burrows@ts1.DEC (Jim Burrows) (04/10/84)
I'm bothered by some of the recent messages concerning two-weapon fighting. They seem to represent some missunderstandings of combat as practiced in the real world. > It is far easier to wield two weapons whose method of attack is > far different, than it is to wield weapons that are the same. This > is why using two lances, is patently rediculous, but using Rapier and > Main Gauche (left-handed dagger), is well known. Actually, the fact that lances are designed to be used braced from the back of a charging horse has a lot more to do with it. If you meant spear, you might care to observe that fighting with two spears is an actual African and Asian style. Also, the method of attack with rapier and dagger is as similar as is possible given the difference in length. Actually, come to think of it, I realise now that it is simply > stabbing weapons, that cannot be used well in florintine mode. However, > florintine style is not as effective as most game systems (most notably > Rune Quest) makes it out to be. (Two florintine attacks are not as good > as single attacks, with two individuals). Huh? Florentine in common usage refers to the simultaneous use of the rapier, a predominantly (in later years completely) thrusting or stabbing weapon and the poiniard or dagger, a stabbing weapon. As to the effectiveness of two florentine attacks, while it is true that one can not easily do two successive full extension lunges, the maximum damage attack for a thrusting weapon, the close-in upward dagger thrust can be quite devistating in effect as it can allow one to bypass the opponents ribs, an otherwise moderately effective natural aromor. In addition the effectiveness of a florentine facing a single-weapon opponent can be signifigantly enhanced by the difficulty of parrying two attacks with a single weapon. This should probably be reflected by a diminished parry-chance or an increased to-hit, rather than in increased damage, but what the heck, it more-or-less balances out in the end. > The reasons for fighting florentine and for fighting with rapier and > dagger are rather different. Attacks made while fighting florentine are > made primarily with the edge of the weapon, perhaps trying to cut through > armour of some sort. The style of rapier and dagger came with the demise > of plate due to the long-bow, the cross-bow, gunpowder or the pike, > depending upon which author you read. When fighting with rapier and dagger, > while the point is faster than the edge, you cannot hope to penetrate much > in the way of armour. Furthermore, to use the dagger, you must face your > opponent, and present a larger target area! Ah, gee fellows, the florentine mode IS rapier and dagger, and thus quite similar to itself. In that style one primarily attacks with the point rather than the edge. Beyond that, the point of a dagger or a stiff sword straight sword such as the small sword and most rapiers is one of the most effective attacks against armor, inferior only to modern fire-arms, the long bow, heavy crossbow and pole-arms of the class of the Lucerne hammer, all of which represent high energy thrusts with the point of a very narrow weapon. The invention of the lunge and the use of the triangular cross-section small sword rank along with the causes of the demise of armor you listed. Beyond which, armor wasn't used by people on foot nearly as much as by those who had mounts to carry the weight. Fencing in it is a horrible idea. The use of a dagger does not preclude use of side-on stances. I've seen both a left-sided and right-sided form used. In the one the dagger is held in a position similar to regular single weapon fencing, and the sword over the head point down at an angle, in the other the sword is held as usual with the dagger close in by the body. In this case the dagger is reserved for times when the opponent is well within ones gaurd. Lest one get too caught up in the notion that two weapon fighting is predomanently done withthrusting weapons, the Japanese had both two sword and sword+dagger styles based on slashing/cutting weapons. Not using the tip, they did wear a moderate amount of armor even when unmounted.
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (04/11/84)
> Actually, the fact that lances are designed to be used braced from the > back of a charging horse has a lot more to do with it. If you meant spear, > you might care to observe that fighting with two spears is an actual African > and Asian style. Also, the method of attack with rapier and dagger is as > similar as is possible given the difference in length. Yes, there is such a style. However, you are forgetting to make the distinction between a short spear (2 - 4 feet), and a long spear (5+ feet). Even so, I do believe that the African spear style is not all that popular, because it is not all that useful: (specifically there is no effective way to block an opponents weapon, if the weapon is longer than your spears). > Huh? Florentine in common usage refers to the simultaneous use of the > rapier, a predominantly (in later years completely) thrusting or stabbing > weapon and the poiniard or dagger, a stabbing weapon. Nope. Not the way I've heard it. What you are talking about is usually called 'rapier & dagger'. This style is a later day fencing technique used mainly against unarmored opponents -- IT is NOT (technically) florintine, since the dagger is more of a backup weapon, and parrying tool than anything else; another popular technique along the same line was 'rapier and cloak', the cloak being a heavy cloth with which you would attempt to entangle your opponents blade. (This, by the way, is where we get the turn-of-phrase "Cloak and Dagger", since this period also spawned the most polished court intrigue). Florentine, most correctly refers to a technique for two swords (broad, short, or hand-and-a-half). In this technique, the two swords are held pointing straight up in front of the wielder, offset from each other. > In addition the effectiveness > of a florentine facing a single-weapon opponent can be signifigantly enhanced > by the difficulty of parrying two attacks with a single weapon. Absolutely true, if the weapons are not spears, and one weapon is not longer than the other. Of course, in classic florintine, this is not the case. > Beyond that, the point of a dagger or a stiff sword straight > sword such as the small sword and most rapiers is one of the most effective > attacks against armor, inferior only to modern fire-arms, the long bow, > heavy crossbow and pole-arms of the class of the Lucerne hammer, all of > which represent high energy thrusts with the point of a very narrow weapon. > The invention of the lunge and the use of the triangular cross-section > small sword rank along with the causes of the demise of armor you listed. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time taking this seriously. You obviously have never tried any of this yourself. If you are around the bay area, I ask you to get the longest, strongest, most triangular rapier you can find, and try to stick it through my coat of plates. If you are not, go to the local SCA chapter and try it out with some other volunteer. No doubt you will be gravely disappointed. (This armor-piercing idea is not a bad one, even if you have slightly misplaced it: \maces/ were often adorned with 3 - 5 inch spikes, of exactly the kind you discribed. This did penetrate the armor, since there was the force of the mace head backing up the blow.). As far as the demise of armor is concerned, I believe that this was an effect of the improvement of the effectiveness of missile fire, and its rate of speed: specifically the English long bow. Since a soldier can carry only so much, it became more effective for him to have a large shield, than to be heavily armored. Even then, most army officers had at least a breast plate, when going to war. > Beyond which, armor wasn't used by people on foot nearly as much as by > those who had mounts to carry the weight. Fencing in it is a horrible idea. True and not true. First of all, no "fencing" was ever done in any of the heavier forms of armor, since it was not invented yet. This did not preclude normal fighting. As far as the 'armor is so heavy' argument, this is only true for the 16th century, full articulated platemail. However, even that is an incorrect example, because by that time, such heavy armor was totally outmoded and only used on tourney fields, and for decorative purposes. The real reason battle armor was not used, except usually from horse- back, was because it was so expensive. Thus, anyone who could afford it, (i.e. nobility), usually could afford a horse, and a couple of varlets as well. In addition, though heavy armor is not tiring over the short run (within 30 minutes), it could get to be a pain if you had to hike around in it. Steven M.
