11 ms·

Looks like great fun! I doubt it has close resemblance with medieval long sword fighting, though :-) It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chain

by flexie 12y ago

Looks like great fun! I doubt it has close resemblance with medieval long sword fighting, though :-) It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment. And, I assume a medieval fighter would take far smaller chances than these modern hobbyists knowing a counter blow could be (almost surely would be) fatal. Also, these guys fight one on one. But in a war you would have to guard yourself from blows and cuts not just from one enemy but from a crowd of enemy soldiers, left and right. The guy you were fighting might be using a sword or he might have another weapon. Maybe he was using a shield and you didn't. And if he had a sword, he might not have read the memo that it should be max 4 feet long. And fighting on some uneven, damp meadow he might be fighting uphill or downhill, and just keeping ones balance when striking or blocking would be hard compared to fighting indoor on a floor.

gexla 12y ago
> I doubt it has close resemblance with medieval long sword fighting, though :-) Probably closer to training than fighting. It may also be close to whatever sport they made of it back in the day. I'm comparing modern day martial arts. Pretty much all training and sport.
arnsholt 12y ago
I think it's very similar to kendo, the Japanese equivalent of fencing (sort of). Since kendo dates back to the 1800s or so, the sword is a bamboo stick, but like in HEMA points are awarded based on a couple of criteria: the strike has to be to one of the designated target zones, the strike has to be an intentional attack (that is, flailing wildly won't score you a point), and something called zanshin which is basically the same as what they call control in the video; does the attacker control the situation after a successful strike? But just like here, it's more a sport than faithful recreation of sword fighting since a) you're not gonna die if an attack fails and b) this is not battlefield conditions.
gambiting 12y ago
This video shows how people fought in full body plate armour using some 15-th century techniques, it's really surprising how flexible it is, you can even jump and do body rolls in it. It's definitely not as stiff as I always thought it was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q&feature=youtu.be
maurits 12y ago
This is a demonstration of combat in plate armour from the 15-th century. It also implicitly shows why a hammer is so effective. [1] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
dagw 12y ago
It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment. Take a look at people fighting and doing various exercises in full plate armor on youtube. They're surprisingly fast and mobile. Also there are HEMA groups that train and compete in group combat and various weapon combinations.
Sander_Marechal 12y ago
I'm a HEMA practitioner from The Netherlands > I doubt it has close resemblance with medieval long sword fighting, though :-) It does actually resemble it very much, but medieval longsword fighting was probably very different than what you think it was. > It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment. Not really. The main difference is visibility. First, the modern HEMA equipment is a lot heavier than e.g. standard fencing gear. It's a lot thicker (like those dog attack suits) and often have steel or kevlar plates in the inside. Second, medieval gear wasn't all that heavy. I have a full suit of maille (as it's really called) and it weighs less than 15 kilos, helmet included. A full steel plate armour shouldn't weight more than 25 kilos. That's less than modern soldiers have to carry around on the battlefield. The biggest difference is that a fencing mask gives you better visibility than a historical closed helmet. > these guys fight one on one That's what happened in medieval times too most often. The original medieval books were written mostly for one-on-one combat, either for dueling or trial-by-sword. That happened a lot more than being caught in a war on a battlefield. Swords have little use on a medieval battlefield anyway. You use different weapons and tactics. > And fighting on some uneven, damp meadow [...] would be hard compared to fighting indoor on a floor. My HEMA group trains for this as well, and I suspect many other groups too. It is also mentioned in the medieval books. I have trained in loose sand, in the surf on a beach, in deep snow, etc. It's true that competitions are usually held indoors on an even ground though.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Swords have little use on a medieval battlefield anyway. You use different weapons and tactics. Just curious - could you explain this in a bit more detail? It's surprising.
  - termain 12y ago
    It's hard to get a sword into play against massed pikemen. And you want massed pikemen against the heavy cavalry of the period. Also swords expensive compared to spears.
  - bane 12y ago
bane 12y ago
>It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment. I recently saw a full-armor longsword fight. It was fast as hell. I'm talking leather, chainmail, chest plates and metal helmets. I could barely follow the action. It was pretty awesome and that one live match turned me from skeptic into fan.
- snori74 12y ago
  Both SCA "heavy" fighting and HMB, as in the "Battle of Nations" are full-contact so tend to use armour similar to historical. Very different spins again on the whole topic, but worth looking into.
