Sword and Shield - Dark Ages Style

[Patrick Waterson]

Worth a look to see the hidden potential in the longsword and round shield.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc‎

[Salostar]

Cool find Patrick, found it pretty informative.

[Erpingham]

Worth a look to see the hidden potential in the longsword and round shield.

Interesting stuff.  The problem would seem to be finding the evidence for it   I've read some saga duels and the idea of finessed moves with the shield aren't exactly obvious.  In fact, the shield tends to get hacked about, perhaps suggesting a more stand-off approach (getting in close and grappling is pretty standard late medieval though).  As to the shield size being related to using shield tricks, I think the ability to not be hit by missiles is a better explanation.

Like many of these things, trying to resolve the relationship between the fairly athletic single combat style and the close formation combat style is difficult.  How much did they involve entirely different techniques?

And I did like the line "If he is a decent swordsman, he'll come at you like this - and if he isn't he's dead already ....."

[Patrick Waterson]

Yes, one was left wondering what he would do if he was already dead ... 

The moral of the tale as I see it is not that modern re-enactors can infallibly elicit the secrets of close combat in past ages, but that a little bit of using the actual weaponry* makes us see possibilities not previously considered, and gives us something to cross-check against sources in quest of further insight.  The techniques shown were said to match those described in 'fechtbuchen', or fighting guides, although these would have post-dated the late Dark Ages/early Mediaeval period in which such weapon sets were popular for combat, but might have been studied by later swordsmen, e.g. Scots highland gentry in the era following our period.

*The Greek 'hopla' and Roman 'arma' can be used for either, or both, shield/armour and weapon.  It is quite a useful habit when wishing to lump shield and sword together; annoying when one is trying to find evidence about the one or the other.

[Erpingham]

  The techniques shown were said to match those described in 'fechtbuchen', or fighting guides, although these would have post-dated the late Dark Ages/early Mediaeval period in which such weapon sets were popular for combat, but might have been studied by later swordsmen, e.g. Scots highland gentry in the era following our period.

He quoted Talhoffer a bit, and, inevitably, I.33 for the sword and buckler.  But I've not seen a lot of sword and shield stuff in Fechtbuchen (he does reference German judicial dueling shields but these were rather unlike any military weapon)   - they tend to come from a period after the shield fell from favour.  Even if we had some, it would be based on the later medieval shield, which was carried strapped to the arm, not by a handle behind a boss.   It was instructive to see the potential differences in style between bossed big shields and bucklers though.

I do agree with you that it can be instructive to watch experts handle weapons - this video again reminds us that the Hollywood style sword fight is about drama so can be drawn out.  The real objective is to quickly put your man down, not waste energy and increase risk by swashbuckling. Some of the through-the-guard-and-killing-blow stuff in here demonstrates that nicely.

[Justin Taylor]

The real objective is to quickly put your man down, not waste energy and increase risk by swahbuckling.

Gladiator has that, "Are you not amused?"

[aligern]

From memory the likely Dark Age fighting style is much more deliberate with great blows alternating. When you hold a replica  sword from the period it is apparent that a frenzied attack would not be sensible because that would lead to exhaustion. . Fencing is unlikely as the shield is there to absorb blows. Barring a blow with the sword would be bad for the edge and would create a weakness that might lead to fracture.  As to all the dancing about in the video I wonder how that fits with men operating in mutually supporting groups and maintaining a defence to the front that protects the men either side.
Although it is a ritualised single combat I see the duel in the film 13th warrior as a more likely model of Dark Age single combat as it accords well with the saga evidence.
The biggest arguments against re enactors evidence are that it is generally demonstrated with far too few people and that people do not get killed or seriously injured. It is much easier to perform theatrically if the likelihood of a mistake is not serious injury.
Roy

[Erpingham]

It is much easier to perform theatrically if the likelihood of a mistake is not serious injury.

