I watched the first of 5 hour-long episodes of this series on the Military History Channel (http://www.historychannel.com/military/) last night. It focused on the sword as used in the War of the Roses (15th century England). Future episodes will cover other weapons, including the spear and longbow.

An expert in historical swordsmanship, whose name I did not catch, hosts the show in a way that is reminiscent of the History Channel's Conquest but with much more of a documentary flavor and less of a reality-show flavor. In this episode he discussed the types of swords, the need for strength and flexibility in a sword, sword-making, tactics, and so on, with an emphasis on tactics, and also described a particular battle in great detail (the 1471 Battle of Barnet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barnet)).

A group of his students were trained in the use of the sword. It was interesting to see the techniques. One thing that was very noticeable is that they assume the use of a gauntlet, for they grabbed their own blade constantly for pommel-strikes and the like. Also, they were taught stances, then basic strikes, then they drilled in a standardized pattern that, in my opinion, could only be termed a kata. The instructor felt the pattern was important for ingraining the techniques and the transitions between positions/stances/guards. It could have been a Japanese martial art, based on the training methods!

Of course they practiced techniques in pairs as well. There was a segment on swordfighting from horseback and they drew extensively from certain old swordfighting manuals (though no English swordsmanship manuals from that period survive, they said).

They showed some historic swords, and tested swords against one another in cutting and thrusting practice (on a block of clay), and against a helmet. Since armor was worn, the sword was effectively a bludgeon rather than a cutting weapon. There was also a segment showing in some detail the forging of a layered sword. Seeing the twisted form that would be heated again, and seeing how it lead to the pattern on the sword after etching, was fascinating.

The battle itself--and why it lead to such a preponderance of swordfighting rather than artillery/archery carrying the day--was covered in detail, including the motivations of the opposing armies.

I really enjoyed this show, and am looking forward to further episodes.

Sounds like an interesting program. Sometimes I wish I had cable...

I've seen few episodes, one on the crossbow, the english long-bow and once there was one about armour. Pretty cool program, I like that short british dude who hosts it, I believe his name is Mike Loades. From what I understand medieval martial arts are creating a big buzz in europe, France, the UK, Italy and Spain are being flooded with books,dvds, and tv shows about such disciplines. I remember when I was growing up there nobody was even talking about medieval combat execpt form maybe once in a while you could of attended some kind of battle re-enactment (hope I spelled it right).
Now they have actually schools and all, and not just about historical fencing styles but about all sorts of medieval martial arts I didn't know existed (hell in places like Rome they even have schools about "pugilatis caestis" and "gladiatura" schools inspired by the old days of the Roman Empire).

All good stuff, let's hope someone comes out with a program about north american martial arts taken here by the early settlers, or american afro-diasporic martial arts and stuff like that.

Ah, yes--Mike Loades is the person who hosted it. He also briefly interviews swordsmakers, other sword experts, and museum curators.

It sounds like it may have been a longer-running series, but I understood that only 5 episodes were to be broadcast as part of this run.

Hmmm, a web search turns up a good thread (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?mode=hybrid&t=141789) on this series on a bizarre racist site ("Stormfront Town Hall & Radio - with David Duke 9am EST"). There's a great close-up of a pattern-welded blade there, in between ethnic insults...wow, what a bunch of nutjobs.

Anyway, I digress...he also did show some empty-hand defenses, some of which seemed to assume that you still had at least the gauntlets and possibly armor on but had been disarmed.

Here's a link (http://www.blueyonder.co.uk/blueyonder/getContent.jspx?page=418307&group=wd_filmstv) to a story about the series. Here's a link (http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/Demo.htm) with a video featuring Mr. Loades, The text refers to the (two-person?) pattern drills:

Loades' sequence is intended to be a choreography/stage combat exercise, which is essentially how we presented it. When we use it as a parade (kata) we change the spirit of it a bit. The fundamental difference between a parade and choreography is one of intent. Choreography strives to create an effective illusion of danger and dramatic tension, while maintaining in fact maximum conditions of safety. With a parade, the objective is to execute the correct form, in safety.

One practical effect is that all blows in choreography are either out of distance or misdirected by a fairly wide margin; blows in a parade are either in distance or potentially in distance, and on-target but pulled or misdirected by a narrow margin. In the sequence most attacks are done in distance but we do a few stage combat 'cheats' - on the belly cuts the blade is pulled back as a safety measure.

I posted here (http://fmatalk.com/showthread.php?p=2517#post2517) about the second episode (on the longbow) that I watched last night.

