still stand a chance, although I would be a lot more sure if it's a one-on-one fight rather than a melee, where you will often have to face multiple opponents at once and the usefulness of armor is very much increased due to the greatly increased likelihood of chance blows landing. Against just one opponent of average skill Hodson might actually stand a good chance, even if the former be well armored. As a Napoleonic era maxim say: "A poor swordsman who is a good horseman would have the advantage over a good sworsman who is a poor horseman."
John Huang Very informative thanks again :) In fact i asked this question because i always felt that medieval cavalrymen (particularly Mamluks) are far superior fighters to 19 th century cavalrymen : the elite cavalrymen of that day were trained to use a variety of weapons from horseback including :lance , bow , sword , dagger , mace , battle axe and finally wrestling whereas 19 th century were either trained to be swordsmen or lancers. Appreciate your answer , many thanks Mr Jhon :)
That one sword in the backround keeps distracting me cause I really want to know what happened to the cross guard. That one quillion looks damaged (the upper one).
It is also very difficult to reconstruct how the Longsword was used by people besides the Germans and the Italians. Because the shape of the sword and the design of the guard alters the way you use the sword slightly, but it is a factor.
Josh Campbell Not sure I understand your point here. The German and Italian longsword sources are very detailed and well-understood. We know several distinct historical systems for using the longsword. We might not know longsword systems from France or Sweden, but so what?
scholagladiatoria It's a different fighting system, there may have been different context in how they applied the use of a similar weapon and how their own variations on the Longsword can alter how you fight with it. And I just mentioned it because I have been mulling it over since I have been trying to learn how someone would use a Claymore. (The two handed Scottish sword it's easier then saying the full Gaelic name.) As it is partially different from other Longswords and Greatswords, as well as from what I understand the Highlanders and the Gallowglass had different circumstances that may have altered their fighting style from their German and Italian counter parts.
has anyone looked at bones of people who may have died in that period and reconstructed the fighting style off of the damage that was delt to individuals in combat?
+simmons865 it would be difficult to tell what injuries killed a person and what occurred after death, think about how many people would get trampled after dying in a shield wall. Or what if some was killed by a lucky unskilled fighter
+Brian F People can say Roman numerals however they like. If people get pedantic, just point out that it should be One Point Thirty Three in that case. If you're going to call the Roman i as a verbal 'one' then why ignore the decimal point?..
Why would we even assume that there was some sort of universal way of using weapons in that time (obviously swords were used similar to other swords and so on), wouldn't it be much more sensible to assume everyone used his/her weapons the way he/she liked it?
scholagladiatoria Can one use wounds from epic battles to see usual cuts and deaths? will this be a way to discover how people dies, and how these were inflicted?. i realize one can check bones, but yeah? :D
Forgive me if this is stupid, but isnt it possible to work out how the weapons were used from a exploratory point? If i am given a knife, i will probably figure out what the most effective way to use it is within about 100 hours of use. All over the world people are learning the most effective way to shoot with a pistol, stand still and hold it in both hands, and im pretty sure they could do that without a guide. So maybe what im asking is, if you were given enough time and able fighters, would you be able to replicate the best way to fight with a viking sword and shield, to essentially replicate a treatise?
Lars Egner If martial efficiency was the sole criterion, this would be a valid approach. Alas, this is not so. Please refer to my according comment below, where I try to explain why any martial art can only fully be understood in its historical and cultural context. So in order to reconstruct a historical combat system, you have to face the challenge of researching context first. I will give you an easy example: When I learned martial arts, one of my instructors, who was working as security personnel, said that we should avoid hitting someone in the face with a fist. He said that we could almost just as well transfer impact energy with an open hand. The reason for his advice was that at court, according to his experience, it makes a huge difference if witnesses say that you hit someone with a fist or if they say that you just "slapped" him. As Rory Miller pointed out in his most excellent book "Meditations on Violence": (Almost) all violence follows rules. These rules depend on many factors. So efficiency, while very important, is insufficient as a sole criterion for reconstructing - or understanding - a martial art.
