so that's why YOU keep bringing up swords/ "fencing techniques" when we talk about Medieval weaponry?
Yes. Because that's the only weapon where we have written evidence how it was historically used.
A weapon that was reasonably commonplace, the equivalent of the battle rifle of its time, as much as we can assume for times before mass manufacturing. Something like the spear.
Kind of like the halberd (but less exclusive because the physical requirements were lower), that was a specialist weapon. You couldn't put it in the hands of a peasant even if the costs involved allowed it (which they didn't) and even in the hands of Joe Schmuck Soldier it wouldn't have been used to full effect (even if the costs allowed it, which seems to have been true depending on time and place, but even then sword may not have equaled sword when it comes to quality).
Ok, so here we go, no escaping the halberd. First of all, that's totally your misconception that the halberd was a specialist weapon and wouldn't be put in the hands of peasants. There were many design variations, varying from place to place, which all operated on a similar principle, like the English bill. It was commonly used by militia and entire formations. If you ever wanted an example of a "go to" weapon, this was it.
As for reality, my idea of what a halberd really was and who it was used by already would make it very exclusive.
Ok, this one is gold. Do tell, what is YOUR idea what a halberd really was?
I am in fact contesting that anyone would seriously try to learn "how to take blows" with their armor.
Which means you need to do a bit more learning.
Let's imagine someone has to learn how to fight in close combat fight with Medieval weaponry: so there are blows raining down on you (in your general direction anyway). What are you going to do? You're going to try to dodge. It's the first thing a human being does when something dangerous is aiming for your body. Even learning to block with a shield must have been counterintuitive at first. And then you had to learn to decide in the blink of an eye wether you should try to dodge or try to block depending on the situation, maybe even coordinate the two. Enter armor. Armor is more of a last ditch defense when the more preferrable options have failed. Trying to gauge wether a blow coming at you from any kind of weapon could or couldn't penetrate your armor would have been practically impossible in most cases, unless your opponent's strength is already failing and he's hitting you in slow motion. All martial arts rely heavily on muscle memory and mind/ body connection. You don't want to condition yourself in the wrong ways, like in the example of that powerlifter you mentioned. And conditioning yourself to catch blows with your armor would have turned out to be a pretty big mistake very quickly probably.
Ah, and supposedly I am the armchair guy here.
No, your first instinct is not to dodge. The actual human reflex is to cover the area where you think the blow will land. And shield is actually quite simple - you present it in the direction of the attack and it does its job on a very basic level.
There's obviously much more to fighting with the shield than static defense: you can cover specific angles of attack, bash the weapon out of the way, etc.
When it comes to armor, the entire point behind plate is there are certain areas on your body that are outright impenetrable to some kind of attacks, and there are parts that are protected enough not to worry about jabs and glancing blows.
Stronger blows are telegraphed (that's how the body works) and can be anticipated, then you have split seconds to decide what you want to do about it, parry or get out of the way.
If the other guy wants to get past, he needs to aim for specific locations and employ specific techniques, as we established earlier. You as the armored guy can control the way you present openings in your armor to the opponent.
Raise your arm to strike, there's an opening right there.
This is what happens when you're learning to fight with armor, and working out what can hurt you is a big part of the training. Better do it then rather than figure it out in combat.
That might still be one minute too long for you to not get killed.
You may want to re-read what I wrote. A minute is an eternity in close combat, but the minute is what it takes to bleed out. The shock and pressure drop puts you out of combat almost immediately.
Yeah, "almost" being the key word, which is why you can't 100% guarantee results in combat. There were guys who kept going after being hit or shot multiple times, already dead, but that didn't get to their brain.
These were niche situations of course.
And then there's still the problem of doing it in practice. Two fighters facing each other with melee weapons; and now you go for the legs?
I'd say, killing the other bloke is awfully problematic in general. They tend to use armor, move about, not let you kill them.
Even if you had good reason, e.g. the legs being less protected, you'd put yourself in a very vulnerable position close to the enemy and beneath him with your head down. Probably a good way to get yourself killed as well even if you mortally wound the other guy. Unless you had way more reach with a spear type weapon; that would actually make some sense in very specific circumstances.