Another post in that thread suggests that the swords discussed above may have been sharp only for a short distance near the tip, so that one could grip the shaft of the blade safely (a "half-swording grip").

Another post in that thread suggests that the swords discussed above may have been sharp only for a short distance near the tip, so that one could grip the shaft of the blade safely (a "half-swording grip").

This is true traditionally of Chinese straight swords as well. They were apparently very sharp at the tip and for the first six to ten inches, then it became less sharp for about the next third of the length, with the last third of the blade near the hilt dull and thicker, perhaps even unedged, mostly used for parrying without having to worry about damaging the edge. It sort of becomes a flexible and very sharp dagger on the end of a long handle.

I appreciate these posts. I have an interest in the weaponry both of Asian fighting systems, but also European medieval weaponry. Maybe I can find these on DVD someday.

I posted here (http://fmatalk.com/showthread.php?p=2670#post2670) about the spear (and lance and pike) episode. I would've liked to have seen a comparison to the Chinese or Japanese spear! But, this series is about English weapons usage.

I taped this when it aired last summer. Excellent series, IMO. I've played with a few of the things he demonstrated, wish there was someone local who did the European arts.

There's an SCA group, isn't there? Didn't Tim Hartman play with them for a while to learn some fencing?

I am enjoying the series. It also drew in my wife and my son, so it isn't just for martial arts enthusiasts. He weaves in the history too.

I'm inclined for something more 'authentic' without the "role playing", no offense to any SCA folks reading.

Those shows leave a bit to be desired in many respects, but still, overall they are a decent effort in my opinion. Anyone wanting to learn historically-accurate European Swordsmanship, check us out at www.thearma.org (http://www.thearma.org)

I taped this when it aired last summer. Excellent series, IMO. I've played with a few of the things he demonstrated, wish there was someone local who did the European arts.

ARMA NYC
Louis Leibowits
lgl.id2@verizon.net

ARMA Staten Island, NY
Roger Soucy
info@arma-si.org (info@arma-si.org)


ARMA Northern New Jersey (http://www.armastudy.org/)
Gary Gryzbek
SirgarethI@aol.com (SirgarethI@aol.com)

Cool. Thanks Shane. That's closer than I thought, unfortunately still a bit of a haul. Will check em out though. :)

I'm inclined for something more 'authentic' without the "role playing", no offense to any SCA folks reading.

No offense taken. Actually, SCA is supposed to be more historical, not role play, but seems to be inundated by newbies playing fantasy and not doing research. Check individuals in your local SCA, some may be very learned. There are smiths here, for example, who have made gorgeous layerd tools-hammers, knives etc, not just etched. Also, there are folks learned in the eras combat. I see many in the fencing sport that are really outstanding. The "heavy weapons" folks, or "stick jocks" are less historical due to necessecity for safety and their desire to "play" their "sport". Bottom line is to look and listen and decide on the individuals for yourself, they can be a great resource.

http://www.maisters.demon.co.uk/

This is a great show. Way better than the "Conquest" series.

definitely a good series. Wish they'd release it on DVD.

I'm glad there's so much interesting discussion around the series. I was the Director/Producer who made the Shield Program. I thought you might like to know about a link to Mike Loades (http://www.mikeloades.co.uk/cms/index.php) - the presenter's website. In case you haven't come across it, there's also a mini website about the series on the Channel Four website (http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/W/weapons/).

Do let me know if you have any questions.

Best wishes,

Peter Sommer (http://www.petersommer.com/about-peter-sommer-travels/index.php)

Thanks! I'll echo this info. to this thread (http://www.fmatalk.com/showthread.php?t=361) at FMATalk.com too.

Knowing about the testudo was helpful when I watched The 300 as the Spartans used a similar formation in it. Was the series considered a success by the producers? Can we hope for more like it?

I would absolutely love for there to be more series like these. Martial Arts as a whole is such a large feild that spans many different time periods, countries, and cultures. It is very refreshing to study an art or method that is not from the far east (god knows, we have almost overstudied those :lol:). I would love to learn a western martial art, myself. Then I can have an eastern and a western martial art in my repetoire.

I would love to learn a western martial art, myself.