platz 12y ago
Interesting video of how round shields might not have been used the way we had expected: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc TLDR: The round shield was uniquely suited to be used or assist as an attack weapon instead of merely defensive
Cthulhu_ 12y ago
I've seen a video of a big Polish swordfighting battle (you can probably find it on google), people in full armor and swords. What I could spot is that swords are completely ineffective against armor; swords glance off, are unable to penetrate armor, and just bend. I'd use a mace or club and beat people's head in. Which is probably why those weren't used in that one.
- mcv 12y ago
  It's the disadvantage of recreating historical martial arts in a realistic way; if you actually did it completely realistic, you need to figure out what to do with all the bodies.
  - scott_s 12y ago
    That can't be completely true - historical soldiers still needed to train. So, in theory, we can still recreate their training with historical accuracy. And I imagine their training still had the concept of winners and losers, even though both people walked away to train another day. I imagine their training would look a lot like the sport fighting in the linked video.
    - mr_luc 12y ago
      Swiss pikemen and (briefly) spanish swordsmen aside, foot soldiers were either horse or archer fodder. The implicit contract for military support between the King and the areas he ruled changed in the Dark Ages: instead of providing many men, you provided few mounted men (a requirement that led directly to the feudal system). So many other people here are correct in pointing out that these sword skills weren't the most relevant thing to the conducting of all-out war. Nonetheless, europe was pretty martial, and there were a lot of martial contexts besides massed combat.
      - scott_s 12y ago
        I don't disagree with any of that - is there something I said that you disagree with?
PakG1 12y ago
> It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment. One thing that nobody has mentioned so far is (I believe) people were much more fit in those days. Today we have a very sedentary lifestyle. Not so much in those days, people were much more active. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2614780/How-FARMERS-fitter-athletes-Human-strength-speed-peaked-7-300-years-ago-declining-rapidly.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2614780/How-F...
- anentropic 12y ago
  fit people do exist in the present day too
  - PakG1 12y ago
    The data suggests that even the most fit today would not compare to ancestors, the farther you go back, the more fit they are.
    - barry-cotter 12y ago
      What data? The average hunter-gatherer was fitter, better nourished and less diseased than the average peasant after the dawn of agriculture (and the population was overwhelmingly peasants) but there was always a warrior class and they ate well and trained hard. Agriculture did have a noticeable impact. People who have a longer evolutionary history of grain monocultures are shorter on average than those whose ancestors adopted agriculture later but the difference isn't that big. Humans have only gotten about 5 cm shorter since the dawn of agriculture. I'm aware of no evidence on speed or strength but the thing is that most people were not near the limits of human performance, ever. It's almost certain that modern humanity is the fittest that it's been since the dawn of agriculture. Most hunter-gatherer skeletons are fit and strong because of low disease burden but mostly because in famine times they just died. Farmers OTOH survived, stunted, diseased and with deficiencies in vitamins, minerals and just not enough food. But the warrior class always ate fine. Even as late as WW1, the average member of the House of Lords was a foot taller than the equivalent Member of Parliament. So, what data?
some_username 12y ago
Regarding speed and mobility, you may be surprised. The Met has a fantastic lecture, How to Mount a Horse in Armor and Other Chivalric Problems, where a this question is explicitly addressed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4#t=1427 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4#t=1427 The short of it being that armor wasn't particularly heavy, especially when compared to the modern combat load, and that it affords quite a bit of mobility. If this interests you, the entire lecture is worth your time.
daeken 12y ago
> It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment. Others have commented on the heft of modern equipment relative to medieval equivalents, but it bears mentioning that the plate armor of the period was exceptionally well made. Not just light weight, but form fitted for the wearer. It's been said that fighters in good plate could do cartwheels, due to the exceptional balance of the armor; it was like a second skin.
- voidlogic 12y ago
  Also worth pointing out is not all fighting was done in armor. See my comment above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8948675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8948675
TrevorJ 12y ago
Proper armor of the period was not like what we see in films, it wasn't nearly so clumsy. It's a bit silly, but check this short clip out it will open your eyes a bit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg
- pluma 12y ago
  It also wasn't made out of rubber. If only I had a dollar for each movie that shows rubber maille in closeups.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by flexie 12y ago