Again, how very armchair of you. No, you don't lower your head when going for the legs. You tend to have a 1m long hurty-stabby thing in your hands, it's as simple as attacking from a slightly different angle.
There's things like shields, armor and the opponent's stance to consider, sometimes a leg strike will be impossible, but that's fighting. You gotta work for effect.
Yes, how to kill the other guy without getting yourself killed is actually a big thing in close combat. There's a lot of "double kills" when you practice, and a big part of the training systems is how to strike while keeping yourself
relatively safe. That's the entire point behind the "fencing manuals" you mock, the stances and techniques. It also looks like you're close to figuring out why reach advantage is a good thing to have. We're making progress here.
I've discounted the abilty of spears to penetrate armor on the open field, but let's go with a hypothetical scenario: you have one line of infantry with melee weapons on one side, facing a line of infantry on the other side. However, behind line 1 on side 2, you have a line of spearmen, ready to jab at the enemy from the gaps between solders in line 1. Let's say line 1 is just bracing for an enemy charge with their shields, and the poor saps on side 1 don't get what we're up to. So they kind of crash into us, but our line doesn't break, we mostly just block them with our shields. So they fall back a step and then start whacking at line 1. That means… they're going to put one foot forward. That's how you swing at things for maximum momentum; doesn't matter if it's an enemy or a rock. So now, they have one thigh exposed and
basically pinned to the ground; a perfect target for a spearpoint coming down from above. Even if you just jab basically horizontally at the very upper part of the thigh… for all practical purposes, the femoral artery is
pinned against a wall
You can really lean into that jab to penetrate whatever armor there may be. And by aiming just at the middle of the very upper part of the thigh, you can be pretty sure to cut the femoral artery with a broad tip. And then the guys in line 1 just have to hold the other guys off while they're bleeding out.
A very specific scenario, but it may have worked (in fact it may have worked time and time again).
While it's anybody's guess how actually fighting in shieldwall and phalanx formations worked out, I'd say what you're describing isn't outlandish. You stab at what you can and hope to bring the other guy down. Then you do it again, until their formation collapses.
Btw the peroneal artery could only be "accessed" with a melee weapon if you hit a guy from behind... good ol' hamstring IOW. But probably not that practical on a battlefield.
It's not always about hitting arteries and killing the guy in one blow. These areas will A cut to the leg severely limits your mobility, which means the opponent now has one hell of an advantage and can do bad things to you.
Uh-huh... no nobles and no 'politics' before the 14th century.
and no longbows either O.o
bro. BRO.
BRO, are you high? The period of English longbow prevalence starts in 1250. 13th century. You can even find that date at the wikipederasts.
And "nobility" as in persons holding fiefs under vassalage. That's fucking Charlemagne. And "politics" was around longer than the fucking Roman Empire.
I was referring to the 100 years war, which seems to be the period "most" fantasy settings "tend" to model themselves after, nothing more.
I doubt nothing changed. Sword =/= sword and plate =/= plate, and those two didn't exist in isolation from other weapons and armor, from training, strategy and tactics. Duels were more or less regulated fights
(sometimes heavily so), in fact in many cases they were just matches. We can't just accept that that kind of thing is indicative of the reality of what happened on the battlefields.
You are right and this is a known limitation when researching historical martial arts.
HOWEVER, consider this, would folks bother to learn entirely new skills, not applicable elsewhere? Or would they use and adapt existing weapons, tactics and techiques when dueling?
Especially when we consider people who are expected to fight wars. People in the olden days tend to be quite practical.
Nobody claims the "reconstruction" is 100% accurate. People who do it will be the first to admit it probably isn't, but until you build that time machine, that's what we have.
I've already said I'm sure swordfighting =/= swordfighting for the entire length of the Middle Ages, but those changes would have occured slower, and we could say that the basic design of the (European) sword never really changed.
Depends on what you understand as "basic design". Yes, there was a handle, pommel, cross-guard and a blade. In this sense, all swords were the same.
On the other hand, if you look closely type XXII is an entirely different animal than type XVa when it comes to how it's wielded, what techniques you can use with it and what types of targets was it intended for.