There's an ARMA group in Virginia Beach. But I don't know how close that is to you. :)

Best regards,

-Mark

I don't know if it was covered elsewhere already, but I noticed arnisador's comment on the lack of gauntlets when halfswording.
As some actual manuals show HS both with and without gauntlets, we can know that it was used both ways. About the safety of the palms: there are (at least) two theories about it, I prefer and rely on the first.
1, You grab the blade's flat, instead of simply grabbing it randomly. Imagine grabbing a straight razor's blade in a way that the edge is facing your palm without cutting yourself. If you do this well, you can easily shake around the razor by the handle. This grip gives enough strength for most HS techniques, but figuring out how to do a mortschlag with this method was rather... funny.
2, You rely on the calloused skin of your palms. O.o While having this "organic armour" helps, I wouldn't rely on it exclusively, but then, I'm not living back then, I have absolutely no experience at the possible thicknesses of callouses.
(3, As halfswording is most usually done with thrust-oriented blades, it IS safer to grab than a dedicated cutter as the edge angle is a bit greater as a result of the thicker blade. That's of course not true for deeply hollow-ground blades.)

As all who would really know are dead, and before they died had more important work to do than to inform us about such a "trivial" matter, we can't know for sure. If someone knows better, pretty please tell me.

"...razor by the handle."
Trivially this was "by the blade" in my mind, but as I said in my introduction, I sometimes words the mix up. :S

(3, As halfswording is most usually done with thrust-oriented blades, it IS safer to grab than a dedicated cutter as the edge angle is a bit greater as a result of the thicker blade. That's of course not true for deeply hollow-ground blades.)
This brings up the old (and essentially unaswerable) question about how "sharp" edges really were on the longswords. Were, as thrusting weapons, less sharp? Were they basically unsharpened? Were they only sharp at the Feeble and not at the Forte? Assuming they were "less sharp" was there a reason for this (i.e., was the edge geometry designed to be able to deliver cuts to tough and/or armoured individuals and be able to maintain the edge as opposed to a more delicate yet sharper "razor" edge)?

A lot of the same questions pop up when people start looking at the Deggen techniques: "Why's he grabbing the blade? Wont he cut his hand?"

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Why, we have some well preserved ones in museums and some has the chance to examine them closely. And from the level of corrosion it's not too hard to extrapolate original thicknesses of damaged or corroded ones. I mean if the edge is rotten deeply while the flat is just pitted, we know or suspect that it had a very thin edge.
About the sharpness I believe that it varied much. I'm almost totally sure that dedicated cutters were sharp on the whole length to allow for slicing on the whole length of the blade (if you want to use a cutter with a longer grip, you could get a long-bladed short-handled glaive like in the maciejowsky bible), while thrusters may be less sharp towards the quillons. I'm partially speaking banalities here, as anyone involved in European swords knows that thrusters have a greater distal taper which by its very nature gives a less acute edge even if the diamond cross-section is maintained. But even if the strong is unsharpened the weak must be at least a bit sharp at a length of average penetration depth to improve the thrusting ability.
After all, I believe this was a choice of the buyer and the maker. They didn't go there wanting to buy a Brescia Spadone after all - they either bought what they could or ordered totally costumized ones to fulfil their needs.
About the daggers... quite much of the better preserved ones have such a thick blade that it would never allow for sharp edges. While these are much less effective against unarmoured opponents, they are suitable for penetrating mail, thus they give the ability to fight armoured opponents as well. If I'd live back then and I'd have to choose between one that works perfectly against unarmoured opponents but fails miserably on the battlefield OR one that doesn't excel THAT much against unarmoureds while giving me the chance to kill both unarmoured and armoured opponents with stabs, I'd pick the second.
But we do have some manuals where the fighter is told to cut at the hand with the dagger, so able-to-cut daggers were used as well, but likely they were a bit less common among the better-armoured guys. I mean, if you know your armour you know what threatens you and prepare for the worst: why worry about unarmoured ones when a single punch to the face with a gauntlet is close to lethal?

Mike Loades approached my teacher and they travelled to India to shoot an episode for Mikes new series called Weapon Masters.

http://www.mikeloades.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=43

My teacher took part in showing Mike how the Chakar (a razor edged throwing quoit) was used by the Sikhs, thrown on foot into the vanguards, from horses and from elephants. Mike demonstrates the use of the weapon, and then his colleage attempts to improve the weapon by modern day standards. The series will have 10 parts, and will be an hour long each. I believe this series is going to begin airing in Summer 2008.

Why, we have some well preserved ones in museums and some has the chance to examine them closely.
Bearing in mind that I don't really have a dog in this fight (e.g., it's all the same to me - I don't personally study any of the medieval or renaisance arts, preferring instead 18th-19th Century arts)...