drforsey@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Forsey) (04/14/84)
Don't be too sure of your plate armour protecting you from a
triangular blade. To be of any use at all armour has to be
articulated, leaving weak points that are usually covered by chain mail.
The triangular blade of which you speak was purported to be
particularly effective in penetrating chain mail. A thrust to
the neck region using a broadsword might do little damage (unless
it crushed the larynx) but the triangular blade would bite deep.
The armpits are also particularly vulnerable because of the
proximity to several large viens and arteries.
Steve, for a one-on-one competition I believe I would accept your challenge
and do it essentially un-armored and use the advantage in mobility
to get to your weak points. (Your newsitem seemed to imply I get one
free stab to try and get through your plate.... hmmm what kind of helm
do you have? )
Of course in a melee the situation is drastically different,
a row of advancing juggernauts in full plate would be a formidable
sight and would effectively negate the mobility advantage of a
less armoured opponent.
This is where the improvements in missle fire makes the
difference and that probably makes it the biggest factor in
the demise of heavy personal armour.
Armour of the Maximillian type had the fewest of these areas,
for you historians, can anyone tell me how prevalent this armour
was or how effective it could be?
This is an open question to all SCA members on the net, in the
mock fights you stage how important is mobility over armour?
It has been said that a sword fight should not last more than a
few seconds (10-20) or everyone involved doesn't know what they're doing,
personal experience has led me to believe this is true but what have
others found?
Even though this is net.games.frp I would appreciate direct
experience accounts rather than a theoretical extrapolations of AD&D or
Runequest.
Dave Forsey
Computer Graphics Laboratory
University of Waterloo
Waterloo Ontario Canada.
{allegra,ihnp4,teklabs,watmath}!watcgl!drforseysteven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (04/16/84)
> Don't be too sure of your plate armour protecting you from a > triangular blade. To be of any use at all armour has to be > articulated, leaving weak points that are usually covered by chain mail. > The triangular blade of which you speak was purported to be > particularly effective in penetrating chain mail. A thrust to > the neck region using a broadsword might do little damage (unless > it crushed the larynx) but the triangular blade would bite deep. Alas, this is not the case. Usually the coif of the helmet hangs far down over the breastplate, which totally blocks off any blade penetration. > The armpits are also particularly vulnerable because of the > proximity to several large viens and arteries. Yes, and no. Yes, in that almost all effective armor did not have fully articulated armpits (though this problem was finally solved), no in that no one EVER based a combat strategy around it. Let me ask you a question.... have you ever tried to hit someone in the armpit??? DO you know how difficult that is to do on purpose?? > This is an open question to all SCA members on the net, in the > mock fights you stage how important is mobility over armour? It is a myth generated by non-SCA types, that says that armor restricts mobility. IT DOESN'T. NO IT REALLY DOES NOT RESTRICT COMBAT MOBILITY. (though I will admit tying your shoelaces can sometimes be a problem). What armor DOES do, is tire you out. Not in the short run, but over any long period of exersion. > It has been said that a sword fight should not last more than a > few seconds (10-20) or everyone involved doesn't know what they're doing, > personal experience has led me to believe this is true but what have > others found? I have heard of a fight between experts reaching 15 minutes. This is amazing, considering that they were whaling away at each other for that time. (Fights actually take longer, because, just like boxers, there is time spent 'feeling you opponent out', making feints, etc.). Steven Maurer
scw@cepu.UUCP (04/17/84)
>It has been said that a sword fight should not last more than a >few seconds (10-20) or everyone involved doesn't know what they're doing, >personal experience has led me to believe this is true but what have >others found? >Even though this is net.games.frp I would appreciate direct >experience accounts rather than a theoretical extrapolations of AD&D or >Runequest. Well the longes duel fought lasted ~20 years (two French Cavalry officers started a duel in 1800 and finished it in 1820 <See \The Duelists/>) I would suspect that a real sword fight would last much longer than 10-20 seconds probably on the order of 1-2 min (this interpolated from several years of fencing). -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-locus location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"