gexla 12y ago

> I doubt it has close resemblance with medieval long sword fighting, though :-) Probably closer to training than fighting. It may also be close to whatever sport they made of it back in the day. I'm comparing modern day martial arts. Pretty much all training and sport.

arnsholt 12y ago

I think it's very similar to kendo, the Japanese equivalent of fencing (sort of). Since kendo dates back to the 1800s or so, the sword is a bamboo stick, but like in HEMA points are awarded based on a couple of criteria: the strike has to be to one of the designated target zones, the strike has to be an intentional attack (that is, flailing wildly won't score you a point), and something called zanshin which is basically the same as what they call control in the video; does the attacker control the situation after a successful strike? But just like here, it's more a sport than faithful recreation of sword fighting since a) you're not gonna die if an attack fails and b) this is not battlefield conditions.

gambiting 12y ago

This video shows how people fought in full body plate armour using some 15-th century techniques, it's really surprising how flexible it is, you can even jump and do body rolls in it. It's definitely not as stiff as I always thought it was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q&feature=youtu.be

maurits 12y ago

This is a demonstration of combat in plate armour from the 15-th century. It also implicitly shows why a hammer is so effective. [1] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

dagw 12y ago

It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment. Take a look at people fighting and doing various exercises in full plate armor on youtube. They're surprisingly fast and mobile. Also there are HEMA groups that train and compete in group combat and various weapon combinations.

Sander_Marechal 12y ago

I'm a HEMA practitioner from The Netherlands > I doubt it has close resemblance with medieval long sword fighting, though :-) It does actually resemble it very much, but medieval longsword fighting was probably very different than what you think it was. > It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment. Not really. The main difference is visibility. First, the modern HEMA equipment is a lot heavier than e.g. standard fencing gear. It's a lot thicker (like those dog attack suits) and often have steel or kevlar plates in the inside. Second, medieval gear wasn't all that heavy. I have a full suit of maille (as it's really called) and it weighs less than 15 kilos, helmet included. A full steel plate armour shouldn't weight more than 25 kilos. That's less than modern soldiers have to carry around on the battlefield. The biggest difference is that a fencing mask gives you better visibility than a historical closed helmet. > these guys fight one on one That's what happened in medieval times too most often. The original medieval books were written mostly for one-on-one combat, either for dueling or trial-by-sword. That happened a lot more than being caught in a war on a battlefield. Swords have little use on a medieval battlefield anyway. You use different weapons and tactics. > And fighting on some uneven, damp meadow [...] would be hard compared to fighting indoor on a floor. My HEMA group trains for this as well, and I suspect many other groups too. It is also mentioned in the medieval books. I have trained in loose sand, in the surf on a beach, in deep snow, etc. It's true that competitions are usually held indoors on an even ground though.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Swords have little use on a medieval battlefield anyway. You use different weapons and tactics. Just curious - could you explain this in a bit more detail? It's surprising.
- termain 12y ago
  It's hard to get a sword into play against massed pikemen. And you want massed pikemen against the heavy cavalry of the period. Also swords expensive compared to spears.
- bane 12y ago

bane 12y ago

>It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment. I recently saw a full-armor longsword fight. It was fast as hell. I'm talking leather, chainmail, chest plates and metal helmets. I could barely follow the action. It was pretty awesome and that one live match turned me from skeptic into fan.

snori74 12y ago
Both SCA "heavy" fighting and HMB, as in the "Battle of Nations" are full-contact so tend to use armour similar to historical. Very different spins again on the whole topic, but worth looking into.

platz 12y ago

Interesting video of how round shields might not have been used the way we had expected: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc TLDR: The round shield was uniquely suited to be used or assist as an attack weapon instead of merely defensive