The usual rejoinder I hear is that you can't really depend on museum pieces because they were all too frequently intended as show peices or Presentation peices. Thus they would not be representative.

Myself, personally, I don't know why manuals show to grip blades but still speak of cutting with them and don't really have what I consider a good guess for the reasons.

I'm partially speaking banalities here, as anyone involved in European swords knows that thrusters have a greater distal taper which by its very nature gives a less acute edge even if the diamond cross-section is maintained. But even if the strong is unsharpened the weak must be at least a bit sharp at a length of average penetration depth to improve the thrusting ability.
Sure. But when you get to Cut-and-Thrust swords (like Rapiers) a lot of those rules go out the window.

I guess I don't really like hard-and-fast "rules." Some jerk (like me) can always find an exception. :)

After all, I believe this was a choice of the buyer and the maker.
I suspect that you are right. It's as good a conclusion as any anyhow. :)

About the daggers... quite much of the better preserved ones have such a thick blade that it would never allow for sharp edges. While these are much less effective against unarmoured opponents, they are suitable for penetrating mail, thus they give the ability to fight armoured opponents as well.
Not to mention the very heavy clothing typical of the time and location.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

My teacher took part in showing Mike how the Chakar (a razor edged throwing quoit) was used by the Sikhs, thrown on foot into the vanguards, from horses and from elephants.
On the topic of Sikh martial arts, are you aware that I have republished an antique Gatka manual? PDF download is free.

Available at:
http://www.lulu.com/content/597512

While you're there, check out the other manuals & such that I've republished. The antiques are free for download.

Let us know when the series comes out and where (if anyplace) we can download podcasts of the episodes. Thanks!

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I don't like overly wide categories as well, but it's easier to draw someone in with the "big picture", and if they are interested I can cite exceptions for days, and explain their origin and function. :D
...
About museum pieces... they are sometimes indeed parade pieces. Sometimes not. It's easier to distinguish when you can handle them, but visual analysis can give useful results sometimes as well. For example a chipped blade, or a blade clearly over-and-over sharpened is a sign of actual use. Blades dumped in rivers are sometimes but not always considered waste by the owner, and the remains of the edge or lack of it can be informative and so on.
...
The clothing had as much variety as the weapons... compare a 14th century gambeson and the typical wear of the Landsknecht.

I was again a bit stupid, leaving out something I think would be important.
Parade pieces are made by competent smiths for competent fighters, and they would be seen by competent guys. While parade swords are oversized to the point of being nearly useless, a fighter proud of his abilities would vomit at a simple decorated iron bar posing as a sword, and it would cause strange looks from those who understand things. I haven't yet seen a blunt parade sword for example, and leaving the blade blunt is for sure making things MUCH easier on the smith.
Think about swordplay in Shakespeare's theatre, it was choreographed well enough to convince the viewer that the hero knows swordsmanship enough to BE the hero he portrays.
...
And again, I left something out. lklawson, I just finished reading through your article about using dagger techniques with a 'hawk. First of all, I really liked it. :D Second, it seems that you use the same approach as we do - namely transferring techniques from one weapon to the other. We do the same with poleaxe-halfswording. In single combat, when using the queue mostly while grabbing the 'axe not much below the croix, a surprising amount of halfswording goodies can be used.
In short, I'm glad that not only we utilize this approach. :)

I was again a bit stupid, leaving out something I think would be important.
Parade pieces are made by competent smiths for competent fighters, and they would be seen by competent guys. While parade swords are oversized to the point of being nearly useless, a fighter proud of his abilities would vomit at a simple decorated iron bar posing as a sword, and it would cause strange looks from those who understand things. I haven't yet seen a blunt parade sword for example, and leaving the blade blunt is for sure making things MUCH easier on the smith.
Think about swordplay in Shakespeare's theatre, it was choreographed well enough to convince the viewer that the hero knows swordsmanship enough to BE the hero he portrays.
Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight.

I suppose that I could keep on arguing the fine details and citing my personal examples, but, to be completely honest, at this point I'd just be doing it to be, well, argumentative. :)

Not that I don't enjoy being argumentative from time to time, mind you. However, I generally save that for other forums.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

As I don't think that either of us stated something stupid, I could go on with it for days... :D My best friend and me sometimes have debates over very small bits; said debates usually last for hours and both we and those listening learn rather interesting things.
Trivially, if I said any idiocies here, anyone shall feel free to correct me for the sake of the readers - and of course for fulfilling my need for constant evolving. :)