Sensibly, re-enacting is aimed at entertainment while having in place safety rules to avoid injury.  Real battles rather the opposite, which does limit the learning somewhat 

Talking of the video, what did you think of the the discussion of hilts and the comments that the small hilt of the spatha suggests a lack of blade-to-blade contact?  Blade contact is much more common in fechtbuchen (with no shield, you have to use the sword more, I suppose).

[Salostar]

Quick question, are there any extensive sources on Dark Age fighting techniques? I've only practiced with Chinese styles (sword, spear, no shield) so trying to get a better feel for the differences.

Regarding dancing around, one part of defending yourself is by movement. When acting in formation close together movement is slowed, this is to remain in step with each other.

[Erpingham]

Quick question, are there any extensive sources on Dark Age fighting techniques?

Not really.  Norse sagas provides quite detailed fight descriptions which, although they are post Dark Ages, are usually considered to contain an authentic fighting tradition from the Viking era.

[Patrick Waterson]

It is much easier to perform theatrically if the likelihood of a mistake is not serious injury.

Sensibly, re-enacting is aimed at entertainment while having in place safety rules to avoid injury.  Real battles rather the opposite, which does limit the learning somewhat 

Talking of the video, what did you think of the the discussion of hilts and the comments that the small hilt of the spatha suggests a lack of blade-to-blade contact?  Blade contact is much more common in fechtbuchen (with no shield, you have to use the sword more, I suppose).

In addition to any comments Roy would make (and how is this for health-and-safety-conscious push of pike? http://tinyurl.com/nabp8jg) my own thought would be that he has a point: the spatha was not intended as a blade-to-bade weapon but as a blade-to-opponent weapon, with a shield and/or decent set of armour taking care of the attack-thwarting aspects.

All of this brings up (or if not, yours truly does) another aspect of hand-to-hand (or weapon-to-weapon) combat: endurance.  If one puts effort into taking down an opponent, one wants to do it in one go and not be small energy-consuming stages.  The much-despised overhead slash of the traditional Gallic warrior evidently served that purpose, as (according to Diodorus) the Roman dictator Camillus felt it necessary to reinforce his men's helmets and shield tops before taking them near the Gauls again.

Somewhat later, we have this as an example of an effective one-stroke killing (or at least incapacitating) technique.  The scene is Argentoratum, the date August AD 357.

"And so there suddenly leaped forth a fiery band of nobles, among whom even the kings fought, and with the common soldiers following they burst in upon our lines before the rest; and opening up a path for themselves they got as far as the legion of the Primani, which was stationed in the centre a strong formation called praetorian camp; there our soldiers, closely packed and in fully-manned lines. stood their ground fast and firm, like towers, and renewed the battle with greater vigour; and being intent upon avoiding wounds, they protected themselves like murmillos, and with drawn swords pierced the enemy's sides, left bare by their frenzied rage.  But the enemy strove to lavish their lives for victory and kept trying to break the fabric of our line. But as they fell in uninterrupted succession, and the Romans now laid them low with greater confidence, fresh savages took the places of the slain; but when they heard the frequent groans of the dying, they were overcome with panic and lost their courage." - Ammianus XVI.12.49-50

The impression conveyed is that each legionary thrust into the side of the barbarian to his right, killing or incapacitating with a single, ergonomically economical stroke.  They were evidently able to keep this up for some time.

One wonders - and there are no other clues - whether the 'praetorian camp' formation would involve slanting the line so that the man on one's right was half a pace behind.  This would make it much easier to dab one's sword into an unsuspecting German to one's right, as he would already be partly advanced beyond any protection from his neighbour's shield.  (This is pure speculation.)

If the enemy were not so obliging, experienced troops would presumably wait for an opportunity for a quick kill rather than wasting their energy trying to cut through an opponent's shield.  Inexperienced troops might throw themselves into the fray in a burst of energy, smiting left, right and centre, only to discover a little later that it is not a good idea to try and keep this up for long.