Roland Warzecha I see what you are saying, but in warfare are people worried about the perception that they kept themselves alive by using the most efficient means. Maybe people should not look at rules / martial arts as a way of recreating the past fighting. Would King Harold put people on trial from his shield wall for hacking at peoples calves because "it was not the done thing" even if it worked/broke the opponent and led to victory ? Have we let the man made conventions / medieval chivary / officer fair play / and Martial arts ramanticism and rules cloud views on efficient simple fighting to survive. I would imagine during the Iron age / Early centuries AD that they would do what worked best. Put a few dozen people with shield and weapons together they could probably work out what works and what does not pretty quickly - there would be no reason to hold onto techniques or ideas that do not produce results.
When I mentioned cultural implications in martial arts, you have to understand that this does not mean this fighting art is inefficient. Of course self-preservation always comes first and a martial art that does not live up to this requirement is useless. But as enthusiasts of military history and historical fighting, we tend to believe that physical efficiency is the sole criterion for a fighting art. By and large, yes. But this never was the full picture if you look closely. Not even today. So I never said that cultural implications would remove the most important premise of survival and prevailance in fighting. I was just trying to convey that there are certain details that are more difficult to understand for anyone who does not come from that particular culture, and this is what makes it most challenging to reconstruct historical martial arts. Of course, changes of weaponry and the respective fighting arts, as well as martial cultures did occur in history repeatedly, but they do not come overnight. Any change of a given technique needs to be trained for a long time before you can trust that you can pull it of when you need it. The way you train is the way you fight. So if you practiced combat in a certain martial culture, this is what you will apply in a true fight. The idea that you could simply change a particular technique during any one fight and come up with a better solution just like that is totally theoretical and ignores that conditioning is a pre-condition to fighting with expertise. And replacing intuitive responses by martially sound ones takes years. Changing what you have trained in the moment of combat will definitely lead to defeat in almost all cases. As for your last assumption, that putting a few dozen people together and have them experiment will quickly yield useful results, I am afraid to say that this is a complete misconception. To master any complex physical activity takes years, even if you have good instruction. Does anyone really believe you could hand a total beginner skiing equipment and he will quickly figure out how to win a championship? Hope this helps to clarify.
It sounds to me like the obsession with teaching trial-by-combat techniques despite their rarity has some parallels with modern "self defense" classes. Both were rarely used even by those who trained at the associated skills, but provide a context with which to justify weapons training as a civilian.
I have a great topic for you to cover next.. What if we could (in fantasy)rain 100-200 of our soldier (let say uk or us) in medieval fighting system, for 6 month to fight againts viking that trying to raid english settlement in 8-9th century period.. With or without using our modern metallurgy..
tane gurnick are you kidding?, not even close, they weren't close to as dominant, on top of that considering that most Vikings couldn't even afford a sword and some were throwing rocks.
IVscythia I don't think so - one is flat, the other is curved, one is the full height of a man, the other isn't, and also importantly the Roman scutum grip is 90 degrees in a different direction.
IVscythia One late period scutum found was: *105.5* x 41 x 30 cm (41 9/16 x 16 1/8 x 11 13/16 in.) That's a liiiittle bit smaller than the dueling shield.
Get historical type gear and practise practise practise and then use your brain n body. Like you said: It's exprimental, we don't know since it's to few historical facts.
No matter how much you practice, your tactics might be obsolete compared to actual historical martial arts, it's like saying that you need to try reading Korean over and over instead of actually LEARNING the basics of Korean.
The trial by combat video sounds interesting.. I imagine it would have to be pretty serious to risk your life for something.. a normal fight sounds better.. a bit extreme.. plus not many cases you would have both sides wanting to do combat I would think.. like your brother might want to kill you for sleeping with his wife.. but I don't see you having much motivation to kill him in return.. unless it was something like the winner gets the girl.. but that's pretty fucked up and sounds like a movie plot lol. The plant is gone! my god that was a sad plant lol.
Actually you don't need books for sword&shield techniques. You have roman and greek tactics still employed by todays' riot police. For romans -basically move as a group, make noise, shove the shield in the opponent's face and stab whatever body parts are left exposed with a short sword. Greek ancient combat arts, in particular, are preserved -they involved shield grabbing, pivoting and generally wrestling with your opponent, using the shield as much as a weapon as the sword. I saw a documentary some time ago by a greek historian showcasing that, and I doubt he just invented it on the spot.Other cultures preserved their techniques even more, through traditional schools - if you are referring strictly to shield and sword, you have India and south-east Asia in general.