Cthulhu_ 12y ago

I've seen a video of a big Polish swordfighting battle (you can probably find it on google), people in full armor and swords. What I could spot is that swords are completely ineffective against armor; swords glance off, are unable to penetrate armor, and just bend. I'd use a mace or club and beat people's head in. Which is probably why those weren't used in that one.

mcv 12y ago
It's the disadvantage of recreating historical martial arts in a realistic way; if you actually did it completely realistic, you need to figure out what to do with all the bodies.
- scott_s 12y ago
  That can't be completely true - historical soldiers still needed to train. So, in theory, we can still recreate their training with historical accuracy. And I imagine their training still had the concept of winners and losers, even though both people walked away to train another day. I imagine their training would look a lot like the sport fighting in the linked video.
  - mr_luc 12y ago
    Swiss pikemen and (briefly) spanish swordsmen aside, foot soldiers were either horse or archer fodder. The implicit contract for military support between the King and the areas he ruled changed in the Dark Ages: instead of providing many men, you provided few mounted men (a requirement that led directly to the feudal system). So many other people here are correct in pointing out that these sword skills weren't the most relevant thing to the conducting of all-out war. Nonetheless, europe was pretty martial, and there were a lot of martial contexts besides massed combat.
    - scott_s 12y ago
      I don't disagree with any of that - is there something I said that you disagree with?

PakG1 12y ago

> It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment. One thing that nobody has mentioned so far is (I believe) people were much more fit in those days. Today we have a very sedentary lifestyle. Not so much in those days, people were much more active. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2614780/How-FARMERS-fitter-athletes-Human-strength-speed-peaked-7-300-years-ago-declining-rapidly.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2614780/How-F...

anentropic 12y ago
fit people do exist in the present day too
- PakG1 12y ago
  The data suggests that even the most fit today would not compare to ancestors, the farther you go back, the more fit they are.
  - barry-cotter 12y ago
    What data? The average hunter-gatherer was fitter, better nourished and less diseased than the average peasant after the dawn of agriculture (and the population was overwhelmingly peasants) but there was always a warrior class and they ate well and trained hard. Agriculture did have a noticeable impact. People who have a longer evolutionary history of grain monocultures are shorter on average than those whose ancestors adopted agriculture later but the difference isn't that big. Humans have only gotten about 5 cm shorter since the dawn of agriculture. I'm aware of no evidence on speed or strength but the thing is that most people were not near the limits of human performance, ever. It's almost certain that modern humanity is the fittest that it's been since the dawn of agriculture. Most hunter-gatherer skeletons are fit and strong because of low disease burden but mostly because in famine times they just died. Farmers OTOH survived, stunted, diseased and with deficiencies in vitamins, minerals and just not enough food. But the warrior class always ate fine. Even as late as WW1, the average member of the House of Lords was a foot taller than the equivalent Member of Parliament. So, what data?

some_username 12y ago

Regarding speed and mobility, you may be surprised. The Met has a fantastic lecture, How to Mount a Horse in Armor and Other Chivalric Problems, where a this question is explicitly addressed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4#t=1427 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4#t=1427 The short of it being that armor wasn't particularly heavy, especially when compared to the modern combat load, and that it affords quite a bit of mobility. If this interests you, the entire lecture is worth your time.

daeken 12y ago

> It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment. Others have commented on the heft of modern equipment relative to medieval equivalents, but it bears mentioning that the plate armor of the period was exceptionally well made. Not just light weight, but form fitted for the wearer. It's been said that fighters in good plate could do cartwheels, due to the exceptional balance of the armor; it was like a second skin.

voidlogic 12y ago
Also worth pointing out is not all fighting was done in armor. See my comment above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8948675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8948675

TrevorJ 12y ago

Proper armor of the period was not like what we see in films, it wasn't nearly so clumsy. It's a bit silly, but check this short clip out it will open your eyes a bit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg

pluma 12y ago
It also wasn't made out of rubber. If only I had a dollar for each movie that shows rubber maille in closeups.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]